Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC943; [1995(70)FLR286]; JT1995(1)SC138; 1995LabIC1069; (1995)ILLJ882SC; 1994(4)SCALE1023; (1995)1SCC181; [1994]Supp5SCR643; 1995(1)SLJ145(SC)
ORDER1. The Employees, Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, hereinafter the 'Act', was enacted to serve beneficent purpose and it does constitute a welfare measure, as it seeks to create a fund which could be drawn upon by certain categories of employees working in factories and some establishments to meet pressing demands so also to provide pension after the employees have ceased to be in service. So the Act has to be construed in such a way, in case two views be possible, which advances the object. This has been the outlook of the court for over three decades by now, as the same was first focussed in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Sri Krishna Metal Manufacturing Co. and was reiterated in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Shibu Metal Works .2. The purpose of the aforesaid prologue is to find out as to when power under Section 14-B of the Act should be allowed to be used and whether it would in consonance with the object sought to be achieved by the Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC2114; 1995(1)CTC465; JT1995(1)SC247; 1994(4)SCALE1106; (1995)1SCC519; [1994]Supp5SCR666
ORDERBharucha, J.Civil Appeal No. 3312 of 1981.1. This appeal by special leave is filed by the State of Tamil Nadu against the judgment and order of the High Court of Madras dated 9th September, 1981, whereby the Tamil Nadu Acquisition of Land for Harijan Welfare Schemes Act, 1978, was struck down as being ultra-vires the Constitution of India. The High Court came to the conclusion that the said Act did not enjoy the protection of Articles 31C or 31A and that it was violative of Articles 14, 19 and 300A of the Constitution.2. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the said Act was not violative of Articles 14 or 19 or 300A and that, in any event, it was protected by reason of Article 31A. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the said Act was violative of Article 14 inasmuch as it was enacted to acquire lands for a purpose which could as well be served by the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and that a comparison of the provisions of the said Act wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1994(7)SC706; 1994(4)SCALE1031; 1994Supp(3)SCC711; [1994]Supp5SCR605; 1995(1)SLJ163(SC); 1995(1)LC154(SC)
ORDER1. The Petitioner - R.C. Sood is a member of Higher Judicial Service in the State of Rajasthan and is a senior District and Sessions Judge. The petitioner was posted as Registrar of the Rajasthan High Court from 1.7.1989 to 1.2.1994; as the District and Sessions Judge at Jodhpur from 2.2.1994 to 4.6.1994; and as the District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur from 6.6.1994. By an order dated 22nd October, 1994 (Annexure 'A') the petitioner was placed under suspension with immediate effect by the Rajasthan High Court in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 as a consequence of the decision taken by the Full Court in its meeting held on the 20th and 21st October, 1994. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the suspension order and the entire disciplinary proceedings on which it is based.2. The material facts emerging from the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994(5)SCALE252; (1995)2SCC40; [1994]Supp5SCR614; 1995(2)SLJ20(SC); 1995(1)LC646(SC)
ORDER1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. The admitted facts are that the respondent was appointed on adhoc basis on May 20. 1969 as a Junior Engineer in Junagadh, District Panchayat. Thereafter the Panchayat Services Selection Board was constituted to recruit the candidates for regular appointment. The Board selected and recommended the candidates for regular appointment among whom the respondent was one of the selected candidates. As per the provisional seniority list, the respondent was considered for temporary promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer and was appointed on March 6,1978. Thereafter it would appear that the service of the person working in the Panchayats has been provisionalised and the common seniority list was prepared of the employees belonging to the State service as well as the Panchayat Departments. Therein, the respondent's name had figured at Serial No. 69. After issuing show cause notice to all the persons and after considering their objections, the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(3)SCC146
P.B. Sawant and; G.N. Ray, JJ.1. The respondent had entered into an agreement with the appellant for execution of the work of restoration of scoured bank of Balibandha and retired line to protect Naraj Weir, being Agreement No. 32 F-2 of 1976-77. The respondent did not complete the work within the extended time and did not fully execute the work according to the appellant. There were disputes between the parties.2. According to the appellant, the respondent contractor wrote a letter dated 28-4-1977 in which the respondent stated that his total claim is Rs 37,106. According to the appellant, at the request of the respondent, he was paid Rs 38,396 and a sum of Rs 3710 was withheld.3. Ultimately on account of the disputes between the parties, the respondent, by his letter dated 15-9-1977, requested the Chief Engineer of the appellant to appoint an arbitrator under clause 23 of the contract which was a clause for reference of disputes between the parties to arbitration. Clause 23 of the co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC1121; 1994(5)SCALE338; (1995)1SCC465; [1994]Supp5SCR617; 1995(1)LC258(SC)
1. Leave granted.2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Allahabad High Court in CMWP No. 2669/90 dated 11.11.1992. The admitted facts are that one Hariram Yadav, while working as clerk, went on leave. In the leave vacancy, the respondent came to be appointed till Hariram Yadav joined the duty. By resolution dated 28.12.1986, the Managing Committee resolved that even after Hariram Yadav joins duty on 1.5.87, the service of the respondent would be continued uninterruptedly. It is stated in the counter affidavit filed in this Court that the approval of the District Inspector of Schools was also obtained in that behalf. But no supporting material has been placed before us. The valid appointment of the non-teaching staff of a private aided institution to be valid, should be in accordance with the relevant rules. Since the validity of the appointment of the additional cleric is not in issue, we need not deal with the matt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC2113; 1995Supp(3)SCC402
1. Leave granted. Heard.2. The appellant was Advocate General of the State of Tamil Nadu. Writ Petition No. 4167 of 1994 and writ Miscellaneous Petition No. 9612 of 1994 were filed by one Ponnusami, Respondent No. 1 herein challenging his appointment as Advocate General. In that writ petition, a preliminary objection was raised to the maintainability of the writ petition. Prior to the impugned order dated 19-4-1994 (reported in : AIR1995Mad78 ) made by Justice Kanakaraj of the Madras High Court holding that the writ petition was maintainable, earlier the same morning at 8-30 a.m. the appellant (Respondent No. 2 in the writ petition) tendered his resignation from the office of Advocate General. However, the intimation of this fact was not given to the High Court before the impugned order was pronounced that day. It is common ground before us that the said writ petition has now become infructuous on account of the fact that the appellant has resigned the office of Advocate General. The s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1994(7)SC483; 1994(4)SCALE1011; 1995Supp(1)SCC410; [1994]Supp5SCR593; [1995]96STC602(SC)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. A common question arises in these matters. Civil Appeal No. 1635 of 1937 is preferred against the judgment of Allahabad High Court allowing Writ Petition (C) No. 914 of 1936 filed by the Union Of India. Civil Appeal No. 5021 of 1989 is preferred against the ] judgment of the same High Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 2858 of 1987 (filed by the Northern Railway City Booking Agency and Anr.) allowing the writ petition following the judgment in Writ Petition (C) No. 914 of 1986. The writ petitions were filed later saying that they raised the very point involved in Civil Appeal No. 1635 of 1987. The matter arises under the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act. It would be enough if we refer to the facts in Civil Appeal No. 1635 of 1987 and indicate how the common question of law arises.2. Writ Petition (C) No. 914 of 1986 was filed by (1) Union of India through General Manager, Northern Railway and (2) City Booking Agency, Bhoosa Toll, Kanpur, represented by M/s. Komal Prasad ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995(75)ELT24(SC); JT1994(7)SC503; 1994(4)SCALE1007; (1995)1SCC251; 1995(1)LC21(SC)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. Leave granted. 2. Heard the Counsel for both the parties. 3. Respondent Phool Singh filed a declaration of his agricultural holding as required by and under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960. After an appropriate inquiry, the Prescribed Authority determined his holding. According to the said determination, he was holding surplus land to the extent of 8.26 acres of irrigated land. While determining his holding, it is necessary to mention, the lands transferred by him in favour of the appellant Ravindra Singh and his wife Smt. Kamla Devi under sale-deeds dated 2.9.75 (in respect of 6 acres 66 decimal of land) and dated 3.9.75 (in respect of 6 acres 67 decimals of land) were included in his holding, inasmuch as the said sale-deeds were subsequent to 24th January, 1971. This was done following the provision in Sub-section (6) of Section 5 of the Act, which reads as follows: (6) In determining the ceiling area applicable to a tenure-holder, an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1996)9SCC406
ORDER 1. Special leave granted. 2. Heard both sides. According to us, all that the impugned judgment holds is that an order passed under Section 18 of the Army Act can be challenged on the ground of mala fides. This statement of law is unexceptional. However, it is for the person who challenges it on the ground of mala fides, to make out a prima facie case in that behalf. It is only if he discharges the said burden, that the Government is called upon to show that it is not passed in the mala fide exercise of its powers. While doing so, the Government is not precluded from claiming the privilege in respect of the material which may be in its possession and on the basis of which the order is passed. The Government may also choose to show the material only to the court. With regard to the pleadings in respect of the challenge to the order on the ground of mala fides, no particular formula can be laid down. The pleadings will depend upon the facts of each case. 3. The app...
Tag this Judgment!