Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994Supp(2)SCC589
K. Ramaswamy and; N.P. Singh, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant is owning a rice mill at Bilaspur. The mill and the yard are situated in the territorial area of two market committees, namely, Bilaspur Mandi Samiti and Rudrapur Mandi Samiti. In the counter-affidavits filed by the Market Committee, Rudrapur, it is stated that the appellant has been purchasing paddy from the ryots or commission agents within the notified area of the Market Committee, Rudrapur and bringing to the mill situated in the notified area of the Market Committee, Bilaspur. It is the contention of the appellant that he has been paying the market fee to the Marketing Committee, Rudrapur for the paddy and therefore the Market Committee, Bilaspur cannot levy any market fee on the paddy. Section 17(iii)(b) of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 (for short the Act) provides thus:“The market committee shall, for the purpose of this Act have the power to levy and collect—(b) market fee, which shal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(1)SCC203
K. Ramaswamy and; N.P. Singh, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. The lands of the appellants were acquired by a notification published in the State Gazette on 13-12-1982. They laid the claim for a sum of Rs 61,000 per acre. Ultimately they were granted compensation varying between Rs 15,000 to Rs 77,000 per acre. These appeals have been filed for enhancement of market value claiming rupees one lakh per acre.3. Shri Hard Dev Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the claimants placed reliance on the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in State of Punjab v. Khushal Singh1 wherein the learned Single Judge placed reliance on a statement said to have been agreed between the then Chief Minister and the Action Committee of SYL Canal at which the then Chief Minister seems to have made a statement that the land shall not be valued at less than rupees one lakh per acre and accepted that statement and based thereon awarded the market value at Rs 1,00,000. We find it absolutely difficult to a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1994]205ITR415(SC); 1994(1)KLT656(SC); [1994]92STC307(SC)
ORDERM.N. Venkatachaliah, C.J.I.1. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides. Leave granted.2. The Tax Revision Case No. 169 of 1989, before the High Court of Kerala came to be dismissed for default on January 25, 1990. On the previous day when the case was listed learned Counsel for the appellant reported 'no instructions' and the matter was adjourned to the next day, i.e., January 25, 1990, directing that the appellant's name be shown in the cause list as appearing in person.3. The submission of learned Counsel for the appellant is that when a learned Counsel appearing for a party is permitted to retire from a case, the court should ensure that the counsel had given intimation of his intention so to do, so that the party is enabled to make alternative arrangement. In the present case, it is submitted, learned Counsel had not done so and no papers were filed by the counsel in the court indicating that he had issued any such advance notice to the client of his intention to retire fro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC2525; JT1993(5)SC300; (1994)107PLR75; 1993(3)SCALE771; (1993)4SCC406; [1993]Supp2SCR254
ORDERS.P. Bharucha, J.1. Special leave to appeal granted.2. This appeal impugns the judgment and order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in its civil revisional jurisdiction. Thereby the revision application filed by the appellant was dismissed but it was ordered that, subject to compliance with certain conditions, the appellant should not be evicted from the shop in suit for a period of four months.3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the respondent, the landlord of the shop in suit, filed against the appellant, its tenant a suit for ejectment and for recovery of rent which was alleged to be in arrears since 1st November, 1980. The appellant contested the correctness of the averments in the plaint. He also claimed the benefit of Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The trial court, after evidence was recorded and arguments heard, found that the appellant was n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(1)SCC210
Kuldip Singh and; S.C. Agrawal, JJ.1. Special leave granted.2. The appellant was appointed to the Indian Revenue Service on the basis of the Civil Services Examination held in the year 1989. While in service he took the Indian Civil Services Examination again in the year 1991. He sat in the said examination under the interim orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal and also of this Court. It is not disputed that the appellant has qualified for the Indian Administrative Service and has achieved very high merit being at No. 29 of the merit list. The appellant belongs to the Scheduled Tribe.3. Rule 4 of the Civil Services Examination Rules, 1986 (the Rules) provides that a candidate, taking the examination, must resign from the service to which he is already appointed. The vires of this rule has been upheld by this Court in Mohan Kumar Singhania v. Union of India1. Since the appellant did not resign from the Indian Revenue Service before taking the Indian Civil Services Examination, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1994)IILLJ815SC; (1994)2SCC116
ORDERK. Ramaswamy, J.1. This SLP was filed against an order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal at Nasik dated October 1, 1992. The order stopping crossing of efficiency bar to reach his scale of pay Rs. 2800 - 4000 was quashed. The Tribunal found that the respondent reached the efficiency bar on October 1, 1982. Earlier he was compulsorily retired but by order of the court he remained in service. Under the rules made by the Government, the process should be made well in advance and record should be considered and a positive order should be made by the competent authority to pass an order stopping giving the increment due to the efficiency bar. Till September 1984, no order has been passed by the competent authority. The Reporting Officer in 1984 found the record of the respondent satisfactory and also recommended for his promotion. Yet the Supervisory Officer appears to have recorded that he cannot be promoted. On that basis, he passed an order on September 14, 1984 stopping th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(4)SCC245
K. Ramaswamy and; N.P. Singh, JJ.1. We have heard learned counsel on either side.2. Special leave granted. We find great force in the contention of Smt Indu Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellants. The conditions of auction clearly envisage that as soon as the auction is knocked down in favour of the highest bidder he shall deposit 10 per cent of the bid amount at the fall of the hammer on the spot. The authority should communicate the acceptance to the bidder and within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the acceptance letter, the bidder shall deposit 15 per cent of the amount by way of a demand draft drawn in favour of the Estate Officer, HUDA. The balance of 75 per cent shall be paid by lump sum without interest within 60 days from the date of the issue of the allotment letter or in the case of instalments half-yearly 7 equal instalments with the 10 per cent rate of interest, in case of a shop, 8 half-yearly instalments with 10 per cent interest in respect of flat. Thus it...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC167; 1994Supp(2)SCC721
1. Leave granted.2. Heard on merits.3. The company known as Dytron (India) Ltd. was directed to be wound up by an order dated 29-5-1991 made by the learned Company Judge of the Calcutta High Court, with a further direction to the Official Liquidator to take possession of all the assets and properties of the Company. The total liabilities of the Company are stated to be about Rs. 37 crores. On 2-6-1992 the learned Company Judge made an order for sale of the Company's properties and also specified the terms and conditions of the sale. These terms and conditions of sale required deposit of 10 per cent of the bid offered by the bidder along with the offer to purchase, and the deposit of the entire sale price was to be made within a period of 30 days of the date of acceptance of the offer by the Court. It appears that on 18-9-1992 the learned Company Judge did not accept the offer of Rs. 4.50 crores for the properties in view of the objections of ICIC1. Thereafter a concern known as Laxmi P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1277; 1994Supp(2)SCC699
1. Petitioner seeks special leave to appeal to this Court from the Order dated 17th February, 1993 of the Kerala High Court dismissing the petitioner's Writ Appeal No. 280 of 1993. Special leave granted.2. Appellant is stated to be a firm of partners carrying on business as painting contractOrs. The appellant was on the list of eight qualified painting contractors on the panel prepared by the respondent-Public Sector Undertaking. Appellant's name was stated to be deleted from the list of qualified contractors on account of what is stated to be a Vigilance Report. Consequently, the respondent did not issue the tender form for the work of Anti-Corrosive Coating of the Prilling Tower of urea plant in its factory to the appellant.3. Before its name was deleted from the list of qualified contractors, appellant was not notified of the reason for the deletion. The tender forms were issued to the remaining seven contractors, out of whom only two submitted their quotations and one of them was i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1993(5)SC307; (1994)IILLJ707SC; 1993(3)SCALE697; 1994Supp(1)SCC84
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. Leave granted.2. Heard the counsel for the parties.3. The appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, allowing the petition filed by the respondent in C.A.No. 2551 of 1990; The Union of India is the appellant.4. The respondent, Vijay Kumari was appointed a Lab. Attendant in the Women's Polytechnic, Directorate of Technical Education, Delhi Administration on October 8, 1973 in the pay-scale of Rs. 950-1500/-. She continued in the post till 22nd February, 1988 i.e., for a period of about 15 years. For the last four years i.e., from May 16, 1984 to February 22, 1988 she was teaching the students of two-year diploma course in Secretarial Practice (Hindi). On February 23, 1988 she was promoted to the post of Junior Lecturer in the pay-scale of Rs. 2000-3200/-. On September 19, 1988 she was reverted to the post of Lab. Attendant with effect from August 23, 1988 under an order which reads as follows:-In c...
Tag this Judgment!