Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC775; 1995Supp(1)SCC26
1. Leave granted.2. The appellant-Society has been running a school at 11th Cross West Park Road, Malleswaram in Bangalore City. The said school has been in existence from about 22 years and was shifted in 1976 to the present premises. The school has got about 1500 students. Adjacent to the school there is an open land about 300 ft. x 75 ft. It is the claim of the appellant that they have applied for allotment of land of 100 ft. x 75 ft. to use it as a playground for the children as there is no open land for play ground. It is their claim that the Municipal Corporation had not allotted the land and that therefore they moved a petition. Their petition has been dismissed by the Corporation without considering their request. When the matter has gone to the High Court under Article 226, initially the learned single Judge remitted the matter for reconsideration by the Corporation, but on appeal, in the impugned judgment in Writ Appeal No. 2407/90, the Division Bench by Order dated March 25,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC83
1. The appellant, Dr. P.N. Varman, held the post of Professor in Veterinary Physiology in the Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana. On the basis of some charges, he was removed from service by an order of the Vice-Chancellor dated 28-9-84. He challenged the said order by means of a writ petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court and a learned single Judge on 27-2-89 set aside the order of removal. As a consequence thereof, he was put on job on May 31, 1989 and since then stands stationed in his post with the aid of subsequent interim orders passed in his favour from time to time by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Letters Patent Appeal as also by this Court in the special leave petition and presently this appeal. He has remained out of job for nearly four years and eight months from 28-9-84 to 31-5-89. 2. The core controversy before the learn ed single Judge of the High Court as also before the Letters Patent Bench (on appeal at the instance of the University) was whether th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1431; (1993)4SCC317
1. Leave granted.2. The Pradhan of Sullia Mandal panchayat in the State of Karnataka elected under Karnataka Zilla Parishad, Taluk Panchayat Samithi Mandal Panchayats and Nyaya Panchayats 1983 Act for short the Act by 17 elected and 2 nominated members of the Samithi had resigned. In consequence the election for Pradhan was to be held on May 27, 1992asperthe K.Z.P.T.P.S., M.P. and N.P. (Conduct of Election) Amendment Rules, 1987 for short 'the rules'. One Jayaprakash Rai, 5th respondent herein had filed Writ Petition No. 16150/92 on May 25, 1992 and obtained interim exparte stay from the High Court on May 26, 1992 preventing two nominated members, by name, Babu Mogeral and Devu Ajila from voting on the ground that their nominations on August 13, 1990 from backward class quota was illegal under Section 5(3) of the Act and Rule 2(2) of the Rules. Due to interim order passed by the High Court, the two members were restrained from participating and to exercise their franchise in the electi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC2541; 1993(2)ARBLR436(SC); JT1993(4)SC434; 1993(3)SCALE331; (1993)4SCC186; [1993]Supp1SCR449
ORDERP.B.Sawant, J. 1. The present appeal arises out of an arbitration proceedings. The respondent-Irrigation Department 'the Department' proposed to get a Aqueduct constructed across the Sirsa river for a distance of 15.455 Kms. of Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal. A contract on turn-key basis was entered into between the appellant and the respondent on 19th April, 1984 for. the total cost of Rs. 6.10 crores. The drawing and design was to be supplied by the appellant for approval by the Department.The drawings and designs submitted by the appellant did not show any sealing arrangements with provision for proper bearing pads. Hence, on 6th September, 1984, it was decided to adopt pre-stressed concrete super-structure. This involved increase in the quantities. However, the agreement had provided that in ease of any deviation in the design, increase in cost will not be charged to the respondent. The appellant later on, however, claimed extra amount on account of the increase in the quantities an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993(2)ALT(Cri)442; 1993(41)BLJR1276; 1993(II)Crimes1186(SC); JT1993(4)SC466; 1993(3)SCALE303; (1993)4SCC97; [1993]Supp1SCR443
S. Mohan, J.1. Impelled by a desire to espouse a public cause, so the petitioner claims, this Writ Petition has come to be preferred. The cause relates to the motion of impeachment of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami, a Judge of this Court.2. Notice was given by 108 members of the Ninth Lok Sabha for presenting an address to the President for removal of Mr. Justice V. Ramaswami. On March 12, 1991 the motion was admitted. The Committee was constituted in terms of Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act. After the Committee rendered its finding the motion was to be taken up by the Members of Parliament for consideration on 10th May, 1993.3. The petitioner alleges that he served on the Speaker of the Lok Sabha a nine page communication for circulation to the Members of the Parliament. On 8th May, 1993 the Congress (I) publicly announced the Members of Parliament to cast 'a conscience vote' while the AIADMK party had announced that it would abstain from voting. The petitioner coming to know about...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1993(4)SC426; 1993(3)SCALE296; 1993Supp(4)SCC461; [1993]Supp1SCR433
K. Ramaswamy, J.1. Special Leave granted.2. The ultra vires of the Haryana Rural Development Act 6 of 1986 for short 'the Act' was assailed but repelled by the full bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in Subhash Chander Kamlesh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. against which these appeals were laid by leave. Initially the Haryana Rural Development Act 12 of 1983 was made which ultimately, this Court in Om Prakash Agarwal and Ors. v. Giri Raj Kishori and Ors. : [1987]164ITR376(SC) held that Section 3 thereof was unconstitutional on the ground of legislative incompetence as the levy of cess under Section 3 thereof was in the Feature of tax and not fee, quid pro quo being absent. Purporting to have removed the defects as pointed out therein, the Act came to be made and the full bench put its seal of approval of its validity.3. Sri Shanti Bhushan, the learned Senior counsel for the appellants in his usual vehemence contended that the agriculture produce is a declared goo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995(5)SCALE601; 1995Supp(3)SCC316
ORDER1. By an order dated 14th August, 1985, a Division Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranganath Misra ordered this group of matters to be placed before a Bench of 7 Judges as in their view the decision of the Constitution Bench comprising 5 Judges in the case of Sales Tax Officer, Banaras and Ors. v. Kanhaiyalal Mukundlal Saraf : [1959]1SCR1350 required reconsideration. Subsequent to this order, certain other matters also came on to be tagged on with this batch of appeals. While making that order it appears that the attention of the Division Bench was not drawn to a 7- Judge Bench decision in the State of Kerala v. Aluminium Industries Ltd. 16 STC 689.2. Mr. F.S. Nariman, the learned Counsel who opened the submissions on behalf of the appellants/petitioners, stated that the decision in Kanhaiyalal's case has been 'expressly approved' on both the points in the case of State of Kerala. He placed emphasis on the following observation:There is n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1993(5)SC98; 1993(4)SCALE521; 1995Supp(1)SCC176
ORDER1. C.A.Nos. 2373/86, 3851 & 3205 of 1988 These appeals are filed by the licensees of arrack shops situated in different parts of the State of Tamil Nadu and relate to the excise year 1984-85. The Writ Petition was originally placed for hearing before a learned Single Judge of the High Court. By an interim order dated 8th November, 1984 he gave certain directions but modified them by a subsequent order dated 30th January, 1985. In pursuance of this modified order the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise issued a Circular No. 5/85 dated 4th February, 1985 for the excise year 1984-85 wherein while pointing out that there was no entitled quota of arrack for any licensee and there was no minimum guaranteed quota which any licensee was obliged to lift during any month, he directed that for each shop a quantity of arrack to be called 'Normal Quota' should be worked out and that will form the basis for working out remissions for the excise year 1984-85. It was also stated in that circul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(3)SCC395
ORDER 1. These appeals are by certificate granted by the High Court of Madras since the High Court was of the opinion that the question involved for decision relates to the power of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to amend its regulations framed under Section 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. 2. The material facts are only a few. The appellants were initially appointed Junior Assistants and were then promoted to the post of Assistants and were awaiting their turn for promotion to the next higher post of Accountant. According to the regulations framed by the Board, the passing of the prescribed test was one of the qualifications required for promotion as an Accountant. The appellants having passed the prescribed test were, therefore, eligible for further promotion to the post of Accountant and were awaiting their turn for being considered for promotion as Accountants. During the period that regulation was in force, because of this prescription therein, those Assista...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(4)SCC771
ORDER 1. Abdul Rehiman, who was detained under the provisions of Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 has filed special leave petitions against the two judgments of the Bombay High Court rejecting the writ petitions filed by him seeking the quashing of the detention order. A writ petition has also been filed by the petitioner questioning the detention and the subsequent declaration made by the authorities under Section 10 of the Act. 2. The detenu was arrested on 27-6-1991 on the ground that he was in possession of 2 kgs of heroin and made a confession regarding the possession of the same. On 28-6-1991, the petitioner made an application before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate alleging that he was falsely implicated. However, the charge-sheet was filed and on 14-8-1991 ultimately the High Court released him on bail. On 20-8-1991, the Narcotics Department sent a proposal for detention of the petitioner to the Screening Commit...
Tag this Judgment!