Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1448; 1994(1)BLJR37; (1993)3SCC332
ORDER1. In W.P. (C) No. 176/93. In pursuance of the Order passed by this Court on December 11, 1992 in W.P. No, 443 of 1992, etc., the petitioner was allotted a seat in MBBS course against the All-India quota for the year 1991 in B. J. Medical College, Ahmedabad by the Director-General of Health Services by a letter dated December 18, 1992. The petitioner was required to report to the Director, Medical Education, Govt. of Gujarat, Ahmedabad on or before January 4, 1993 for admission to the MBBS course. In accordance with the said direction the petitioner deposited the fees for admission at B. J. Medical College, Ahmedabad on January 2,1993, after obtaining the eligibility certificate from the Registrar, Gujarat University. The grievance of the petitioner is that eligibility certificate has been withdrawn by letter dated January 15, 1993 which was received much later by the petitioner and on that basis the admission of the petitioner to the MBBS course has been cancelled.2. Having heard...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994(1)BLJR162; 1993(2)Crimes307(SC); JT1993(3)SC666; 1993(2)SCALE725; (1993)3SCC384
K. Jayachandra Reddy, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is filed by one Smt. Kamlabai wife of detenu Harichand Dhawade who was detained under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act by an order dated 1.5.92. The detenu made a representation on 11.5.92. to the Advisory Board and requested the jail authorities to send the copies to the State Government and the Central Government. The Advisory Board rejected the representation and it reported that there was sufficient cause for detention. The State Government confirmed the order of detention for a period of one year on 17.6.92. A writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court, Hence the present appeal.3. Two grounds are urged in this appeal. The first ground is that out of four grounds, the High Court rejected the first three grounds and upheld the detention only on the fourth ground which, according to the learned Counsel, can not be deemed to be potential as to disrupt the public order. So far as the fourth groun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1198; JT1993(3)SC524; 1993(2)SCALE808; 1993Supp(3)SCC14; 1994(1)SLJ32(SC)
1. Service of the appellants employed in the school established in the year 1981 recognised in 1983 brought on grants-in-aid in 1988, were terminated in 1986. Their termination was not approved by the Inspector of Schools. Since the order not approving termination was not given effect to by the Institution the appellants approached the High Court by way of a writ petition for a mandamus to reinstate them and grant them their salaries from the date the school became an aided institution. The High Court did not find any merit in the claim for various reasons.2. Section 10-A of the Orissa Education Act provides that the termination of a teacher of an aided institution shall be subject to the approval of the Inspector. Use of the word 'aided institution' is clear indication that the provisions of approval apply only to the aided schools. Since on the date the services of the appellants were terminated the institution was recognised only and not aided the Inspector could not have exercised ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994Supp(1)SCC510
M.M. Punchhi and; B.P. Jeevan Reddy, JJ.1. Objections raised to the award being made Rule of Court are two in number. The first is that the Arbitrator should not have awarded a sum of Rs 1,000 as damages and that the damage to the Union of India is at a much higher figure. The second objection is that the Arbitrator should not have awarded interest at the rate of 15 per cent from March 1979 to 1990 on the price outstanding and unpaid.2. As is obvious, these objections pertain to the merits of the case. These are not entertainable as objections to the award. Nothing is reflected in the objection petition as to the conduct of the Arbitrator or to the arbitration proceedings. The objections have thus no merit and accordingly the same are dismissed. Correspondingly, the award is made Rule of the Court. I.A. No. 2 and C.A. No. 6256 of 1990 are disposed of accordingly....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995(2)ALT(Cri)604; 1994Supp(1)SCC507
ORDER 1. Special leave granted. 2. The basic facts show that the appellant-Company had given financial facility on hire-purchase basis to respondent 1 for the purchase of a Matador MEZ-6502. As the hirer failed to pay the instalments and committed successive defaults, the appellant-Company took possession of the vehicle on June 6, 1987 under the terms of the hire-purchase agreement. Thereupon the hirer lodged a complaint of theft against the two employees of the appellant-Company who had seized the vehicle. In that proceeding the police took charge of the vehicle and produced the same before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate directed that the custody of the vehicle be delivered to the hirer on his executing an indemnity bond in the sum of Rs 80,000 (Rupees eighty thousand only) with one surety of like amount and directed the appellant to have the question of title determined by a civil court. By the very same order the complaint was dropped. The effect of this ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1993(3)SC474; (1993)IILLJ539SC; 1993(2)SCALE720; 1993Supp(4)SCC473
S. Mohan, J.1.Leave granted.2. The controversy in these cases arises out of the challenge by the first respondent in SLP (C) No. 7853 of 1992 (Indian Railway Traffic Service Association) to the amendment in the scheme for making appointments to the posts of General Managers in the Indian Railways. The effect of the amendment is the rule of predominance restricting the number of persons who could be appointed as General Managers from any one Railway Service, which was originally 6 out of 16 posts, was changed to 37.5 per cent of the total number of posts. Simultaneously, the total number of posts was increased to 19. This challenge was upheld by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Branch, New Delhi.3. The short facts are as under:4. In the year 1984, for the first time, a scheme of making appointments to the posts of General Managers was notified. That included a rule of predominance which restricted, the number of posts of General Managers which could be held by officers of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC23; JT1993(3)SC532; 1993LabIC1943; (1993)IILLJ563SC; 1993(2)SCALE842; (1993)3SCC214; [1993]3SCR477; (1993)2UPLBEC1156
ORDER1. How statutory bodies waste public money in fruitless litigation to satisfy misplaced ego is demonstrated by this petition.2. The opposite party was appointed as Sales Girl by the petitioner, a cooperative society registered under Cooperative Societies Act, running a Super Bazar in Shimla. When one of the managers came there on transfer, her trouble started. Apart from insult, humiliation and harassment thrust on her, that manager terminated her services illegally without being authorised to do so and without giving any notice or hearing her. The opposite party who had been apprising her superiors of that manager's misbehaviour and of her apprehensions that he was out to get rid of her although was assured not only of his good behavior and security of her services, immediately took resource to legal action. To her misfortune the Assistant Register decided her case after seven years. It was held by him that the order of termination was illegal, arbitrary and was passed without ob...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994Supp(1)SCC506
R.M. Sahai and; N. Venkatachala, JJ.1. Initiation of proceedings for eviction of petitioners in 1975 filed in the civil court have been assailed as provisions of Public Premises and Eviction Act having been made applicable to Bombay Port Trust in 1980 the civil court ceased to have jurisdiction. Learned counsel urged that the bar under Section 15 of the Act being on entertaining any act or proceeding and the word ‘entertain’ having been interpreted in Hindusthan Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Punnu Sahu (dead) through legal representatives1 to mean the date of hearing the proceedings could not have been continued after 1980. The point was not permitted to be raised by the High Court as this question was not agitated in the trial court. In our opinion, the High Court did not commit any error in taking this view. We find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed accordingly....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994Supp(1)SCC509
M.N. Venkatachaliah, C.J. and; T.K. Thommen, J.1. We have heard Shri Gopal Subramaniam, learned counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner was tried for an offence under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the Sessions Court. This was affirmed in appeal by the High Court. During the trial and later in the appeal before the High Court, one of the defences raised and urged was that petitioner was a ‘child’ within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Bihar Children's Act and he was not liable to be tried in the ordinary way. He claimed to be in his — and not completed — sixteenth year. That defence was not accepted by the Sessions Court and the High Court. The matter was carried up for special leave to this Court and that SLP was also dismissed.3. The petitioner seeks to re-agitate the question in this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution urging that the trial and all the later proceedings emanating therefrom were nullities; tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1994)IILLJ871SC; 1994Supp(1)SCC571
ORDERS.C. Agrawal, J.Leave granted.1. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties on the appeal.2. The appellant was appointed as Professor in the Department of Tuberculosis of the King George's Medical College, Lucknow on May 1, 1967. At that time the said college was being run by the Lucknow University. The control and management of the College was taken over by the State Government of Uttar Pradesh by U.P. Ordinance No. 10/81. The said Ordinance was followed by King George's Medical College and Gandhi Memorial and Associated Hospitals (Taking Over) Act, 1983 (U.P. Act No. 10 of 1983). While the college was under the control and management of the State Government, the appellant was appointed as Acting Principal of the College by the State Government and subsequently he was appointed as Principal of the College on regular basis by the State Government. While he was working as Principal of the College, he was compulsorily retired by order of the Government of U.P. dated March 6, 1991...
Tag this Judgment!