Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 55(1994)DLT542(SC); JT1994(3)SC126; 1994(2)SCALE404; [1994]3SCR220; 1994(2)LC366(SC)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. Heard the petitioner-in-person in support of this Special Leave Petition. We have also perused the written submission filed by him. We find no substance in the Special Leave Petition.2. The Special Leave petition is directed against an order of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissing the petitioner's writ petition summarily on two grounds, viz., (1) that the petitioner had approached the Supreme Court but his petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court on November 27, 1972 reported as Harish Uppal v. Union of India : [1973]2SCR1025 and (2) that his petition is highly belated. Whatever may be said about the first ground, the second ground given by the High Court is, in our opinion, perfectly justified. It cannot be said that the High Court has exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or illegal manner. A few facts will make it clear.3. The petitioner was commissioned in the Indian Army (Artillery Regiment) in June, 1965. He was in the unit which was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC258; [1994(68)FLR1252]; JT1994(3)SC199; 1994(2)SCALE417; 1994Supp(2)SCC191; 1994(2)SLJ180(SC); 1994(1)LC562(SC); (1994)2UPLBEC751
ORDER1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.3. The common question for consideration in these appeals is whether an employee of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (Corporation), who was kept under suspension pending investigation, inquiry or trial in a criminal prosecution, is entitled to salary for the period of suspension after the criminal proceedings are terminated in his favour? The High Court has answered the question in the affirmative and in favour of the respondents. These appeals by the Corporation are against the judgment of the High Court.4. It is not necessary to go into the facts in each of these appeals as Mr. Altaf Ahmed, Learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the Corporation has very fairly stated that irrespective of the final result in these appeals, the Corporation shall comply with the impugned judgments of the High Court and pay the salary etc. to the appellants for the suspension period as directed by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1994(7)SC52; (1995)IILLJ725SC; 1994(2)SCALE426; (1994)3SCC379; 1994(2)SLJ186(SC); 1994(2)LC95(SC)
1. Lakshminarayana, respondent in the appeal herein, was working as an Assistant Mechanical Supervisor with the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (Corporation). He was placed under suspension with effect from October 21, 1974 on the basis of the allegation that he was found stealing certain articles belonging to the Corporation. The respondent was tried by the criminal court for the offence of theft and was finally acquitted by the court on March 17, 1976. During the period when the criminal proceedings were in progress, the respondent was also charge-sheeted and a departmental inquiry was held against him. It is not necessary for us to go into the factual-details any more and suffice it to say that the respondents was finally reinstated into service. The question for consideration before the High Court was whether the respondent was entitled to the payment of full remunerations during the period when he remained under suspension as a result of the criminal trial and the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC2733; JT1994(3)SC519; 1994(2)SCALE771; 1994Supp(2)SCC228; [1994]3SCR231
1. The appellants are the legal representatives of Ram Prasad and successors to one Umrao Singh, brother of Bahadur Singh. Bahadur Singh and Umrao Singh were the sons of one Ganga Ram, residents of village Salarpur, Pargana Mooth, Tehsil Hapur, Dist. Meerut, U.P. The dispute relates to Khata No. 66 of that village. Bahadur Singh died intestate leaving behind his widow, Smt. Jivani, Bahadur Singh was in possession of the Khata No. 66 as a tenant under Chetan Prakash and Jiwan Lal, brothers, land holders at that relevant time. It is the appellants case that Smt. Jivani had life estate in the agricultural lands in Khata No. 66. On her demise, being lineal descendants of Bahadur Singh, the appellants are entitled to succeed to his estate as owners of the land therein. The proceedings ultimately ended against them.2. While Jivani was in possession and enjoyment of the lands, it would appear that the respondent, Jwala Singh made an application on July 9, 1951 along with an affidavit filed in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC2145; 1994(3)ALT1(SC); JT1994(3)SC92; 1994(1)KLT942(SC); 1994(2)SCALE368; (1994)4SCC53; [1994]3SCR213
K. Ramaswamy, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal by special leave arises from the order to the High Court of Kerala dated August 18, 1988 made in C.R.P. No. 2220 of 1987-B. The respondent-landlords filed R.C.P. No. 19 of 1974 under Section 11 of Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, for eviction of the appellant-tenant. Under the proviso thereto if the tenant denies the title of the landlord or claims right of permanent tenancy, the Rent Controller shall decide whether the denial or claim is bona fide. Recording of such a finding positively in favour of the tenant will require the landlord to sue for eviction of the tenant in a civil court. The Rent Controller had accepted the plea of the tenant to be bona fide and relegated the respondents to seek eviction by a civil suit. Before its initiation, the appellant filed ()A No. 11730 of 1986 before the Land Tribunal under the Kerala Land Reforms Act claiming that the lease was of the agricultural land and as a cultivating ten...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(3)SCC24
P.B. Sawant and; M.M. Punchhi, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. It is not disputed before us that the tenant withdrew the proceedings which he started under Section 9(3) of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951 (the ‘BRAL Act’) and till that time the landlord had not instituted any proceedings. He had only given a notice under Section 9(1) of the BRAL Act. It is also not disputed that in the meanwhile the new Act, viz., the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1958 came into force which repealed the BRAL Act save and except to the extent of the proceedings which were pending on the date of the commencement of the new Act. Since no proceedings were pending after the tenant withdrew his proceedings, the BRAL Act has no application to the present case. This is exactly what the impugned decision of the High Court has held. We agree with the said decision and dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC2173; JT1994(4)SC141; (1995)ILLJ1078SC; 1994(2)SCALE596; 1994Supp(2)SCC217; 1994(1)LC559(SC)
ORDER1. Civil Appeal No. 4258 of 1992 by special leave is against the order dated 1st August, 1991 passed by the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal allowing the application of respondent No. 5, Prem Nath Sud and directing his confirmation as Excise and Taxation Inspector from the due date with corresponding seniority and other consequential benefits. Similar relief has been granted to Mohan Lai and others who also were applicants before the Tribunal, in the connected appeal. Both appeals are disposed of by this judgment.2. Prem Nath Sud, a permanent Clerk in the Excise and Taxation Department was officiating as Assistant on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee having opted for the post of Excise and Taxation Inspector. Sud was promoted along with three others as Excise and Taxation Inspector vide order dated 4th July, 1979 made by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh and he joined as Inspector on July 9, 1979. The appointment of Sud as Insp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(2)SCC734
K. Jayachandra Reddy and; A.S. Anand, JJ.1. Special leave granted.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The matter arises under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The second appellant and the third appellant are the parents of the first appellant Madhusadan. The prosecution case is that Aruna — the bride to be in the case was residing in her own house with her brother in the city of Nagpur. She had no parents. Therefore, the brother and the sister were staying in their own house. Sharad Pathak (PW 2) — the uncle of the deceased was at the relevant time serving in the Central Public Works Department and he was residing in the locality called Chatrapatinagar, Nagpur. Aruna was a Commerce Graduate. Since her parents died, PW 2 was taking the responsibility of arranging for an alliance. A-1 and his parents were also staying in Surendranagar, Nagpur. While so, according to the prosecution, on 6-4-1986 a negotiation took place for settling the marriage of Aruna with A-1 and i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(1)SCC282
Kuldip Singh and; Yogeshwar Dayal, JJ.1. The Railway Board issued a circular dated 17-9-1965 wherein weightage — in respect of temporary service rendered by the officers — was provided on their permanent absorption in Class I service. The operative part of the circular is as under :“After taking into account all relevant factors, it has been decided that weightage in seniority shall be granted to temporary officers on the basis of half the total number of years of continuous service in working post on Railways prior to their permanent absorption in Class I subject to a maximum weightage of five years.”2. The question before the High Court was whether Lala Jagannath Prasad, respondent in the appeal herein, was entitled to the benefit of the above-quoted circular. The High Court answered the question in the affirmative and in favour of the respondent. This appeal by the Railways is against the judgment of the High Court.3. Lala Jagannath Prasad joined service as t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(2)SCC745
Kuldip Singh; Yogeshwar Dayal, JJ.1. The appellant is a Released Emergency Commissioned Officer. He was appointed as a Deputy Collector in the Maharashtra Civil Service by way of direct recruitment against the vacancy reserved for the Released Emergency Commissioned Officers. He represented before the State Government against the seniority position assigned to him in the service but the same was rejected in the year 1985. Thereafter, he filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court seeking various reliefs. The writ petition was dismissed. These appeals by way of special leave are against the judgment of the High Court.2. The State Government by an order dated 3-3-1963 reserved 50 per cent of the substantive vacancies, in all the cadres, occurring after 28-10-1962, for the Emergency Commissioned Officers. The appellant sat for the examination held in June 1969 for selection to the three reserved posts of Deputy Collectors. The result was declared on 5-2-1970. Seventeen candidates, ...
Tag this Judgment!