Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1993(5)SC454a; (1994)ILLJ136SC; 1993(3)SCALE884
ORDER1. These appeals and the special leave petition have been filed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation' which is constituted under the provisions of Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950. The respondents in these matters were employees of the Corporation. Their services were terminated on charges of misconduct. They filed civil suits seeking declaration that the termination of their services was null and void and that they should be treated under employment of the Corporation. The orders of termination were assailed on the ground that the same had been passed in contravention of the Standing Orders framed by the Corporation under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act as well as Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The said suits have been decreed by the courts below.2. The question which has been raised by the Corporation is with regard to jurisdiction of the civil courts to entertain the suits. It has been urged tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994Supp(3)SCC693
K. Ramaswamy and; N. Venkatachala, JJ.1. The appellant is a divorced wife of the tenant Mr Sudesh Kumar. The notice of termination of tenancy for non-payment of rent was issued to the tenant and a suit for ejectment was also laid against him. The appellant has paid the rent on behalf of the divorced husband and she deposited the arrears stating that she is a tenant under Section 2(l) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. All the courts below have concurrently found against the appellant that she is not a tenant. The S.A.O. No. 184 of 1981 was dismissed by the High Court on July 20, 1981. Thus this appeal by special leave.2. Shri T.S. Arora, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the divorce results in legal death of the other spouse and therefore Section 2(l) is attracted. We find no substance in the contention. Two conditions precedent, necessary for application of Section 2(l), are that there should be a mortal death of the tenant and the legal representatives residing under t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1033; 1993CriLJ3063; 1993(3)Crimes550(SC); JT1993(5)SC375; 1993(3)SCALE854; (1994)1SCC536; [1993]Supp2SCR406
ORDERS. Mohan, J.1. The Special Leave Petition is directed against the order made in Crl. Misc. Petition No. 328 of 1988 before the High Court of Kerala. The respondent herein filed the said Crl. Misc. Petition against the officers of Cinnamon Town Police and others alleging criminal assault on his printing press. In that petition he sought a direction to investigate into the matter by an impartial agency.2. The short facts are Maniyeri Madhavi is a journalist and is the editor of newspaper by name 'Sudinam Evening Daily'. He complained of an attack on his person and property at the instance of the police officers of the State. The High Court in a writ petition filed by him considered it necessary that the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Northern Range, be directed to look into the complaint of the petitioner making a representation in that behalf. He approached this Court praying for an investigation by the C.B.I. This Court did not give the direction. However, a direction was giv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1311; JT1993(3)SC561; 1993(3)SCALE927; (1994)1SCC648; [1993]Supp2SCR415
ORDERS. Mohan, J.1. All these cases can be dealt with under a common judgment since what is under attack is the fixation of price of levy sugar under orders issued under Section 3(3C) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. To highlight the points in issue we will refer to the facts of the case relating to the State of Karnataka.3. C.A. Nos. 122-123 of 1981 and C.A. Nos. 1253-57 of 1977: In these appeals two sugar orders are 1975-76 and 1977-78.4. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of the Act, the Central Government on 15th June, 1972 promulgated the Levy Sugar Supply (Control) order of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Levy Order). That provides for compulsory supply or sale of sugar from a producer or a recognised dealer of a specified quantity to a person or organisation or to such State Government as it may direct from time to time. Under the said Levy Order, the Central Government issues release orders to the producers or ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1998)IIILLJ744SC; 1995Supp(1)SCC148
P.B. Sawant,; S. Mohan and; S.P. Bharucha, JJ.1. The appellants are employees of the respondent-Mint and are also in occupation of the official quarters. They filed a claim under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the labour court for calculating their overtime wages on the basis of their basic wages plus the house rent allowance to which, according to them, they were entitled. Their contention was that even if they were occupying the official accommodation, since under the rules they were entitled to house rent allowance when no official accommodation was given to them, under Section 59(2) of the Factories Act the overtime wages payable to them should be calculated taking into consideration the house rent allowance as well. The labour court accepted their contention and granted the appellants' claim. However, in writ petition filed by the respondents, the High Court held that since the appellants were occupying the official accommodation, they were not entitle...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC205; JT1993(5)SC391; 1993(3)SCALE834; 1994Supp(1)SCC160
ORDERS.C. Agrawal, J.1. These cases raise common questions involving challenge to the validity of the notification dated November 3, 1988 issued by the Government of India, whereby the earlier notification dated July 23, 1983 was amended and item No. 14 of the drugs specified in the Table in the said notification was substituted so as to prohibit completely the manufacture and sale of fixed dose combination of steroids with other drugs for internal use. The said notification has been issued in exercise of the power conferred by Section 26-A of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In the said notification, it has been stated that the Central Government is now satisfied that long term use of steroids in fixed dose combinations for treatment of asthma is likely to involve risk to human beings and such formulations do not have therapeutic justification and further that it is necessary and expedient in public interest to prohibit the manufacture and sale o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1187; 1993CriLJ1103; 1994Supp(3)SCC653
K. Jayachandra Reddy, J.1. Thirteen accused convicted by the High Court preferred a special leave petition. This Court granted leave only in respect of Original Accused Nos. 4, 9, 12 and 13 i.e. Petitioners Nos. 10, 11, 12 and 13 and dismissed the same in respect of others. Those four petitioners (Nos. 10,11,12and 13) are the appellants in this appeal before us. An incident took place on 3-6-1979 at about 11.30 a.m. at village Matoda, Ahmedabad District, during the course of which one Cheha Mana, the deceased in the case, was killed and two other persons who figured as P.Ws. 1 and 4 received a number of injuries on vital parts. In relation to this incident, 14 accused were challaned and tried for offences punishable Under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Sections 149, 324 and Section 323 read with Section 149, I.P.C. The Trial Court acquitted A-4, A-9, A-12, A-13 and A-14 and convicted the remaining accused Under Section. 326 read with Section 149, I.P.C. and also under Sections 324 an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(1)SCC152
Order 1. Naicker, respondent in appeal herein, instituted a suit for declaration and possession in respect of the property in dispute against Mari, the appellant-defendant, before us in this appeal. The suit was dismissed by the trial court. The lower appellate court upheld the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. The High Court, however, in second appeal reversed the findings of the two courts below and decreed the suit. 2. The facts in a nutshell are that Mari agreed to purchase the property in dispute from Kandappa Gounder by way of the agreement dated October 17, 1966. According to Mari he fell short of money and as such approached Naicker and borrowed a sum of Rs 4000 from him and as a security for the loan he got the sale deed executed in favour of Naicker on April 9, 1967 in respect of the property in dispute. Thereafter, Naicker entered into an agreement dated April 9, 1967 with Mari to sell the same property to him. It is further not disputed that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994Supp(3)SCC719
K. Ramaswamy and; N. Venkatachala, JJ.1. This appeal arises from the judgment dated November 16, 1978 of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in appeal A.A.D. No. 1271 of 1966. The facts, in brief, are that the appellant is the owner of the demised site granted to Mohammadin & Bros., the tenant for use and occupation. The lease was of March 13, 1939. The tenant raised structures on the site and was in enjoyment of them. The appellant filed Title Suit No. 76 of 1953 against the tenant for ejectment from the demised site and for mesne profits. A preliminary decree was made on November 12, 1953 directing recovery of Khas possession subject to the appellant's paying compensation for the structures which had to be determined either by mutual agreement or by an order of the court. Since there was no mutual agreement, a final decree was made on August 22, 1957 directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs 1390 as compensation towards the value of the structures. That final decree was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1994)1SCC680
M.N. Venkatachaliah, C.J.,; A.M. Ahmadi,; J.S. Verma,; G.N. Ray and; S.P. Bhar, JJ.1. By these applications the applicants seek certain directions from the Court to the Government of India and the authorised persons to make proper arrangements for preserving and conserving the archaeological objects in the possession of the authorities related to the disputed structure and further to direct the authorities to carry out certain scientific tests to determine their age and other incidents said to be relevant to controversy in the Reference.2. Having regard to the present stage of the proceedings and the yet undecided preliminary issue as to the very maintainability of the reference itself, it appears to us appropriate that while we grant the first prayer as to preservation of the objects, however, the consideration of the second prayer should be deferred till an appropriate later stage.3. Accordingly, these interlocutory applications are disposed of with a direction to the Union Governmen...
Tag this Judgment!