Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(2)SCC654
ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. In a suit for eviction on the basis of the tenant having created a sub-tenancy the trial court decided in favour of the landlord. The judgment and decree of the trial court was affirmed in first appeal and then in second appeal by a learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court on April 6, 1992 passed in Second Appeal No. 757 of 1990. Surprisingly, the learned Judge later reviewed his own order under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC and overturned the judgment he had passed on merits. This was not permissible to the learned Judge at all in view of the strict terms of Order 47, Rule 1 CPC. Arena of facts was outside the sphere of a second appeal, what to say about a review proceeding arising from that order. We, thus, have no option but to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order restoring in law the order dated April 6, 1992, leaving it open to the respondent to challenge the said order, if so advised, by a special leave petition in this Court. It ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1993(6)SC259; 1993(4)SCALE289; (1994)1SCC184; [1993]Supp3SCR486; 1994(1)LC35(SC)
S. Mohan, J.1. The appellant was appointed Advocate General of the State of Punjab by the President of India by Notification No. 1178-2JJ-72 dated 24th January, 1972. The terms of appointment are that he would be paid salary of Rs. 1,500 per month and that in the matter of his duties and other terms he will be governed by the rules framed under Article 165 of the Constitution of India vide Notification No. 8746-JJ-53/38717 dated 6th July, 1953 amended from time to time. Clause (f) of para 6 of the 1953 Notification reads thus:(f) In Civil Writ cases and in letters patent Appeals arising therefrom which shall not be considered as civil miscellaneous cases, the fee shall be one hundred rupees for civil writ or letters patent appeal.2. Thus, the fee of the Advocate General was fixed at Rs. 100 for each writ petition. Even though a number of writ petitions are disposed of on the same point of law or facts or even when the matter is covered by an earlier judgment he would be entitled to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC968; 1994CriLJ1119; 1993(3)Crimes1107(SC); 1993(4)SCALE308; (1994)1SCC387; 1994(1)LC113(SC)
ORDERK. Jayachandra Reddy, J.1. Leave granted.2. The two appellants along with seven others were tried for an offence punishable under Sections 395 read with 397 I.P.C.The gravamen of the charge against them was that on the intervening night of 29th and 30th July, 1979, the nine accused persons armed with lethal weapons attacked the persons who were travelling in a truck and robbed them of ornaments, cash and wrist watches. A case was registered and the police searched the houses of the two appellants and two others and recovered the alleged stolen articles. The trial court, however, acquitted five of the accused of all the charges but convicted the two appellants and two others under Section 412 1.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of which to further undergo R.I. for three months. The four convicted accused preferred an appeal to the High Court. The High Court acquitted the other two accused but confi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1995)IILLJ697SC; 1995Supp(2)SCC655
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Heard on merits.3. The respondent's service was terminated by an order dated April 21,1986 after an enquiry into the charges leveled against him. The respondent challenged that order by a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court. By the impugned judgment the High Court has set aside the order terminating the respondent's service and directed his reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits. This judgment has been challenged by special leave.4. The High Court has allowed the respondent's writ petition for two reasons. The first reason given by the High Court is that the failure to furnish the respondent with a copy of the enquiry report vitiated the ultimate order of termination. This view was taken on the basis of the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan , even though according to that decision itself it did not apply to cases where the order of penalty was made prior to the date of that decision. The other reason given by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1031; 1993CriLJ1377; 1993(3)Crimes1071(SC); JT1993(6)SC287; 1993(4)SCALE305; 1994Supp(1)SCC540; [1993]Supp3SCR497
ORDERP.B. Sawant J.1. This is petition by a judicial officer who at the relevant time was an Additional Sessions Judge, for expunging remarks which were made against him by the High Court while reversing the orders of bail passed by him in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 816 of 1991 and 466 of 1991.2. The undisputed fact are that the accused in those cases are charged with the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 506, 341 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. A charge-sheet was being processed in respect of the offences in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at the relevant time. The five accused in the meanwhile, applied for bail. Their application was considered on merits and rejected by the petitioner. However, in spite of the rejection of the application on merits, the petitioner first granted the accused temporary bail for one reason or the other and all of them were subsequently granted permanent bail. Against the order granting permanent bail, the complainant pre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC533; 1994(1)BLJR213; JT1993(6)SC386; 1993(4)SCALE300; (1994)1SCC278; [1993]Supp3SCR480; 1994(1)LC32(SC)
ORDERYogeshwar Dayal, J. 1. By Transferred Case Nos. 4, 5 and 48 of 1986 and Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 15337-15338 15337-15338 of 1984 the petitioners herein have challenged the constitutional validity of the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 purported to have been issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as being unconstitutional, ultra vires and void. The petitioners have also challenged the declaration of seeds of food-crops and seeds of fruits and vegetables as the essential commodities by the Government of India, Ministry of Civil Supplies contained in the order dated 24th February, 1983 also issued under the Act.2. Section 2 of the Act is the definitions section and inter alia Clause (a) thereof defines 'essential commodity'. The relevant part of Clause (a) reads as follows :(a) 'essential commodity' means any of the following classes of commodities -(i) cattle fodder, including oilcakes and o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC592; [1994(68)FLR140]; JT1993(6)SC403; 1994LabIC238; (1994)ILLJ551SC; 1993(4)SCALE274; (1994)1SCC179; [1993]Supp3SCR446; 1994(1)SLJ169(SC); 1994(1)LC45(SC)
ORDERS.C. Agrawal, J.1. This appeal, by special leave, raises the question whether the benefit of addition to his qualifying service under Rule 30 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') can be availed by a person who was already employed as a Government servant when he was appointed to the service or post referred to in Rule 30.2. The respondent was employed as Investigator in the National Sample Survey with effect from May 8, 1956. While thus employed he was selected for the post of Labour Officer, by way of direct recruitment through the Union Public Service Commission, and having been appointed on the post of Labour Officer; he joined the said post on May 16,1960. The respondent has retired from service in August, 1985. The period of service from May 8, 1956 till May 16, 1960, when he was working as Investigator in the National Sample Survey was included in his qualifying service. He, however, claimed further benefit of addition ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1154; (1994)1CompLJ255(SC); JT1993(6)SC176; (1994)ILLJ636SC; 1993(4)SCALE284; (1994)1SCC445; [1993]Supp3SCR461
S.P. BHARUCHA, J.1.Leave granted in the special leave petitions.2. These are appeals by special leave filed by the Employees State Insurance Corporation against the judgments and orders of the High Courts of Bombay, Madras and Kerala holding that advertising agencies are not shops for the purposes of the application thereto of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”.) All the appeals can, therefore, be disposed of by a common judgment.3. It is convenient to take note in the judgment, as illustrative, of the facts of the case arising in Bombay.4. A notification was issued under Section 1(5) of the said Act by the Government of Maharashtra. Section 1(5) entitles the appropriate Government, (in these appeals, admittedly, the Governments of Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Kerala) to extend the provisions of the said Act, in consultation with the appellants (the Employees' State Insurance Corporation) and with the approval of the Central G...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC141; [1994(68)FLR1]; JT1993(6)SC168; (1994)ILLJ879SC; 1993(4)SCALE268; (1994)1SCC150; [1993]Supp3SCR434; 1994(1)LC284(SC); (1994)2UPLBEC1221
ORDERS.C. Agrawal, J.SLP (Civil) No. 8444 of 19931. IA. No. 1 of 1993 allowed. Special leave granted.SLP (Civil) No. 7415 of 19932. Special leave granted.3. Both these appeals arising out of the judgment of the High Court of Patna dated March 12, 1993 in C.W.J.C. No. 7475 of 1992, raise the question whether the law laid down by this Court regarding fixation of marks for interview in a selection would apply to a case where there is no written test and the selection is made on the basis of academic performance and interview.4. The selection in the present case was for appointment on the post of Unani Medical Officer.5. The post of Unani Medical Officer was declared a Gazetted (Class II) post by the resolution of the Government dated April 1, 1979. On November 25, 1989, the Government of Bihar sent a requisition to the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') regarding appointment on 22 vacant posts of Unani Medical Officers. In the letter of requisiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1993(6)SC221; 1993(4)SCALE295; (1994)1SCC209; [1993]Supp3SCR453; [1995]96STC338(SC)
Yogeshwar Dayal, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of the Entertainment Tax Officer-I, Khammam and the State of Andhra Pradesh against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 3rd April, 1986 whereby a Division Bench of the High Court struck down Section 1 of Act No. 16 of 1985 (the Andhra Pradesh Entertainments Tax (Amendment) Act, 1985) to the extent of its applicability retrospectively between 7th September, 1984 to 24th October, 1984.2. To appreciate the point it is necessary to deal with the history of the Entertainments Tax Acts in Andhra Pradesh.3. The Andhra Pradesh Entertainments Tax Act, 1939 (Act No. X of 1939) provided for levy of tax at the fixed rate on the basis of percentage of payment made by a person for admission to any entertainment. However, in 1976 by Act No. 58 of 1976, Section 4-C was introduced under which tax was levied on entertainment show on the basis of certain percentage of the gross collection capacity of the show within the juris...
Tag this Judgment!