Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1996)ILLJ484SC
ORDERA.M. Ahmadi, J.1. These appeals are directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Bombay Bench, dated July 16, 1987. Since we are not inclined to interfere with the Tribunal's order impugned in these appeals we need not state the facts and the question urged in detail. It would suffice to say that in the establishment of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation there comprises a cadre of Insurance Inspectors, Deputy Managers and Managers Grade II, the employees occupying these posts being interchangeable. All of them were in the pay scale of Rs. 250-445 upto December 31, 1972. However; those who were designated as Deputy Managers or Managers, Grade II were allowed Rs 50 extra, which was termed as Special Pay. Pursuant to the recommendations made by the 3rd Central Pay Commission their salary came to be revised with effect from January 1, 1973. They were put in the revised pay scale of Rs 550-900. While applying the fitment formula, the Special Pay admiss...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994Supp(3)SCC339
A.M. Ahmadi,; K. Ramaswamy and; S.C. Agrawal, JJ.1. The incident which has given rise to this appeal occurred on the morning of 2-5-1981 around 7-30 a.m. at Narpali, Bhiwandi, in the State of Maharashtra. According to the prosecution the unfortunate incident arose because of the employer having terminated the services of the accused persons. The employer Kanti Lal was the owner of a powerloom factory situated in a compound where several other similar sheds were located. On the day of the incident the complainant PW 9, Rati Lal Meghji, owner of a transport company had gone to his office situated in the same compound at about 7-30 a.m. The deceased Kanti Lal was known to this witness. The witness also knew the accused persons since they were working at the factory of Kanti Lal situated in the same compound. The witness, therefore, claims to have seen the incident from close quarters. Besides, the evidence of the complainant Rati Lal, there is the direct testimony of PW 4 Chandulal, PW 5 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1702; JT1993(6)SC634; 1993(4)SCALE627; (1994)1SCC550; [1993]Supp3SCR934; 1994(1)LC291(SC); (1994)2UPLBEC1183
ORDERS. Mohan, J.1. All these cases can be dealt with under a common judgment since the issue involved is the same. We will first take up the writ petition.2. The Government of Karnataka, wedded to the cause of promotion of Kannada, appointed a Committee of six persons with Dr. V.K. Gokak as the Chairman and referred the following questions :(1) Should Sanskrit remain as the subject for study in the school syllabus?(2) It so, how to retain it without its being an alternative for Kannada?(3) Would it be proper to have Kannada as a compulsory subject as per the Three Language Formula and should the option of selecting the remaining two languages be left to students themselves?3. The Committee submitted its report dated 27th January, 1981 which is popularly known as Dr. Gokak Committee Report. The gist of the recommendations is as under :(1) Kannada should be introduced as a compulsory subject for all children for 3rd Standard ; (2) Kannada should be the sole first language for the Higher...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(3)SCC376
R.M. SAHAI, J.1. The only question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal is if the appellant, whose election to the Legislative Assembly of Punjab was set aside by the Tribunal for improper rejection of nomination paper of another candidate, is entitled to pension and other benefits under Haryana Legislative Assembly (Allowances and Pension of Members) Act, 1975, as it stood in 1978, (for short ‘the 1975 Act’).2. In 1952 the appellant was elected as member of the Legislative Assembly of the erstwhile State of Punjab from Dabwali Constituency. He served as a member from February 1952 to May 1953 till his election was set aside by the Tribunal in May 1953. The operative portion of the Tribunal's order dated 16-5-1953 reads as under :“We by majority opinion, hold that the nomination papers of Shri Sher Singh were improperly rejected and this improper rejection had materially affected the result of the election of Dabwali Constituency, and therefore, the ele...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994CriLJ1240; 1993(4)SCALE624; (1994)1SCC425; 1994(1)LC128(SC)
ORDER1. These writ petitions have been preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners are citizens of India. It is averred in the petitions that on 11.10. 1993 Respondent No. 4, S.H.O. (Police) G.R.P. Faridabad (H.R.) along with some police - personnel accompanied by third respondent came to Agra at 11 A.M. to the residence of the petitioners. They enquired about Rahim Khan stating that he was wanted in connection with some criminal cases relating to theft of Railway property. Smt. Munni Begum, mother of first petitioner (Afzal Khan) told them that Rahim Khan was out of station since 8.10.93. Respondents 3 and 4 along with other police personnel forcibly entered the house and made a search and broke glasses of window panes and created terror. They damaged various articles like radio and tape-recorder. The damage is estimated at Rs. 2,000/-. Finding that Rahim Khan was not there, Respondents 3 and 4 became infuriated and took away the minor petitioners with the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1398; 1994(1)ALT(Cri)370; 1994CriLJ2097; 1993(4)SCALE605; 1994Supp(1)SCC594
ORDERK. Jayachandra Reddy, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 379 Cr.P.C. read with Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act. Chuttan, Jasvanth Singh and Nanehelal, original accused Nos. 2,4 and 5 respectively are the appellants. They alongwith three others were tried for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 and 325 I.P.C. The trial court acquitted all of them. The State preferred an appeal and the High Court set aside their acquittal and convicted Mahesh Prasad, original accused No. 1 and these three appellants under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life for causing the death of Hariram. They were also convicted under Section 325 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years for causing injuries to P.W.11, the son of the deceased. The acquittal of the remaining two accused was, however, confirmed. Some time thereafter Mahesh Prasad, original accused No. l died. The remaining convic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(3)SCC69
R.M. Sahai,; S.P. Bharucha and; N. Venkatachala, JJ.1. This judgment-debtor's appeal is directed against judgment and order of the High Court of Madras. The appellant was a defendant in a suit filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent for permanent injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with her right as Hakdar and Pujari of two temples in Kottarakurichi village. The suit even though decreed by the trial court was dismissed by the first appellate court. But the decree of the trial court was restored by the High Court, which was to the following effect:“[T]he defendants, their workmen, their agent, etc. be and are hereby restrained by an order of permanent injunction from interfering with the plaintiff's enjoyment of the plaint schedule property (described hereunder) till the end of 1965 Margali 30th (i.e., till January 13, 1965) and in every alternative years in future....”The judgment of the High Court was delivered in 1969. The decree-holder di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1993(6)SC629; 1993(4)SCALE616; (1994)1SCC611; [1993]Supp3SCR927
N.P. Singh, J.1. This appeal is on behalf of the defendants. The suit in question was filed for redemption of the suit property by the plaintiffs/respondents. It was alleged in the plaint that the property mentioned in the schedule of the plaint had been mortgaged through a registered deed, in favour of the father of the original defendant and possession had been also delivered to him. As the defendants refused to surrender possession of the lands in question, after accepting the amount due, necessitated, filing of the suit.2. Apart from other defence, a plea was taken on behalf of the defendants that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit in question. The Trial Court came to the finding that the plaintiffs had right to redeem the mortgage, and the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. On the aforesaid findings, the suit was decreed. On appeal being filed by the. defendants, the learned District Judge, affirmed the aforesaid findings of the Trial Court, inclu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1994]79CompCas577(SC); (1994)1CompLJ338(SC); JT1993(6)SC645; 1994(I)OLR(SC)210; 1993(4)SCALE620; (1994)1SCC397; [1993]Supp3SCR884; 1994(1)LC115(SC)
S. Mohan, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal by special leave arise under the following circumstances:3. The first respondent is a voluntary Consumer Organisation in Kerala, registered under the Scientific, Literary and Charitable Societies Registration Act. Dr. P. Kamalasanan, Ram Nivas (Gayatri), Sesthamcotta is a member and Secretary of the 1st respondent, he had taken L.P.G. Connection through Karthika Gas Agency who is the authorised distributor of the appellant. The said Karthika Gas Agency is the 2nd respondent.4. The 2nd respondent committed several irregularities in giving gas connection and in providing refills of L.P.G. cylinders to him. The Gas Agency had given more connections than authorised by the appellant, the5. Indian Oil Corporation. That amounted to deficiency in their service. The 2nd respondent is the authorised Agent of Indian Oil Corporation. However, the appellant-Corporation did not take adequate care to ensure that the Agency would not cheat the consumers. Not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1993(6)SC612; 1993(4)SCALE612; (1994)2SCC21; 1994(1)LC100(SC)
S. Mohan, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant is a Government company being wholly owned by the Government of Maharashtra. Respondent No. 1 M/s. Motiram Budharmal is a partnership firm carrying on business as builders and contractOrs. Respondent No. 3 is a Chief Engineer of the appellant's company.3. On 8.2.1982, the appellant's firm issued work order to 1st respondent for construction of 'E' type building in Sector 10, Vashi, New Bombay. It was stipulated that the work should be completed by 7.8.1983. The work was not completed by the 1st Respondent within that date. On 30.6.1984, the work was completed. On 29.6.1987, the Ist respondent wrote to the appellant's Executive Engineer alleging breach on the pan of the appellant. He also put forth various claims. The Ist respondent invoked the arbitration clause in the agreement. It was contested by 2nd respondent stating that claims put forth were not arbitrable. Thereafter, the Ist respondent by a letter dated 15.10.1987 protested and all...
Tag this Judgment!