Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1994(4)SC397; 1995LabIC1768; 1994(3)SCALE273; (1994)5SCC450; [1994]Supp1SCR651; 1995(1)SLJ111(SC); (1994)3UPLBEC1622
Kuldip Singh, J.1. Indian Statistical Service (the service) is governed by statutory rules called the Indian Statistical Service Rules, 1961 (the rules). Respondents, in the appeal herein, are the members of the service. Tushar Ranjan Mohanty (Mohanty) - respondent 1 belongs to the general category whereas respondents 2 to 9 are members of the Scheduled Castes. Respondents 2 to 9 were promoted from Grade IV to Grade III in the service. They were promoted against the vacancies reserved for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes under the instructions issued by the Government of India from time to time. Mohanty, being senior to respondents 2 to 9 in Grade IV, challenged their promotions before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, (the Tribunal) on the ground that under the reservation, in respect of appointments to the service by promotion, was not permitted under the Rules. The Tribunal accepted the contention of Mohanty and came to the conclusion that promotion of re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1994(5)SC83; 1994(3)SCALE334; (1994)6SCC77; [1994]Supp1SCR639
N.P. Singh, J.1. This writ application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners, questioning the validity of the Coal Mines Nationalisation Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 1986, primarily on the ground that it purports to nullify the judgment of this Court in the case of Central Coal Fields Ltd. Etc. v. Bhubaneswar Singh and Ors. : [1985]1SCR618 . The ordinance has been replaced by the Coal Mines Nationalisation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1986.2. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in this case, it is proper to refer to the background in which the aforesaid amending Act was passed. The Coking Coal Mines (Emergency Provisions) Ordinance was promulgated in the Year 1971, which was replaced by the Coking Coal Mines (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1971. In view of Section 3 of the aforesaid Ordinance/Act, management of all the Coking Coal Mines vested in the Central Government on and from 17.10.1971, being the appointed date. The Central Government appointed custodians to take over the m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994Supp(2)SCC712; [1994]Supp1SCR584; [1994]95STC552(SC)
Kuldeep Singh, J.1. The North Eastern Railway sells coal, firewood cigarettes, meals, vegetables and certain other s at various railway stations. In the assessment year 1965-66 an application for registration under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (the Act) was filed by the Chief Commercial Superintendent, North Eastern Railway wherein the principal place of business was declared as Gorakhpur. The application was allowed by the Sales Tax Officer. The sales tax return was, however, filed by the Chief General Manager, Gorakhpur on the basis of which assessment proceedings were held and sales tax was imposed. A separate assessment was also made by the Sales Tax Officer against the Controller of Stores. Both, the General Manager and the Controller of Stores filed revisions' against the assessment orders. While upholding the assessment on merits, the revising authority remanded the matter to the Sales Tax Officer on the ground that two' assessment orders could not be made in respect of the Nort...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994(3)ALT20(SC); JT1994(1)SC194; 1994(3)SCALE552; (1994)5SCC686; [1994]Supp1SCR686; 1994(2)LC348(SC)
ORDER1. The admitted facts are that a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') was published in the State Gazette on April 20, 1990 proposing to acquire 220 bighas of land approx. for construction of 765 k.v. sub-section and staff quarters at - Gagoal, Dist, Meerut by the U.P. State Electricity Board, Declaration under Section 6 was published on December 22, 1990. By operation of Section 11A, the award should be made within two years from the date of the publication of Section 6, declaration i.e. on or before December 21, 1992. Before it could be made, it would appear that Rajiv Gupta and Ors., the respondents filed Writ Petition No. 33863/92 in the High Court at Allahabad seeking direction to the respondents to take possession of the lands after paying them due compensation. On 23.11.1992 the High Court directed the appellants to take a decision for passing the award before 21.12.1992. The Land Acquisition Officer by his letter dated Dece...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC2747; JT1995(1)SC405; 1994(3)SCALE459; (1994)5SCC681; [1994]Supp1SCR679; 1995(1)LC638(SC)
1. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Civil Revision Application No. 1226/72, dated November 22/23,1975. The facts for the purpose of disposal of his appeal lie in a short compass.2. The appellant landlord laid a claim for arrears of rent and the respondent shot back by filing an application under Section 11 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel & Lodging H./R. Control Act, for short 'the Act', for determination of the standard rent. On a compromise the standard rent was fixed at Rs. 211 per month and the application was dismissed as not pressed. Later the appellant filed regular suit for possession and for arrears which was decreed and on appeal it was confirmed. The Defence of the respondent was that there was bona fide dispute as to standard rent and an application under Section 12(3)(a) read with Section 11(1)(c) would lie and so he made the application and even before an adjudication was made, he deposited the arrears subject to fixation of sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC2214; JT1994(4)SC298; (1995)ILLJ1119SC; 1994(3)SCALE163; 1994Supp(2)SCC633; [1994]Supp1SCR576
ORDERKuldip Singh, J.1. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is sequel to the judgments of this Court in R.D. Gupta and Ors. etc. v. Lt Governor, Delhi Administration and Ors. etc. : [1987]3SCR808 and Narendera Kumar and Anr. v. Lt. Governor, Delhi Administration and Ors. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of the 1990 decided on March 17,1993. The petition is on behalf of the Storm Water Drains Beldar (SWD Beldars) and Storm Water Drains Mates (SWD Mates) who are class IV employees in the service of the New Delhi Municipal Committee (NDMC). The short question for our consideration is whether the SWD Beldars and SWD Mates are entitled to the pay-scales recommended by the Shiv Shankar Committee (the SS Committee)? The SS Committee pay-scales are claimed by the petitioners on the ground that the said pay-scales have already been granted to class IV employees of the NDMC who are similarly situated, doing the same/similar work and belong to the same/similar cadres.2. It is n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC2420; 1994(2)BLJR1147; 1994CriLJ3271; JT1994(4)SC309; 1994(3)SCALE197; 1995Supp(1)SCC80; [1994]Supp1SCR483; 1994(2)LC782(SC)
ORDERFaizan Uddin, J.1. In Sessions Trial No. 77/85 the appellants Suresh Bahri and Raj Pal Sharma were convicted under Section 302 of the Penal Code for causing murder of Urshia Bahri and her two children, namely, Richa Bahri and Saurabh Bahri. All the three appellants, Suresh Chandra Bahri, Gurbachan Singh and Raj Pal Sharma were also convicted under Section 302/120-B of the Penal Code for the offence of criminal conspiracy to commit murder of Urshia Bahri and her two children named above. The appellants Suresh Chandra Bahri and Raj Pal Sharma were further convicted under Section 201 of Penal Code for causing disappearance of evidence of murder of Saurabh Bahri and the appellants Suresh Chandra Bahri. Gurbachan Singh and Raj Pal Sharma were also convicted under Section 201 of the Penal Code for causing disappearance of evidence of murder of Urshia Bahri by the Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi by judgment dated 27.7.90 who awarded the sentence of death for the offences under S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1994(5)SC91a; 1994(3)SCALE190a; (1994)5SCC459; [1994]Supp1SCR568
Kuldip Singh, J.1. The appellants challenged the validity of Sections 6(3A), 4, 10 and 11 of the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act 1960 (the Act) by way of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Gujarat High Court on the ground that these provisions were extra-territorial in their operation and, as such, were beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature under Article 245(1) of the Constitution of India. The High Court upheld the validity of the provisions and dismissed the writ petitions. These appeals by way of special leave are against the judgment of the High Court.2. The appellants are the owners of agricultural lands in the State of Gujarat. They also hold agricultural land in another part of India outside the State of Gujarat. Section 6(3A) of the Act was inserted by the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling (Amendment) Act 1972 which provides for computing the ceiling area of a person who also owns land in another part of India o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994ACJ993; [1995]82CompCas186(SC); JT1994(4)SC367; (1994)108PLR139; 1994(3)SCALE251; (1994)5SCC667; [1994]Supp1SCR562
Kuldip Singh, J.1. Delay condoned.2. Special leave granted.3. Abdul Rehman-deceased, a student of B.Sc. 1st year Biology, was coming back from the college on a bicycle on September 9, 1971 at about 5/6 P.M. in the evening. He was hit by truck No. UPZ-4272 owned by Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad. Abdul Rehman died, as a result of the accident, on the spot. Claim application for compensation was filed on March 1, 1972 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal) at Allahabad. The tribunal dismissed the application. Appeal filed against the order of the Tribunal was also dismissed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court on March 28, 1985. This appeal, by the mother, sister and brothers of the deceased, is against the judgment of the High Court.4. In is not disputed that the truck involved in the accident belonged to the Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad. The claimants examined Abdul Khalique as the only witness relating to the accident before the Tribunal. On behalf of the Naga...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994(72)ELT788(SC); JT1994(5)SC383; 1994(3)SCALE185; (1994)5SCC550; [1994]Supp1SCR466; 1994(2)LC598(SC)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. The validity of confiscation of books imported by the petitioner from Peoples Republic of China is questioned in this writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. The petitioner is a distributor and publisher of Marxist literature. In the year 1978, he imported books comprising mainly the writing of Mao Zedong (in both English and Indian languages). The books were imported by sea through Bombay and Calcutta Ports. They were seized at the said ports. Show cause notices were issued by the Assistant Collectors of Customs of both the places calling upon the petitioner to show cause within seven days why the seized books be not confiscated for violating Notifications No. 25 dated 9th March, 1960, No. 77 dated 22nd September, 1956, No. 158 dated 26th November, 1969 and No. 186 dated 1st December, 1962 under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. As many as sixteen show cause notices were issued by both the authorities put together. On receipt of show ca...
Tag this Judgment!