Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994Supp(2)SCC585
S. Mohan and; M.K. Mukherjee, JJ.1. The short facts relating to the civil appeal are as under:2. The suit property was mortgaged by Respondent 1, Shankar Das with Budha Ram who is the father of defendants 1 to 4 (respondents 2 to 5 herein). The mortgage was for a sum of Rs 6000 and it was a usufructuary mortgage in relation to the shop covered by this appeal. Budha Ram leased out the shop in favour of Shankar Dass mortgagor-plaintiff. In other words, there was lease back in favour of the mortgagor. The mortgagor has subleased it in favour of the appellant Des Raj Om Parkash. The mortgagee obtained the decree against the mortgagor for eviction for non-payment of rent. That decree came to be executed. He took possession of the shop. At this stage, the appellant executed a rent-note in favour of the mortgagee. The mortgage came to be redeemed later on. Thereafter, the present suit came to be filed. The trial court and the court of first appeal held that the appellant would continue to be ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994Supp(2)SCC467
B.P. Jeevan Reddy and; B.L. Hansaria, JJ.1. This appeal was filed by Mrs Urmila Kapoor. She died about two yeas ago whereupon the office sent a notice to the sole appellant to make alternative arrangements. The Office Report says that the acknowledgement card duly signed in token of the receipt of the notice has been received from the sole appellant but he has not entered appearance. The Office Report is dated 11-1-1994. The record shows that the notice was sent on 11-9-1993. Since no one appears for the appellant, we have perused the record with the help of the learned counsel for the respondents.2. The appellant was an Income Tax Officer. Five charges were framed against him. In June 1977, the inquiry was held. At the conclusion of the inquiry, a notice was served upon him proposing to remove him from service. At that stage, he filed a writ petition in the J & K High Court which allowed the same and quashed the inquiry proceedings. A de novo inquiry was ordered. Accordingly, fres...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994Supp(2)SCC638
S. Mohan and; M.K. Mukherjee, 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 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1998(4)SC440; 1994(2)SCALE553; (1994)5SCC239
ORDER1. The appellant admittedly was a lessee of Nazul land admeasuring 3.1 acres of thereabout situated at Block No. 160 in Delhi having had perpetual lease from the Government of India on June 14, 1934 on payment of premium of Rs. 10,850/- and annual rent with stipulations that 'and of the land hereinafter reserved and of the convenants on the part of the lessee hereafter contained, the lessor does hereby demised unto the lessee all the plot of land containing....' He was also entitled to retain the demised land in perpetuity subject to the right of the lessor to enhance the rent and the right to re-entry upto the demised land on breach of the covenants. The appellant with permission of the lessor constructed a building on the demised land and was in its quiet enjoyment, complying with the covenants. By a notification dated March 5, 1967 published in the Gazette under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short the Act, the demised land together with the building; along...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(3)SCC231
ORDER 1. The respondent, Shivram Mahadu Gaikwad, was employed as a Daily Wager (casual employee) in the service of the Post and Telegraph Department of the Government of India. His last appointment was of 24-3-1986. He reported for work till 22-9-1986 and thereafter he did not turn up for work altogether. He was, therefore, discharged from service w.e.f. 7-10-1986. He produced a medical certificate on 25-10-1986 purporting to state that he was suffering from schizophrenia. However, nothing further happened thereafter till 1990 when he filed a petition in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, claiming to be a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He also contended that since the Post and Telegraph Department was an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) of that Act, the employer was bound to follow the procedure outlined in Section 25-F which was not followed even though he had completed 240 days of service, a fact which...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1059
1. The appellant Gursharan Singh filed a suit for declaration that his claim based on seniority for promotion to the next higher post was wrongly ignored while promoting respondent Jit Singh by order dated February 19, 1979 given effect to from February 14, 1979. This, he contended, was by reason of the fact that Jit Singh who was transferred to his unit on compassionate grounds was wrongly shown as senior to him notwithstanding the fact that under the relevant rules a person transferred to another unit on compassionate grounds ranks junior to the junior-most in that unit. The learned trial Judge while answering the issues framed in this behalf came to the conclusion that Jit Singh had himself sought transfer on compassionate grounds as per his representation Exhibit D-1. It is also found on record that while granting transfer on the representation of Jit Singh it was clearly stated that no TA/DA would be admissible to him as the posting had been ordered at his own request. Although th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1994(1)SC90; 1994(1)SCALE25; (1994)2SCC283; (1994)1UPLBEC468
ORDERWe have heard both Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr Adv. and Mr. B.V. Acharya, learned Advocate General of the Suite of Karnataka at length. We have also had the benefit of the arguments on behalf of the University Grants Commission.As on today a good deal of academic year had passed. The grant of status as 'Deemed University' in favour of the petitioner has resulted in complexities. In order that the rights of the students to get admitted, may not be further delayed, we pass the following order only in respect of the academic year 1993-94 as an ad hoc measure.1. The State of Karnataka has placed before us a table showing range of marks obtained in PUC or equivalent examination by students admitted to First M.B.B.S. course in Kasturba Medical College, Mangalore and Kasturba Medical College, Manipal during this academic year 1993-94 on the basis of a common entrance test. That table shows 52 students have obtained above 90% marks, 100 students have scored above 80% but below 90% of marks. In ad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1994)ILLJ162bSC; 1994Supp(2)SCC391
ORDERSawant, J.1. This group of matters is at the instance of various parties, viz., Union of India, Public Sector Corporations, Public Sector Banks, State Governments and two private parties. By an order dated August 5, 1991 in Managing Director, Electronic Corporation of India v. B. Karu-nakar ST 1992(3) SC 605 a three Judge Bench of this Court referred that matter to the Chief Justice for being placed before a larger Bench, for the Bench found a conflict in the two decisions of this Court, viz., Kailash Chander Asthana etc. etc. v. State of U.P. and Ors. etc. etc. : (1988)IILLJ219SC and Union of India and Ors. v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan : (1991)ILLJ29SC both delivered by the Benches of three learned Judges. Civil Appeal No. 3056 of 1991 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 12103 of 1991 along with the other matters in which the same question of law is in issue, has, therefore, been referred to this Bench.2. The basic questions of law which arises in these matters is whether the report of the In...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994Supp(2)SCC468
B.P. Jeevan Reddy and; B.L. Hansaria, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent. The respondent was the Branch Manager in the State Bank of India, Bhopal branch. A disciplinary inquiry was held against him in respect of six charges. The Enquiry Officer held charges 1 and 5 established but held that charges 2, 3, 4 and 6 were not established. After perusing the report of the Enquiry Officer the disciplinary authority agreed with the Enquiry Officer that charges 1 and 5 are established and charges 3 and 4 are not established. So far as charge 2 is concerned he disagreed with the Enquiry Officer. The disciplinary authority held that the said charge to have been fully established. So far as charge 6 is concerned, he again disagreed with the Enquiry Officer and held it partially established. Accordingly, he imposed the punishment of removal from service by an order dated 8-5-1984. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994(1)SCALE633; 1994Supp(2)SCC479
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is preferred against the order of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowing the Writ Petition on the only ground that copy of the Enquiry Officer's Report was not supplied to the respondent-delinquent officer before imposing the punishment. A few facts need be stated.3. The respondent was appointed as a clerk in the appellant-Bank (State Bank of Hyderabad). On October 16, 1976, he was promoted to the post of Officer Grade II. In the year 1981, he was working as Grade I Officer at Sangareddy Branch. With respect to his work at the said branch certain complaints were received and after obtaining his explanation, three charges framed against him. An Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into those charges. After holding the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer held that charges 1 & 2 are not proved but Charge No. 3 is proved.4. The matter was placed before the disciplinary authority as required by Sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 68 of St...
Tag this Judgment!