Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994Supp(3)SCC671
A.M. Ahmadi and; N.M. Kasliwal, JJ.1. Delay condoned.2. Special Leave granted.3. We have heard counsel for the parties. The High Court came to the conclusion that the termination of service of the appellant was illegal and unsustainable. An attempt was made by Mr B.B. Singh, learned counsel for the State of Bihar to satisfy us that the initial appointment of the appellant was invalid and illegal and, therefore, she was not entitled to the benefit of back wages. We find from the order of the High Court against which the State has not appealed that the High Court came to the conclusion that nothing has been brought on the record nor argued that the petitioner's appointment as house-keeper was illegal or made by an authority who had no jurisdiction to make the appointment. On the other hand, High Court noted that her appointment was made against a sanctioned post. Mr B.B. Singh submitted that this conclusion of the High Court was on account of the State Government having not filed a count...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC762; I(1993)BC153(SC); JT1993(1)SC105; 1993(1)SCALE53; (1993)2SCC34
ORDER1. The appellant had filed a suit against the respondent for recovery of Rs. 6785/- on the basis of a promissory note and a receipt executed by the respondent on 15th July, 1969 for a cash consideration of Rs. 5,000/-. The trial Court decreed the suit and the decree was confirmed in appeal on 29th July, 1974 by the First Additional District Judge, Muzaffarnagar. The respondent-defendant preferred a Second Appeal before the High Court.2. During the pendency of the Second Appeal, the U.P. Regulation of Money-Lending Act, 1976 [the 'Act'] came into force on 20th July, 1976. Under Sub-section (4) of Section 26 of the Act, it is provided that notwithstanding anything contained in any contract, decree, or order or any other law for the time being in force, no money-lender shall be entitled to claim any amount from a debtor in respect of any loan advanced prior to the enforcement of the Act unless the moneylender has filed a statement containing particulars of debts due to him and of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC51; JT1993(1)SC187; 1993(1)SCALE36; (1993)1SCC445
1. Leave granted.2. Three appeals have been filed against the same judgment of the High Court by which the Writ Petition filed on behalf of the petitioners/respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'the writ- 40 petitioners') was allowed. The dispute relates to the publication of the telephone directories of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, a Government of India Undertaking (hereinafter referred to as 'the MTNL').3. A new concept of yellow pages in the telephone directories was introduced by the MTNL/Department of Telecommunications. The yellow pages were to contain advertisements under different headings. The contractor who was to be awarded the contract for printing such directories was to collect the revenue from the advertisements in the yellow pages as well as in white pages of the telephone directory. The contractor was to print the directories and supply the same free of cost to the MTNL for its subscribers and had to pay royalty to the MTNL in connection with printing of such d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993LC538(SC); 1993(63)ELT601(SC); (1993)2GLR1751; JT1993(1)SC85; 1993(1)SCALE63; 1993Supp(2)SCC7; [1993]1SCR142
1. This order will dispose of the aforesaid writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. All these cases come under Item 18.I and/or 18.III and/or 188 of the Tariff contained in the schedule attached to the Central Excise and Salt Act 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). For facility of reference we are giving the facts of the case of Civil Writ Petition No. 3 of 1983.2. This writ petition is stated to be covered by the decision of this Court in J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.: : 1987(32)ELT234(SC) and the surviving prayer in the writ petition is to declare that the duty of excise in respect of Tariff Item Nos. 13 (A)(ii), 18(111)(ii) and 18E is to be levied and collected on the weight of the unsized yarn and not on the basis of the weight of the sized yarn.3. Before we deal with the objections of the learned Counsel for the respondents, it would be useful to examine the points which were involved in the aforesaid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1993(1)SC162; 1993(1)SCALE71; 1994Supp(1)SCC437; [1993]1SCR107
J.S. Verma,; Yogeshwar Dayal and; N. Venkatachala, JJ.1. Special leave granted.2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal itself was heard.3. The respondent is a tenant at the rate of Rs 183.33 per month in the premises in dispute i.e. shop No. 50, The Mall, Shimla. On March 7, 1983, late Smt Dhani Devi, predecessor-in-interest of appellant No. 2 and Shri Madan Mohan, appellant No. 1, filed an application for eviction of the respondent on various grounds. One of the grounds on which the eviction was claimed was non-payment of rent. It was stated in the eviction petition that the respondent was in arrears of rent with effect from March 1, 1980 to February 28, 1983. The Rent Controller on July 29, 1986 passed an order of eviction on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent. The operative part of the said order is as under:“In the light of my finding on issue No. 1 above, the application is allowed on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent and the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993CriLJ1393; 1993(1)Crimes561(SC); JT1993(1)SC232; 1993(1)SCALE66; (1993)1SCC548; [1993]1SCR51
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 1982.From the Judgment and Order dated 1.10.1981 of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Misc. (Main) No. 304 of 1980. S.L. Chowdhary and Pradeep Misra for the Appellant. Rakesh K. Khanna and R.P. Singh for the Respondent. The following order of the Court is delivered: Even though the dispute between the parties came to this Court from an initial order passed under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court realising that the dispute was between close relatives in respect of their interests in certain properties which were also the subject matter in a Civil Suit No. 434/78 (Remand) of the Court of Sub-Judge, First Class, Delhi, advised the parties to have the same resolved through an Arbitrator. On the parties agreeing, this Court passed an order on September 5, 1986 recording the agreement to refer the dispute to arbitration and appointed Mr. Justice V.D. Misra, retired Chief Justice of the High Court of Himachal Pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993(1)ARBLR386(SC); 1993(41)BLJR543; [1995]212ITR592(SC); JT1993(1)SC278; (1993)1MLJ41(SC); 1993(1)SCALE141; (1993)1SCC589; [1993]1SCR58
1. The four appellants and respondents 1 and 2 are brothers. They were carrying on business in partnership in the name and style of Messer's Sivalinga Nadar and Brothers and S.V.S'. Oil Mills, both partnerships being registered under Partnership Act, 1932. Most of the properties were acquired by the firm of Sivalinga Nadar and Brothers. The firm of Messer's S.V.S. Oil Mills merely had leasehold rights in the parcel of land belonging to the first-named firm on which the superstructure of the oil mill stood. Both the partnerships were of fixed durations. Disputes arose between the six brothers in regard to the business carried on in partnership in the aforesaid two names. For the resolution of these disputes the six brothers entered into an arbitration agreement dated 8th October, 1981, which was as under:We are carrying on business in partnership together with other partners under several partnership names. We are also holding shares and Managing the Public Limited Company, namely, The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993(41)BLJR309; 1993CriLJ1700; 1993(1)Crimes494(SC); JT1993(1)SC173; 1993(1)SCALE79; (1993)2SCC16; [1993]1SCR31
1. Special leave granted.2. Whether a Court of Session to which a case is committed for trial by a Magistrate can, without itself recording evidence, summon a person not named in the Police Report presented under Section 173 of the CrPC, 1973 ('The Code' for short) to stand trial along with those already named therein in exercise of power conferred by Section 319 of the Code? This neat question of law arises in the backdrop of the following allegations.3. On the evening of 27th February, 1990 Umakant Thakur, younger brother of the informant, was attacked by twenty persons including the present two appellants with sticks, etc. A First Information Report was lodged at about 9.30 p.m. on the same day in which all the twenty persons were named as the assailants. The injured Umakant Thakur died in the Patna Hospital on the next day. In the course of investigation statements of the informant as well as others came to be recorded and a charge-sheet dated 10th June, 1990 was forwarded to the C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993CriLJ1383; 1993(1)Crimes294(SC); JT1993(2)SC657; 1993(1)SCALE32; 1993Supp(2)SCC1
1. Both the appeals and special leave petitions can be dealt with under a common judgment since the appellants/petitioners took trial before the learned VIth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Moradabad with reference to the occurrence that took place on 12.5.1976.2. They were tried for offences under Sections 302/34, 324/34 and 323/34 I.P.C. The case of the prosecution is shortly as follows.3. Kumari Bina, daughter of Chunni Lal (P.W. 5) was residing in Mohalla Faizabad, Moradabad. She was a student of Prabha Devi Kanya Inter College, Bans Mandi, Moradabad. Rajiv Kumar Mehrotra, the petitioner No. 1 in SLP (Crl.) Nos. 3081-82 of 1984 used to pass indecent remarks against her and teased her. Bina complained to her father Chuni Lal (P.W. 5) who contacted his cousin Ram Lobhaya alias Khairati (P.W. 2). Both these persons met Ram Narain Lal, Advocate, father of Rajiv Kumar and complained to him about the misconduct of hisson. Ram Narain Lal expressed inability to help them and contro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993Supp(3)SCC736
P.B. Sawant and; S. Mohan, JJ.1. The appellant was prosecuted on a complaint of the Health Inspector, Dr Bajaj, that he was selling milk ice containing 4.16% fat. Item A.11.02.09 of Appendix ‘B’ read with Rule 5 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (the ‘Rules’) stipulates that milk ice containing more than 2.0% milk fat would be an adulterated article within the meaning of Section 2(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (the ‘Act’).2. There is no dispute that the sample of the article sold by the appellant contained 4.16% fat. What is seriously disputed is the nature of the article that was being sold by the appellant when the complainant Health Inspector took the sample of the same. According to the appellant, he was selling “milk ice cream” and not “milk ice”. Admittedly, Appendix ‘B’ in question does not mention any article called milk ice cream. The articles nearest in description m...
Tag this Judgment!