Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1994)2SCC40
K. Jayachandra Reddy and; G.N. Ray, JJ.1. This is an appeal by way of Public Interest Litigation. The second respondent, Subhash Chander Bhasin, was sought to be prosecuted under the provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The learned Judicial Magistrate having examined the complaint discharged the accused on the ground that the demand of the scooter made on March 15, 1979 is not dowry within the meaning of Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. A revision was filed against the same in the High Court and the same was dismissed. Hence the present appeal.2. Having regard to the public importance of the question, not only the interested party but two others belonging to the social organisation have filed this appeal.3. It appears that two days before the marriage, a demand was made for a fridge, television and a scooter. Except scooter, other articles are appeared to have been given. The demand for the scooter continued subsequent to the marriage. The definition of dowry as it stood p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994Supp(3)SCC697
K. Ramaswamy and; N.P. Singh, JJ.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Revision No. 1258 of 1984 dated May 3, 1985 dismissing it in limine. The respondent-landlord filed the application for eviction of the appellant under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Land Restrictions Act, 1949 (for short, ‘the Act’), on one of the grounds which was that the appellant had sublet the shop to Roop Lal and Gian Chand. It is the case of the appellant that Roop Lal is his brother and Gian Chand is servant and he has been doing the business through his servant. The Rent Controller disbelieved the version of the appellant and directed eviction. On appeal, the appellate authority found that his position could be seen as under :“Gian Chand-respondent is, admittedly, in possession of the property. It was for him to prove as to who has employed him. What is his monthly salary and who is giving hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1993(5)SC681; (1994)ILLJ632SC; 1993(3)SCALE902; 1994Supp(1)SCC306; [1993]Supp2SCR551; (1994)1UPLBEC77
J.S. Verma, J.1. Respondent Dr. Cyan Prakash Singh was offered on 28.9.1984 an appointment on ad hoc temporary basis to a post of Assistant Medical Officer (Class-II) in the North Eastern Railway for the period of six months or till the candidates selected by the Union Public Service Commission (U.P.S.C.) joined the railways, whichever was earlier. Pursuant to that offer, the respondent was issued an appointment order on 1.10.1984 and he joined duty on 9.10.1984. While the respondent continued to work as an ad hoc Assistant Medical Officer, the decision of this Court in Dr. A.K. Jain and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. : [1988]1SCR180 was rendered on 24.9.1987 directing regularisation of the services of all doctors appointed either as Assistant Medical Officers or as Assistant Divisional Medical Officers on ad hoc basis up to 1.10.1984, in the manner indicated therein. The respondent was not treated to be a doctor falling within the category indicated in Dr. A.K. Jain since his appoint...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC127; 1994CriLJ615; 1994Supp(3)SCC668
1. On 6-4-1974 at about 8.30 a.m., a grave rioting took place near a field situated in village Bhuma within the limits of Miranpur Distt. Police Station during the course of which, one Raja Ram died and some others received injuries on the prosecution side and two persons died on the side of the accused and some others also received injuries. A report was given to the police and five accused were tried, by the trial Court for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149 and 307 read with 149 Indian Penal Code. The trial Court convicted four of them, original accused Nos. 1 to 4 and acquitted Santar Pal, the 5th accused. The four convicted accused preferred an appeal to the High Court but the same was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal.2. The prosecution case is as follows : Kabool Singh, Bhagel, Shittal and Smt. Vidyawati were co-tenure holders of a piece of land in that village. The share of Vidyawati was to the extent of 1/4th. She was married in a village situate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1183; (1994)IILLJ676SC; 1995Supp(2)SCC63
1. The brief history of the litigation leading to the passing of the impugned order dated March 5, 1991 may be noticed in order to appreciate the real dispute between the parties. In 1983 a large number of writ petitions were filed in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench) which were heard by a Division Bench on January 18,1984. The writ petitions related to employees of the Marketing Division in the Food & Civil Supplies Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh comprising Marketing Inspectors whose appointment under the relevant recruitment rules could be by direct recruitment and promotion in the ratio of 50: 50. The grievance made by the petitioners was that while their juniors had been promoted as Marketing Inspectors against regular posts they had been ignored merely because they were occupying seasonal posts and were thus discriminated against. They, therefore, prayed that they should not be reverted and should be allowed to continue as long as their juniors we...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1993(5)SC466; 1993(3)SCALE906; (1994)1SCC44; [1993]Supp2SCR558; 1994(1)LC21(SC)
N.P. Singh, J.1. Writ petitions and a civil appeal have been filed for quashing the land acquisition proceedings, which had been initiated between the years 1959 and 1965 by issuance of notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') but in which no awards were made up to the years 1979-80, although the declarations under Section 6 of the Act had been made in the years 1966 and 1969. The first such notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 13.1.1961 in respect of 16,000 acres of land. One such notification under Section 4 was issued on 23.1.1965. Declarations under Section 6 of the Act were issued on 16.5.1966 and 13.1.1969. The declaration dated 16.5.1966 related to 2,513 Bighas of land, whereas the declaration dated 13.1.1969 was in respect of 88 Bighas. A declaration under Section 6 had been made on 6.12.1966 in respect of 5,898 bighas of land which is subject matter of controversy in other writ petitions.2. According to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994Supp(3)SCC698
ORDER 1. The appellant-tenant had leave of this Court against the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 1064 of 1980 dated June 27, 1983. The respondent-landlord filed an application under Section 13(1)(g) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’) for ejectment, on the ground that the respondent-landlord requires the premises bona fide for accommodation of pilgrims etc. The trial court dismissed but on appeal the District Judge granted decree of eviction. The High Court in the writ petition affirmed it. Shri Tarkunde, for the appellant, pressed for consideration threefold contentions. Firstly, that the respondent had not pleaded specific requirement to show its bona fides and the courts below ought to have non-suited the landlord for lack of proper pleading. Secondly, he contended that before the decree of eviction was passed in 1980, the respondent-trust had let out in 1979 two shops of the upper por...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(1)SCC196
ORDER 1. Admittedly the High Court has not granted any relief against the appellants. The appellants, however, have preferred these appeals to agitate only against the finding given that they are the “other authority” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants also states that the respondents in the present appeals have preferred SLPs challenging the order of the High Court refusing them the relief which was claimed by them as writ petitioners before the High Court. These petitions are pending in this Court. 2. Since no relief is granted against the appellants and the appellants in these appeals have only challenged the finding that they are the “other authority” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, we feel that these appeals should not be entertained under Article 136 of the Constitution. We, therefore, dismiss the appeals without expressing any opinion on the point involve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1995)IILLJ631SC; 1994Supp(3)SCC673
1. The High Court quashed the proceedings initiated against the respondent-accused under Section 14-B of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 on the ground that the prosecution was barred by limitation by virtue of Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This Court examined the question in Bhagirath Kanoria v. State of M.P. , and held that such offence is a continuing one and even otherwise in a case of this nature, the court should give due weight to Section 473 of the Criminal Procedure Code to condone the delay in the interest of justice and entertain the case and accordingly this Court set aside the order quashing the proceedings on the ground of limitation. The ratio laid down in that case squarely applies to the facts of this case. The only difference is that in the other case the accused was the petitioner while in the instant case the State has come up in appeal. In the instant case, the offence is said to have been committed in the year 1973...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994Supp(3)SCC741
K. Ramaswamy and; N.P. Singh, JJ.1. The appellant is a tenant. Action was laid for his ejectment under Section 10(2)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 15 of 1960, for short ‘the Act’, for his committing wilful default in the payment of the rent from August 1973 to January 1974. A notice was issued on February 22, 1974. Thereafter, the appellant tendered the rent, but the respondent refused to receive the same and procedure under Section 8 of the Act was resorted to. Thereafter the landlord received the rent under protest. All the courts including the High Court had concurrently found that the appellant committed wilful default in the payment of the rent and thus a decree for ejectment was passed. Thus these appeals by special leave.2. Shri Ram Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that in view of the law laid down by this Court in S.P. Deshmukh v. Shah Nihal Chand Waghajibai Gujarati1 and in Rashik Lal v. Shah Gokuld...
Tag this Judgment!