Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994(2)SCALE390; 1995Supp(1)SCC682
ORDER1. The petitioner-in-person, who is in advocate, is not present though the date was fixed in his presence. The petitioner's application dated 29.3.1994 is rejected.2. In the petitioner's absence, we have gone through his writ petition.3. The constitutional validity of the transfer policy was judicially upheld in S.P. Gupta's case. (S.P. Gupta v. Union of India) : [1982]2SCR365 . In the Judges Case-II 1993(4) SCC 411 it was held that judicial review in the matter of transfer of Judges was not excluded but the area of justiciability was limited. It is clear from that judgment that it was so held with a view to prevent any transferred Judge being exposed to any litigation involving him except when he chose to resort to it himself, in the available limited area of justiciability. The parameters of the area of justiciability in the sphere of judicial review have been clarified further in K. Ashok Reddy v. Government of India . Three Judges Bench in Ashok Reddy's case (supra) said:We co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)10SCC516
M.M. Punchhi and; B.P. Jeevan Reddy, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. We are satisfied that the respondents have been served and that we can raise presumption of service on the basis of the office report. Notice was issued to the respondent to show cause why the appeal be not allowed in terms of the judgment of this Court in CST v. Motor Industries Co.2 Since there is no opposition thereto we allow the appeal in terms of the aforesaid judgment wherein it has been held that deduction in respect of the goods returned by the purchasers must be claimed in the assessment year in which the goods were sold and not in the succeeding year. The appeal of the State of Maharashtra would thus stand allowed setting aside the judgment and Order of the High Court of Bombay passed in Sales Tax Reference No. 71 of 1979 reviving the view expressed by the Sales Tax Tribunal. The matter is disposed of accordingly....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC2753; 1994(2)SCALE875; 1994Supp(2)SCC356; [1994]3SCR294; 1995(2)SLJ31(SC); (1994)2UPLBEC1210
1. Leave granted.2. The appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Allahabad in C.M.W.P. No. 12217/83. The respondent was admittedly a suspended employee of Mirzapur Electricity Supply Co. (for short 'Company) against whom disciplinary proceedings were pending. On September 1, 1975, under Section 4(i) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, for short 'the Act', the licence of the Company was revoked under a memorandum of understanding and an agreement reached with the appellant. One of the terms thereof was that the appellant will not take any employee against whom disciplinary proceedings were pending. The appellant took over the Company. Eight years thereafter, the respondent filed the writ petition placing reliance on Section 6-A of the Act as amended by an U.P. Act and contended that the respondent was entitled to be taken into service, but was unlawfully prevented from discharging his duties. The High Court accepted the contention and issued the mandamus as prayed for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(1)SCC594
K. Ramaswamy and; N. Venkatachala, JJ.1. Special leave granted.2. We have heard learned counsel on both sides. The Municipal Committee, Nurmahal, District Jullundur in the State of Punjab, by a resolution dated 24-12-1984, decided to extend the outer limits of its jurisdiction and a resolution (No. 6) to that effect was passed on that day. The appellant had submitted his objections to the Committee. After considering the objections and having overruled the same, the Committee recommended to the Government for issuance of a notification extending the outer limit in the municipal area in resolution No. 39. The Government published a notification under Section 5(1) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (for short ‘the Act’) in the State Gazette on 16-2-1987. Thereafter, the Municipal Committee, by beat of drum, published a notification in the municipal area and the extension has become effective under Section 5 thereof. Calling in question the legality thereof, the appellant filed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC2263; JT1994(3)SC275; 1994(2)SCALE357; (1994)4SCC42; [1994]3SCR248; 1994(2)LC497(SC); (1994)2UPLBEC1373
ORDERJ.S. Verma, J.1. These appeals are disposed of by this common judgment since the points for decision are common. Writ petition No. 16382 of 1992 - Delhi Auto & General Finance Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Anr. - filed in the Allahabad High Court was allowed by the judgment dated 22.12.1992 and for the same reasons Writ Petition No. 25461 of 1992 Maha Maya General Finance Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Anr., was allowed by the High Court by its judgment dated 21.5.1993. Civil Appeal Nos. 4384 and 4385 of 1993 are separate appeals by special leave by the two respondents in the Writ Petition No. 16382 of 1992 while similar Civil Appeal No. 634 of 1994 is by one of the respondents in Writ Petition No. 25461 of 1992. The material facts may now be briefly stated.2. The Master Plan (Annexure I) was prepared under Section 8 of The Uttar pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred as 'U.P. Act') for development of the area shown therein on 1.6.1986 for the perio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1994(4)SC137; 1994(2)SCALE414; (1994)3SCC375; [1994]3SCR263; 1994(2)LC129(SC)
B.L. Hansaria, J.1. A suit for eviction was filed by the respondent against the appellants in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur, on the averment that the tenancy of the appellants having been determined there have no right to occupy the suit premises. Prayer for vacant possession of the premises as therefore made, alongwith realisation of some arrears of rent, so also damages for the use and occupation of the premises by the appellants on and from 1.8.80. The plaintiff specifically averred that provisions of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, hereinafter the Act, had no application in view of the exemption granted by the State Government vide its notification No. F.20 (14) Rev. 1/76 dated 20.8.1976 by which all the premises owned by Wakfs registered under the Wakfs Act were exempted from the operation of the Act.2. The appellants took a stand that the exemption notification was void; and that the present being a case forfeiture of tenancy, di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC2141; JT1994(3)SC122; 1994(2)SCALE385; 1994Supp(2)SCC182; [1994]3SCR240
ORDERJ. S. Verma, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is against the judgment of the Kerala High Court dated 21st March, 1990 in A.S. No. 214 of 1980 arising out of judgment and decree of the subordinate court, Kozhikode in O.S. No. 153 of 1972. The trial court had dismissed the original suit filed by the State of Kerala but the High Court has allowed the appeal of the State of Kerala. Hence this further appeal by special leave by the defendants in the suit.2. The subject matter of the suit is 4,200 acres of land in Jenmakaran Tharakan. In short, the claim of the plaintiff-State of Kerala is that these lands had escheated and belong to the State of Kerala and Order Ex. A-17 dated 24.12.1968 to this effect made by the Collector of the district under the Kerala Escheats and Forfeitures Act, 1964 had become final under the Act, there having been no appeal under Section 7 or any suit in accordance with Section 11 of the Act by defendants/appellants against the Order Ex. A-17 made by the Col...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC2277; JT1994(3)SC39; 1994(2)SCALE391; 1994Supp(2)SCC446; [1994]3SCR271
ORDERN.P. Singh, J.1. The election of the appellant from Goregaon Legislative Assembly Constituency, has been set aside by the High Court, on an election petition filed on behalf of the respondent No. l (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent'). The appellant had contested the election as a candidate of Shiv Sena, whereas the respondent as of Janata Dal.2. The respondent in his election petition stated that between 18.12.1989 and 2.1.1990 about 12,000 applications for inclusion of names in the electoral roll, were received and ultimately on 15.1.1990, the final electoral roll was published with inclusion of the names of several thousand persons, many of them were bogus voters. Thereafter the details of the corrupt practices committed by the appellant, Shiv Sena, Bhartiya Janta Party, between 18.1.1990 and 27.2.1990 were stated. It was also alleged that they falsely propagated in February, 1990 that Pandal erected specifically for offering prayers by Hindu women at the cost of Rs. 5...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(1)SCC554
S.C. Agrawal and; R.M. Sahai, JJ.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31-3-1983 of the Railway Rates Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) on a complaint made by the respondents that the maintenance charges, that are being levied for the private railway siding provided by the railways for the sugar mill of Respondent 1 at Deoband in Saharanpur District, are unreasonable. The said private siding was provided in 1933 and the maintenance charges for the same were regulated initially by agreement dated 20-11-1933 and subsequently they were being regulated by the agreement dated 24-8-1981. Clause 10(b) of the said agreement provides that maintenance charges will be payable at 4 1/2 per cent per annum on the total outlay incurred by the railway administration on its own behalf for the construction of the siding outside the firm's premises or on the value of the assets so provided to cover its maintenance charges from the date on which the siding is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994Supp(2)SCC464
S.C. Agrawal and; R.M. Sahai, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of proceedings taken under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961. Section 50 of the said Act makes provision for determination of compensation for the surplus land acquired by the Government under the provisions of the said Act. The provisions of Section 50 which are relevant for our purposes are contained in sub-sections (9) and (10) which read as under:“(9). The authorised officer may, if he is satisfied either of his own motion or on the application of any of the parties that a bona fide mistake has been made in regard to any entry in the draft assessment roll or in the assessment roll as published finally make necessary correction therein and on such correction being made, the provisions of sub-sections (3) to (8) shall, as far as may be, apply thereto.(10) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (9), the authorised officer may at any time correct either of his own motion or on ...
Tag this Judgment!