Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC2166; JT1994(4)SC45; (1995)IILLJ77SC; 1994(2)SCALE889; (1994)4SCC165; [1994]3SCR1045; 1994(2)SLJ192(SC); 1994(2)LC594(SC)
ORDERS. Mohan, J.1. Both these cases can be dealt with under a common judgment since what arises for our consideration is the validity of selection of Taxation Inspectors by the Subordinate Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board). The appellants are unsuccessful candidates. 2. The Board issued an advertisement bearing No. 5 of 1986 on 22.11.86 inviting applications for 96 posts for Taxation Inspectors in Excise and Taxation Department. Out of these 96 posts 24 were reserved for scheduled castes, 10 for backward classes and 17 for ex-servicemen of Haryana. The minimum qualification was graduation of a recognised University or equivalent and knowledge of Hindi upto Matric level. The selection was to be made on the basis of written test of 250 marks and viva voce test. The candidate will not be eligible unless he obtained 33 per cent marks in each subject and the minimum of 40 per cent in the aggregate. In response to the advertisement many candidates applied but for some r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC2179; [1995]83CompCas804(SC); 1995CriLJ426; JT1994(3)SC583; 1994(2)SCALE925; (1994)5SCC54; [1994]Supp1SCR1
manu-sc-774-19941. Till the wind of liberalisation started blowing across the Indian economic landscape over the last year or two, the Indian economy was a sheltered one. At the time of independence, India did not have an industrial base worth the name. A firm industrial base had to be laid. Heavy industry was the crying need. All this required foreign exchange. The sterling balances built up during World War 11 were fast dissipating. Foreign exchange had to be conserved, which meant prohibition import of several unessential items and close regulation of other imports. It was also found necessary to raise protective walls to nurture and encourage the nascent industries. These controls had, however, an unfortunate fall-out. They gave rise to a class of smugglers and foreign exchange manipulators who were out to frustrate the regulations and restrictions - profit being their sole motive, and success in life the sole earthly judge of right and wrong. As early as 1947, the Central Legislat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1994(4)SC151; 1994(2)SCALE910; (1994)5SCC304; [1994]3SCR1034; 1994(3)SLJ227(SC)
N. P. Singh, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners, alleging that, they had been employed by the respondent -Steel Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'Respondent') through various contractors as its Rourkela plant, but they are doing jobs which are perennial in nature and identical to the jobs which are being done by the regular employees of the said respondent. As such they are entitled to same pay which is being paid to the regular employees of the respondent and are entitled to be treated as the regular employees of the respondent. It is alleged that the respondent in order to frustrate the claims of the petitioners and other labourers similarly situated, to be treated as regular employees of the respondent, designated them as contract labourers, It has been asserted that the petitioners had been working for the respondent for the last 10 to 20 years under different contractOrs. The contractors used to be changed, but while awarding the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC380; (1995)1CALLT52(SC); 1994(3)SCALE86; (1994)5SCC9; [1994]Supp1SCR55
1. The respondent filed a suit. O.S. No. 840/79 on the original side of Calcutta High Court for ejectment of the appellant from 4th floor of premises No. 20. Old Court House Street, Calcutta on diverse grounds under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. 1956, for short 'the Tenancy Act'. That suit was dismissed by a learned single Judge but on appeal, Appeal No. 309 of 1984 filed by the respondent before the Division Bench, was allowed, judgment and decree of learned single Judge set aside, and the suit was decreed on the ground of subletting under Section 13(1)(a) of the Tenancy Act. Thus, this appeal by special leave from appellate judgment and decree dated October 4, 1991.2. The respondent's case is, that the appellant after taking demised premises on rent of Rs. 2,250 per mensum, has inducted the United Bank of India Employees' Association Central Committee, a registered trade union into the demised premises and allowed it to have its exclusive possession and use of the same for it...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994(2)Crimes960(SC); 1994LC491(SC); JT1994(4)SC144; 1994(2)SCALE924; 1994Supp(2)SCC276; 1995(1)LC642(SC)
1. The appellant Surajmal Kania Lal Soni was convicted by the trial court under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('NDPS Act' for short) and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default of payment of which to undergo R.I. for three years for being in illegal and unauthorised possession of 9 Kgs. and 75 gms. opium. The appeal preferred by him was dismissed by the High Court.2. The prosecution case is as follows:3. Police Inspector P.S. Patil of Navapura Police Station, on information from some informant, kept watch along with his staff members nearby Kasam Dula's Dargah at Bagikhana Road, Vadodara. At about 10 P.M. the appellant was seen proceeding in a suspicious manner. He was stopped and he was asked to give his name and the search was made and his rexine bag was searched in which the opium was found. The appellant had no pass or permit. A panchnama was duly prepared. The samples were sent to the Chemical E...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1994(4)SC1; 1994(2)SCALE877; (1994)5SCC152; [1994]3SCR1061; 1994(2)LC580(SC)
A.S. Anand, J.1. This appeal under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter 'TADA') is directed against the judgment and order of the Designated Court, Kapurthala, whereby the appellants have been convicted for offences under Section 302 read with Section 149/120B IPC and Section 3 of TADA and sentenced under Section 302/149 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/ each and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 4 years; under Section 120B to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for one year and under Section 3 of TADA to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 4000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo farther rigorous imprisonment for 3 years each. All the substantive sentences were, however, directed to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case is as foll...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1995)2GLR105; (1994)4SCC723
R.M. Sahai and; B.L. Hansaria, JJ.1. The only question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the mortgage deed was proved in accordance with law in absence of examination of any of the attesting witnesses.2. The High Court held that since the appellant, who was a guarantor, having admitted his signature on the mortgage deed and he having not specifically denied in the written statement the execution of the document it was not necessary for the respondent-plaintiff to examine any attesting witness to prove the execution of the mortgage deed.3. In Kunwar Surendra Bahadur Singh v. Thakur Behari Singh1, it has been held that one of the essentials of mortgage deed is that each of the attesting witnesses must have signed the document in the presence of the executant. The Court held that if the provisions of Sections 58 and 59 of the Registration Act and Sections 3 and 59 of the Transfer of Property Act are read together, there was no escape from the conclusion that a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995ACJ1; 1994(2)Crimes307(SC); JT1994(4)SC120; 1994(2)SCALE900; 1994Supp(2)SCC282; 1994(1)LC707(SC)
1. Original accused No. 3 is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 1982 and original accused No. 4 is the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 400 of 1982. They along with six others were tried for offences punishable under Sections 302, 302/149,. 307 and 307/149 I.P.C. and under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The trial court acquitted A-5 to A-8 and convicted A-1 to A-4 and sentenced them to imprisonment for life in respect of the murder charge and various other terms of imprisonment in respect of other offences. The appeal preferred by them was dismissed by the High Court.2. It may be mentioned at this stage that during the pendency of the special leave petition in this Court A-1, Hardeep Singh died and the Special leave petition filed by A-2, Baljinder Singh was dismissed. Therefore we are left with only A-3, Hardev Singh and A4, Jaspal Singh who figure as appellants in these two appeals.3. The prosecution case is as follows:4. Hardeep Singh, A- and his son Jaspal Singh, A-4 are the r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1994(4)SC125; (1994)108PLR282; 1994(2)SCALE959; (1994)4SCC294
1. Both these appeals can be dealt with under a common judgment since they arise out of a common judgment rendered by High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Regular Second Appeal Nos. 768 and 769 of 1979.2. The following genealogical tree will establish the relationship between the parties:Dodkullegowda | --------------------------------------------------------- | | | | Siddegowda Kenchegowda Kalegowda Ninegowda Addegowda (D-1 in OS No. (D- 1 in OS No. 346 of1976) 347 of 1974) | | Siddegowda Boregowda @ Moregowda Kenchegowda (plaintiff) 3. Siddegowda filed two suits bearing O.S. No. 346 and 347 of 1974 before the learned Munsiff at Mandya for declaration of his title and permanent injunction. The suit property consists of 30 guntas of land in Survey No. 214 in each suit.4. The plaint averments are shortly as under:5. The plaintiff's father and his brother formed a joint Hindu Family. The father of the plaintiff died about 30 years ago leaving behind him the plaintiff and his brother B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994(2)ALT(Cri)112; 1995(1)BLJR215; 1995CriLJ420; 1994(2)Crimes312(SC); JT1994(4)SC129; 1994(2)SCALE859; 1994Supp(2)SCC269
1. Original accused nos. 1 to 4, 6, 12 to 14 and 23 are the appellants. They along with 14 others were tried for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324/149, 225/149, 224, 302 and 302 read with 34, 109 and 149 I.P.C. The trial court acquitted 14 others and convicted A-1, Sk. Ayyub under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to death and convicted other appellants under Section 302/149 I.P.C. and sentenced them to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each in default of payment of which to undergo R.I. for three months. They were also convicted under Section 147 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each in default of payment of which to undergo R.I. for three months. The appeals preferred by them were dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present appeals.2. The prosecution case is as under:3. Most of the accused are the residents of Village Naigaon, Taluka Babhulgaon, District Yavatmal and some of them are from the nei...
Tag this Judgment!