Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC2629; 1993(3)ALT18(SC); JT1993(4)SC90; 1993(2)KLT541(SC); 1993(3)SCALE49; (1993)3SCC445; [1993]3SCR1028
ORDERMadan Mohan Punchhi, J.1. Leave granted.2. These two appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated January 4, 1990 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam in Civil Revision Petitions No. 1520 and 1527 of 1989.3. The facts giving rise thereto are few and meaningful. The respondent filed two suits against the appellants praying under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for an appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the disputes said to have arisen out of contracts inter-se. One B.S.Hegde was appointed as an Arbitrator. He made awards on October 3, 1988. On that date itself, the Arbitrator on his own had given notice to the parties under Section 14(1) of the. making and signing of the awards. The respondent, on October 4, 1988, requested the Arbitrator by means of a letter to forward the awards to his counsel for filing the same in the Court. On October 12, 1988, the Arbitrator forwarded the awards...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC2422; JT1993(4)SC32; 1993LabIC1945; (1993)IILLJ681SC; 1993(3)SCALE45; (1993)3SCC364; [1993]3SCR1018; 1993(3)SLJ114(SC)
ORDERMadan Mohan Punchhi, J.1. These are a handful of writ petitions and special leave petitions which, on grant of leave hereby, and having become appeals, can conveniently be disposed of by a common judgment.2. The fulcrum of the controversy herein, and the shadow in which it works is a three-judge Bench decision of this Court in Katyani Dayal and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. : [1980]3SCR139 decided on March 26, 1980. Before adverting to the facts and circumstances in which this cause has been presented to this Court it would be fruitful to give a broad outline of Katyani Dayal's case, in the immediately succeeding paragraphs.3. Connected with Katyani Dayal's case were writ petitions filed in a representative capacity, purporting to represent all temporary Assistant Engineers (on a later point of time known as temporary Assistant Officers) appointed by the Railway Board, pursuant to the authority given by the President of India, on the recommendations of the Union Public Service C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC2430; JT1993(4)SC10; 1993LabIC1966; (1993)IILLJ731SC; 1993(3)SCALE19; (1993)3SCC429; [1993]3SCR1006
ORDERMadan Mohan Punchhi, J.1. Leave to appeal granted.2. The question which falls for determination in these appeals is whether in computing the amount of one months' wages, to be paid under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereafter referred to as the 'Act') the employer is justified in reducing the amount by statutory tax deductions?3. The three appellants herein, in the period 1979-80 were in the employment of the respondent-Air India, and stationed at Calcutta. They individually suffered disciplinary proceedings on the charges of some misconducts and having been found guilty were awarded penalties of removal or dismissal by the Air India, as due to each. It is common ground that the respondent-Air India, statutorily bound, applied to the National Industrial Tribunal, Bombay by means of separate approval applications under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act to have its action approved. In terms of the said provision it paid to the appellants one month's salary or wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC2436; 1993CriLJ3140; JT1993(4)SC1; 1993(3)SCALE30; (1993)3SCC552; [1993]3SCR969
1. The appellants in Civil Appeals Nos. 722 & 723 of 19 93 had been appointed as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal) to appear in different criminal cases, on behalf of the State, in different Courts in the District of Moradabad. They filed the connected Writ Applications before the High Court, against the decision of the State Government, refusing to extend their term for a further period of three years, which were dismissed by the High Court.2. It appears that the appellants, except appellant No. 3, Gopal Sharma, had been appointed by Government Order dated 25.2.91, as Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal) in the District of Moradabad, in accordance with the provisions of Section 24 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") and the Legal Remembrancer Manual (hereinafter referred to as "the Manual") against the substantive vacancies. Appellant No. 3, however, had been appointed on 13.12.1990. The last date of the tenure of the appel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC43; JT1993(4)SC78; 1993(3)SCALE10; (1993)3SCC595; [1993]3SCR985
ORDERKuldip Singh, J.1. These bunch-appeals are by the Teachers Training Institutes in the State of Tamil Nadu. They claim to be the minority educational institutions in terms of Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. The State Government has declined to recognise these institutes on the ground that they have failed to satisfy the conditions for grant of recognition as provided under the Tamil Nadu Minority Schools (Recognition and Payment of Grants) Rules, 1977 as amended by the Government Order No. 536 dated May 17, 1989 and Government Order No. 661 dated June 12, 1991. (Recognition Rules)2. The appellants challenged, before the Madras High Court by way of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the validity of the Recognition Rules, inter alia, on the grounds that the said Rules are violative of Article 30(1) and 14 of the Constitution of India. A Division Bench of the High Court consisting of M. Srinivasan and Thangamani, JJ. dismissed the writ petitions. M. Srin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1993(3)SC748; 1993(3)SCALE25; (1993)3SCC459; [1993]3SCR944
Madan Mohan Punchhi, J.1. These two appeals at the instance of the State of Punjab, are directed against a common judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, passed in Regular Second Appeal Nos. 1719 and 1720 of 1989 and are limited in scope to the determination of title to a double storeyed building situated in a complex known as Jallowkhana in the town of Kapurthala. These appeals have arisen in the following manner.2. The respondent herein is Brigadier Sukhjit Singh. He is the son of Maharaja Paramjit Singh and the grand-son of Maharaja Jagajit Singh in the order of primogeniture succession. The ancestry of Maharaja Jagjit Singh is traced to Baba Jassa Singh Ahluwalia, the founder of Kapurthala State and the Ahluwalia dynasty. It is common ground that there is a complex known as Jallowkhana at Kapurthala which encompasses two historic havelis, which in the context mean palaces, going by the names Haveli Baba Jassa Singh and Nihal Mahal. Besides these two...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993(1)ALT(Cri)211; 1993CriLJ2930; II(1993)DMC110SC; JT1993(4)SC22; 1994(0)MPLJ1; 1993(3)SCALE1; (1993)3SCC406; [1993]3SCR954
ORDERS - (1) All decrees made by the court in any proceeding under this Act shall, subject to the provisions of Sub-section (3) be appealable as decrees of the court made in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction, and every such appeal shall lie to the court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the decisions of the court given in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction.(2) Orders made by the court in any proceeding under this Act, under Section 25 or Section 26 shall, subject to the provisions of Sub-section (3), be appealable if they are not interim orders and every such appeal shall lie to the court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the decisions of the court given in exercise of its original civil jurisdiction.(3) There shall be no appeal under this section on the subject of costs only.(4) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of the decree or order.6. Right from its inception, at the unamended stage, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993Supp(4)SCC90
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. In pursuance of the directions given by this Court in its order of May 19, 19931, communications have been received from the authorities in the States of Bihar, Punjab, Assam, Rajasthan, Kerala and the Union Territory of Goa. From the said communications, it appears that a number of seats for the MBBS/BDS Courses, falling within the 15% All India Quota, have been appropriated towards State quota and admissions have been made against those seats in the following States/Union Territories: MBBS BDSBihar 04 —Punjab 22 03Rajasthan 11 02Goa &m...
Tag this Judgment!