Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994Supp(2)SCC666; (1996)1UPLBEC347
P.B. Sawant and; N.P. Singh, JJ.1. Though the appellant-landlord succeeded in the trial court, that success was actually short-lived. The High Court reversed the decree. The landlord obtained a decree for eviction on the ground of bona fide need. His plea in the plaint was that he was a Karta of the joint family of two branches, namely, Sureshwar Sahay and Madheshwar Sahay. However, as PW 1 he deposed as under :The disputed house stands in the names of Sureshwar Sahay and Madheshwar Sahay. Prior to them, this house belonged to their mother, namely, Indramani Kunwar. She has a daughter, namely, Girja Devi. The name of Girja Devi was not entered in mutation because she did not raise any objection. In 1982, Indramani Kunwar had died. I am a Karta of the family of Madheshwar Sahay. The disputed land belongs to both of the brothers. I am a Karta Khandan of half share. There is no written partition but verbal partition has been made. I have not instituted a case on behalf of all the landlord...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1343; [1994(68)FLR443]; JT1994(1)SC281; (1994)ILLJ597SC; 1994(0)MPLJ415; 1994(1)SCALE264; (1994)2SCC323; [1994]1SCR433; 1994(3)SLJ206(SC); 1994(2)LC73(SC); (1994)1
ORDERN.P. Singh, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the High Court, dismissing the writ application filed on behalf of the appellant for quashing the order of termination of his services, during the period of probation. 2. The appellants was appointed as Development Officer by the respondent. Life Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'), on probation for a period of one year from 23.5.1984 to 22.5.1985. The period of probation of the appellant was extended for a further period of one year from 23.5.1985 to 22.5.1986. Clauses 3 to 5 of the order of appointment deal with the code of the conduct to be followed: Clauses 6 to 9 deal with tours, advance deposits, record of work and collection of premiums; Clause 10 deals with the minimum business that the appellant was expected to do during the period specified, Clause 11 deals with confirmation and is as follows: 11. CONFIRMATION AND INCREMENTS(i) On your satisfactorily completing the period...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994Supp(3)SCC81
K. Ramaswamy and; B.L. Hansaria, JJ.1. Special leave granted.2. We have heard counsel for the parties. The applicant's specific case is that he has written in the exams well and the procedure prescribed indicate that he should attach his name-slip to the answer-book. On 5-8-1987, he made a representation that his name-slip was removed from the answer-book and attached to the answer-sheet of a person bearing the same name but no inquiry was made. In the year 1989, when he was not called for interview for ranking, since his name did not find place among the qualified candidates called for interview, he made a representation. Still no action was taken nor was he called for interview. Therefore, he filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking direction to the respondents to interview him for the merit list for selection as a Sub-Inspector. The High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine. Thus, this appeal by special leave.3. In the counter-affidavit filed in this Court, it was stat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1775; 1994(2)ALT(Cri)173; 1994(2)BLJR912; [1995]82CompCas103(SC); 1994CriLJ2269; 1994(1)Crimes892(SC); 1994(46)ECC255; 1994(70)ELT12(SC); JT1994(1)SC290; 1994(3)SCC440
ORDERS. Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. The salient and indeed substantial legal question which looms for determination in this appeal may be formulated as follows :Whether a Magistrate before whom a person arrested under Sub-section (1) of Section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act of 1973 which is in pari materia with Sub-section (1) of Section 104 of the Customs Act of 1962, is produced under Sub-section (2) of Section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, has jurisdiction to authorise detention of that person Under Section 167(2) of the CrPC ?2. As a preclude to the judgment, we would like to state that though the appellant in the present case has been arrested under Sub-section (1) of Section 35 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'FERA') and taken to the Magistrate under Sub-section (2) thereof, we while disposing the legal questions posed for determination, are inclined to deal with the corresponding provisions under the Customs Act also f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994Supp(2)SCC693
K. Ramaswamy and; N. Venkatachala, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. Heard learned counsel. These appeals arise from the common judgment dated 30-7-1993 of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 6901 and connected writ petitions including Writ Petition No. 6637 of 1993. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, exercising its power under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act (Amendment Act 11 of 1992), for short ‘the Act’, imposed taxes on stage carriages and contract carriages at varied rates through GOMs No. 75, dated 27-4-1993. The impost was upheld by the said common judgment. SLP No. 13086 of 1993 filed by one of the writ petitioners, aggrieved against the said common judgment of the High Court, when came up for hearing on 3-9-1993 before this Bench, we dismissed it after hearing the counsel. When the present SLPs directed against the same judgment of the High Court were placed before another Bench of this Court, they were ordered to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994(3)ALT41(SC); JT1994(3)SC339; 1994(2)SCALE487; (1994)4SCC659; [1994]1SCR429
ORDER1. The Office Report and also the affidavit of dasti service would prove that respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 have been served by usual mode and respondent Nos. 3, 5, 6 and 7 refused to receive notice even by dasti. Under these circumstances, the service in the S.L.P. is complete. When the case was called, no one appeared for them, nor did they appear in person.2. Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the appellants.3. The appellants are the first party in the reference proceedings under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act which relates to an extent of Acre 33.09 gunthas of land in Chintagattu Village, Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh, acquired due to submersion of Pochampadu Project. After determination of compensation, since the appellants claimed l/4th share therein and was objected to by the 2nd party/respondents, the Collector made a reference under Section 30 and it is now pending decision therein. The title of the appellants to claim compensation is based on the entries i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(3)SCC249
K. Ramaswamy and; B.L. Hansaria, JJ.1. Special leave granted.2. Since common questions of law and facts arise for decision in the cases, they are disposed of together. Ekatali village in Jharsuguda District in Orissa State was part of the erstwhile Sambalpur District. To lay the road from Jharsuguda to Belpahar a notification was published on 25-9-1962 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act excluding 4.19 acres in Plot No. 121, Khata No. 93 of the said village as that the land belongs to the Government. When the road was being laid, Respondent 1, hereinafter the respondent, had objected to and represented on 7-4-1982 to the Government that he is a tenant in that land having a patta from Gokulanand Lambardar Gountia on 12-10-1944 and ever since he had been in its possession and enjoyment. The Additional District Magistrate in his letter dated 6-10-1982 sent his report and the Board of Revenue issued a notice to the respondent in O.E.A. Revision Case No. 37 of 1989 to show cause ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(4)SCC631
A.M. Ahmadi and; Yogeshwar Dayal, JJ.1. We have heard learned counsel for the accused persons and we have perused the understanding arrived at by and between the parties subsequent to the event in question. The High Court did not act on the settlement as Salma did not appear in Court. This is clear from the penultimate paragraph of the High Court judgment. We, however, find that pursuant to that understanding Rs 10,000 have been deposited in a bank account in the name of the victim Salma. We also noticed that Salma stated before the Court that she has voluntarily entered into a settlement and that since then she is residing with her husband. We also passed an order on 20-8-1993 directing the Police Officer of the Police Station concerned to keep a vigil and forward a report to this Court at the end of three months. We have since received the report of the Police Officer stating that Salma is living with her husband without facing any difficulty. In view of the above we are satisfied th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994Supp(2)SCC537
Kuldip Singh and; Yogeshwar Dayal, JJ.1. N.A. Chauhan, respondent in the appeal herein, was working as a Postmaster in the service of the Union of India. On attaining the age of 55 years, he was served with a notice dated 23-4-1990 directing his premature retirement from service after the expiry of the notice period. Pursuant to the said notice he was retired from service by the order dated 26-7-1990. The respondent challenged the order of retirement before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench. The Tribunal allowed the application and set aside the order of retirement. This appeal by way of special leave is against the judgment dated 23-10-1992 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench.2. The order of retirement was challenged before the Tribunal on several grounds. The Tribunal, however, quashed the order of retirement on the short ground that the instructions dated 5-1-1978 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs providing time-schedule for reviewing the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(4)SCC73
A.M. Ahmadi and; N.P. Singh, JJ.1. The writ petitioner who was serving as Special Officer (Hindi) in the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance of the Government of India gave notice of his intention to seek voluntary retirement under Rule 48 of the Central Civil Service Pension Rules, w.e.f. 5-10-1979 by his letter dated 6-9-1979. He requested that the requirement of three months' notice may be waived and he may be allowed cash equivalent of the entire earned leave and half pay leave under Rule 39(6) of the Central Civil Service Leave Rules, 1972. This was followed by a letter dated 11-9-1979 wherein he emphasised that ‘leave’ due and pension are two distinct things, they are in the nature of ‘property’ and, therefore, while granting the cash equivalent of leave of both kinds no deduction can be made on account of the latter nor can half pay leave be made co-terminus with superannuation. On 3-10-1979 the petitioner was informed that while no deduction would...
Tag this Judgment!