Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1996)ILLJ10SC; 1995Supp(3)SCC212
ORDERJ.S. Verma, J.1. Leave granted. Heard on merits.2. The appellant was employed as Manager in the United Commercial Bank, Punjab at Chandigarh when he was dismissed from service by order dated February 6, 1986. His appeal against the order of dismissal having failed, he filed a writ petition in the High Court. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of dismissal on the ground that the same was passed in breach of the principles of natural justice. The management then preferred a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench which has been allowed. Hence this appeal by special leave.3. Admittedly, the disciplinary authority while making the order of dismissal stated as under:The presenting officer has submitted 28 exhibits, most of which are in the form of certificates of Shri Rajinder Paul and B.B. Bhatia, Officer and the then Assistant Manager of the branch, while one document (PEX-26) is in the form of inspection/investigation report of Shri V....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994Supp(2)SCC490
K. Ramaswamy and; B.L. Hansaria, JJ.1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. Heard counsel for the parties. The appellant was initially appointed as a Typist on 7-11-1974, and was regularised on 13-12-1976; and having become eligible for promotion as a Junior Section Grade Head Typist, he was promoted with effect from 7-11-1981. For promotion as a Senior Selection Grade Head Typist, rules require him to put in 5 years of service to become eligible for promotion. When his turn came as a reserved candidate (Scheduled Caste), he was considered by the Promotion Committee and was promoted on 13-1-1987. The respondent, a general candidate, though initially appointed as a Typist on 19-11-1960 and regularised on 12-2-1968 and was confirmed on 1-1-1969, claimed promotion in his own right as a general candidate. When he approached the Tribunal on the first instance, a statement appears to have been made on behalf of the State that his case will be considered according to rules. On that basis the Tr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1994(2)SC63; 1994(1)SCALE736; [1994]2SCR37; 1994(1)LC465(SC)
ORDERM.N. Venkatachaliah, C.J., S.R. Pandian, S. Mohan, G.N. Ray and Faizan Uddin, JJ.1. This is a reference dated 30.1.1985 under Article 317 of the Constitution of India by the President of India for inquiry and report as to whether Shri Megha Chandra Singh, Chairman of Manipur Public Service Commission, ought, on the ground of misbehaviour to be removed from the office of the Chairman of the Commission.The order of reference reads as under : Whereas the Chief Minister of Manipur has reported to the Government of India that he had been receiving complaint from different sources against Shri Megha Chandra Singh, Chairman, Manipur Public Service Commission, expressing doubts about his honesty and integrity.And whereas the Government of India felt it necessary that it should conduct a probe into the allegations through a central agency with a view to collecting such evidence as may be available and to satisfy itself that there is indeed a prima facie case, it entrusted the investigation...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994(2)ALT26(SC); JT1994(1)SC690; (1994)108PLR664; 1994(1)SCALE678; (1994)2SCC487
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated July 16, 1984 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in a second appeal. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are as under.2. One Inder Singh (since deceased) obtained an ex parte order from the Rent Controller for eviction of one Natha Singh, whom he claimed to be a tenant under him, from a factory situated at Gill Road, Ludhiana and in execution thereof took possession of the premises. Thereafter on September 28, 1973, the appellant herein filed an application seeking an order under Order XXI Rule 100 of the CPC ('Code' for short) alleging that he had been illegally dispossessed in execution of the order for eviction made against Natha Singh and praying for restoration of his possession. He contended that Inder Singh, Bhagwan Singh and Rattan Singh, who were the members of a joint Hindu family and were coparceners, were owners of the factory building in question. Bhagwan Singh, as one of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC2129; JT1994(1)SC679; 1994(1)SCALE665; (1994)5SCC14; [1994]2SCR20; 1994(2)LC208(SC)
ORDERG.N. Ray, J.1. Leave granted. Pursuant to the notice issued on the special leave petition No. 1687 of 1993, the respondent has entered appearance through counsel and the counter affidavit has also been filed.2. The appellant landlord is the owner of the suit premises being shop No. 142. Gandhiji Raod, Mayiladuthurai, Tamil Nadu. On June 15, 1971, the appellant landlord leased out the premises in question to Sri G. Vasanthan on a monthly rental of Rs. 400 with effect from June 15, 1971 and the appellant landlord sought eviction of the said tenant Vasanthan and filed a petition for eviction on April 22, 1975 under Section 14(1)(4) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Act) before the Rent Controller Mayiladuthurai. By an order dated December 12, 1975, the learned Rent Controller dismissed the said eviction proceeding being R.C.O.P. No. 9 of 1975. The appellant landlord preferred an appeal against the said order of the Rent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(1)SCC317
S. Mohan and; M.K. Mukherjee, JJ.1. In spite of strenuous arguments of Mr Ranjit Kumar that there is no necessity on the part of the tenant to re-tender the amount, on the refusal of the landlord we find that this is a clear case of default because the tenant had deducted the money-order commission. In such a case, the amount sent by money-order would not represent the true rent. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. No costs.2. As regards time to vacate the premises, both the learned counsel are agreed to the following :(i) The landlord will not levy execution for recovery of possession until 30-6-1994;(ii) This shall be subject to the condition that the tenant files usual undertaking within four weeks to deliver vacant possession on or before 30-6-1994....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(1)SCC319
S. Mohan and; M.K. Mukherjee, JJ.1. We are totally unable to accept the finding that merely because the tenant who was running a general provision store had changed his business to one of textile it would amount to change of user of premises. Therefore, we have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court. Accordingly, the judgment of the High Court is set aside. Civil appeal is allowed. No costs. However, in the interest of justice we hereby order that on and from 1-4-1994 the rent payable shall be Rs 500 per month for the premises in question. We also make it clear that if there are other grounds on which the landlady seeks eviction including the one relating to subletting which is stated to be a subsequent event, on which, we do not have sufficient material, that question is left open to be decided in appropriate proceedings.2. Whatever amount is deposited in this Court will be sent to Mr Santosh Tangri by means of Crossed Bank Draft within one week from to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(1)SCC324
S. Mohan and; M.K. Mukherjee, JJ.1. In this case all the courts below have held that the appellant has committed wilful default in payment of rent and directed eviction. What is argued before us is that there is no wilful default in payment of rent because for July and August 1976 when the landlord sent his agent, the amount was paid and likewise for the subsequent months he was expecting the agent of the landlord and when he failed to turn up, at the first hearing he deposited the rent. We are unable to agree with this submission. Law throws an obligation on the tenant to pay the rent properly within a specified date. He cannot expect the agent of the landlord to come and on his failure to come, tenant cannot say that there was no obligation to pay the rent. Civil appeal is dismissed. No costs.2. Tenant will have three months' time to vacate the premises subject to his filing usual undertaking in this Court within four weeks from today....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1995)110PLR473; (1995)1SCC759
S. Mohan and; M.K. Mukherjee, JJ.1. Substitution application is allowed.2. Delay condoned.3. After hearing both the learned counsel at some length, we are of the firm view that the judgment of the High Court is unsupportable in law. The short question that arose for determination and which still requires to be determined is where a contractual tenancy comes to an end by efflux of time, if under the contract, the tenant had a permission to sub-lease whether that permission will enure after the expiry of the lease. The High Court has answered in the affirmative disregarding the basic principles : (1) After the contract had come to an end, the statute acts over the rights of the parties are governed by the statute of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act in the instant case. (2) It is settled law that the Rent Control Act is a code in itself. It is equally well-settled that to the extent that the Rent Control Act governs the provisions of Transfer of Property Act will not apply. Furt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994Supp(3)SCC86
B.P. Jeevan Reddy and; B.L. Hansaria, JJ.1. These appeals are preferred against the order of the Government of India in a revision petition filed under Section 36 of the Central Excise Act, as it obtained at the relevant time.2. The appellant imported certain industrial fittings for 400 KV Transmission Lines in the year 1977. He presented the Bill of Entry on 26-2-1977. He classified the said imported goods under the then obtaining tariff item 73.33/40 and paid the appropriate duty thereon. The duty payable under the said tariff item at that time was 100% duty and 20% additional duty. Having paid the duty, he cleared the goods. Subsequently, the appellant says, he entered into correspondence with the Customs Authorities regarding the appropriate tariff item under which the said goods ought to have been classified. He says that he received the letter dated 26-10-1978 from the authorities, which according to the appellant, supports his contention that the said goods must be subjected to ...
Tag this Judgment!