Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(1)SCC235
ORDER 1. The appellant's tenancy was permitted to be terminated under clauses 13(2) and 13(3)(ii) of the Central Province and Berar Letting of House and Rent Control Order, 1949, for short ‘the Order’ for ejectment from the demised premises on the ground that he was a habitual defaulter. A decree for eviction ensued which had become final by dismissal of the SLP in limine by this Court. Objections raised in the execution at the instance of his sons were overruled. Thereafter, the appellant filed the W.P. No. 1370 of 1984 in the High Court of Bombay challenging the constitutional validity of sub-clause (ii) of clause 13(3), which was dismissed in limine on June 18, 1984. Thus this appeal by special leave. 2. Section 2 of C.P. & Berar Regulation of Letting of Accommodation Act, 1946 reads thus: “The Provincial Government may, by general or special order which shall extend to such areas as the Provincial Government may, by notification, direct, provide fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1998)IIILLJ745SC; 1995Supp(1)SCC144
A.M. Ahmadi and; N. Venkatachala, JJ.1. The short question which arises in these two appeals is in regard to the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the suit challenging the imposition of penalty of withholding of certain increments on the delinquent having been found guilty of misconduct under the relevant Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that it had no jurisdiction since according to it the case was covered by Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act read with Item No. 1 of Schedule III thereof. In appeal the learned Additional District Judge, Rohtak reversed this order of the trial court holding that the delinquent-plaintiffs had not contended breach of any standing orders but had merely contended that the impugned orders were governed under the 1952 Rules referred to earlier and, therefore, the right or liability arose under common law and hence attracted Principle No. 2 laid down in the judgment of this Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994Supp(3)SCC738
1. Leave granted.2. The appellant-tenant committed default in the payment of rent from March 1979 to March 1980 at the rate of Rs. 80 per mensem. The respondent landlord filed an application under Clause 13(3)(ii)of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, for short 'the Order'. The Rent Controller found that the respondent being the neighbour has been receiving the rent without any objection and therefore the appellant is not a habitual defaulter. The appellate authority reversed the finding and granted permission for serving notice to eject the appellant. In a writ petition filed under Article 226, the High Court affirmed that finding. On further LPA, the Division Bench in the impugned order dated October 14, 1986 affirmed the order directing permission to determine the tenancy. Thus this appeal by special leave.3. In S.P. Deshmukh v. Shah Nihar Chand Waghajibhai Gujarati : (1977) 3 SCC 515, this Court held that:Normally, a monthly tenant is under an obligatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994Supp(2)SCC397
K. Jayachandra Reddy and; G.N. Ray, JJ.1. The appellant, Jangir Kaur, has been found guilty under Section 314 read with Section 107 IPC and sentenced to undergo four years' RI and to pay a fine of Rs 500, in default, to undergo six months' RI. She along with one Phulan Devi were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge and both were convicted. They preferred an appeal to the High Court which was dismissed. The SLP filed by Phulan Devi was rejected and only leave was granted to the appellant. Hence the present appeal.2. The prosecution case is as follows. One lady, Hamir Kaur wife of PW 4 Teja Singh had 2½ or 3 months' old pregnancy. She wanted to get it terminated as she had already three issues. At that time, she consulted the appellant and on her advice on 12-7-1981 Hamir Kaur went to the house of the appellant and both came to the house of Phulan Devi, the other accused. Phulan Devi tried to cause the miscarriage for about an hour. Hamir Kaur felt acute pain and the operation r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1991LabIC213; 1994Supp(3)SCC694
ORDERK. Ramswamy and N.P. Singh, JJ1. The appellant was inducted in 1949 as a tenant on the ground floor admeasuring 408 sq. ft. of the premises known as Bharat Building, at 8, Darya Ganj, Delhi on monthly tenancy at a rent of Rs. 15 excluding electricity and water charges. Notice was issued to the appellant determining the tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, action was initiated under Section 5(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 for short 'the Act' for eviction of the appellant from unauthorised occupation. The appellant filed Writ Petition No. 2391 of 1983 in the Delhi High Court. The Division Bench summarily dismissed it on October 28, 1983. Thus this appeal, by special leave.2. Shri R.K. Jain learned senior counsel for the appellant contends that the respondent-Corporation being a public authority,' before initiating the action under Section 5 of the Act, is enjoined to assign reasons which must be just and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994Supp(2)SCC398
K. Jayachandra Reddy and; G.N. Ray, JJ.1. The appellant has been convicted under Section 9 of the Opium Act and sentenced to three years' RI and to pay a fine of Rs 5000, in default to undergo six months' RI. He was found in possession 23 kgs of opium. In the appeal before the High Court the only question raised was that though occurrence took place on 31-5-1974 challan was filed on 29-8-1977, therefore, no cognizance could have been taken in view of Section 468 CrPC. The High Court has considered this aspect and after referring to Section 473 CrPC held that in the facts and circumstances of the case the court can take cognizance if the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary to do so in the interest of justice. In any event in this case an application was filed for condoning the delay and also explaining the delay at a later stage. According to the learned counsel for the appellant such an application was filed only after almost at the time of conclusion of trial and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC834; JT1993(5)SC459; 1994LabIC70; (1994)ILLJ668SC; 1993(3)SCALE894; 1994Supp(1)SCC1; [1993]Supp2SCR540
ORDERK. Jayachandra Reddy, J.1. Some of the employees unions, who figure a respondents herein, filed a batch of writ petitions challenging the validity of a Notification dated 9.10.92 issued by the Industries, Energy and Labour Department of the State Government of Maharashtra exercising the powers conferred by Section 13 of The Maharashtra Workmen's Minimum House-Rent Allowance Act, 1983 ('Act' for short). A Division Bench of the High Court declared the impugned Notification as invalid, unenforceable and accordingly quashed the same and also directed the employers, who figured as respondents before the High Court, to refund the amount recovered form the workmen on the basis of the impugned Notification. M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd., Batloiboi & Co. and others ('Companies' for short) have filed these two S.L.Ps. questioning the judgment of the High Court. These S.L.Ps. are being disposed of at the admission stage itself. Some other Employees' Unions have filed LA. Nos. 3-4-5-6 for being i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994Supp(3)SCC656
K. Jayachandra Reddy and; G.N. Ray, JJ.1. The appellant, Ram Pal (original accused 4) a Head Constable was tried along with seven others for offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 IPC. The trial court convicted him under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs 200, in default of payment of which to further undergo RI for two months. The other five were also convicted by the trial court. Two co-accused namely Lakhmi Chand, Head Constable and Balwan Singh, Constable were acquitted by the trial court. The convicted accused preferred appeals to the High Court and the same were dismissed by the High Court.2. The prosecution case is that prosecutrix PW 3, a married woman aged about 20 years was residing at Ellenabad. On August 15, 1981 i.e. on Rakhi day, she went to Sirsa from her village to tie Rakhi to her brother PW 10 but he was not there. She thought of going back to her village. On the way three of the accused met her whom she kne...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC495; JT1993(5)SC439; 1993(3)SCALE887; 1994Supp(1)SCC250; [1993]Supp2SCR529; 1994(1)SLJ107(SC); (1994)1UPLBEC101
ORDERA.M. Ahmadi, J. 1. These appeals by special leave are directed against the decision rendered by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal on February 9, 1993 where by it directed the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (for short 'ACC') to reconsider the suitability of respondent No. 1 S.K. Bhargava for appointment to the post of Chief Controller of Explosives without taking into consideration the adverse remarks made in the year 1987 and the outcome of the Central Bureau of Investigation's (for short 'CBI') enquiry in which he was exonerated and in the light of the observations contained in its judgment. The facts giving rise to these two appeals, briefly stated are as under.2. Shri B.R. Dave, the Chief Controller of Explosives superannuated on June 30, 1984 but as no suitable candidate was available for appointment to the post he was granted re-employment for a period of one year i.e., from w.e.f. July 1, 1985. On his vacating the post w.e.f. July 1, 1985 as n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1190; 2008(14)SCALE546; (1994)2SCC57
1. The unsuccessful plaintiff-appellant laid the suit for perpetual injunction to restrain the respondent's uncles from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit scheduled property. The trial court by its Judgment dated November 30, 1973 dismissed the suit. Pending appeal, the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act 1 of 1974 came into force making extensive amendments to the Karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961 for short 'the Act'. Section 45A conferred jurisdiction on the Tribunal constituted under the Act to decide the question of tenancy and nature of the agricultural land and the Civil Court was directed under Section 133 to make a reference calling for a report from the Tribunal and on receipt thereof to decide the other questions in the suit. The learned District Judge by his order referred the matter to the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the tenancy was in favour of the joint family and not to the appellant. Based thereon the District Judge dismissed the appeal. In...
Tag this Judgment!