Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1994(4)SC511; 1994(3)SCALE153; (1994)5SCC541; [1994]Supp1SCR460
Kuldip Singh, J.1. Girwar Singh, a big zamindar, died on May 24, 1971. He left behind agricultural land as well as other property. After the death of Girwar Singh many persons claimed rights in the property left by him. Giriraj Kishore, respondent 5 in the appeal herein, is also one of the claimants. Giriraj Kishore claims that his father was adopted as a son by Girwar Singh's father. Sardar Singh-appellant claims to be a son of real sister of Girwar Singh. He further claims right in the property on the basis of a will dated May 19, 1971. One Sharda Devi stakes her right claiming to be the real sister of Girwar Singh. One Narendra Pal Singh states that he is the adopted son of Girwar Singh and as such entitled to the property left by him. All these persons filed testamentary suits in respect of the property of Girwar Singh in the High Court. The Administrator General also filed a testamentary suit claiming letters of administration. All the suits were decided together by the judgment o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC390a; JT1994(4)SC391; 1994(3)SCALE330; 1994(2)LC570(SC)
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Harawat Estate stood vested in the State of Bihar under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (the Act). In the inquiry held under Section 4(h) of the Act the Additional Collector Saharsa came to the conclusion that the settlements made by the proprietors of a large area - land in dispute -in favour of Nirmalchand Bothra and other respondents, in the appeals herein, were made with the object of defeating the provisions of the Act and causing loss to the State of Bihar. The findings were upheld by the Commissioner in appeal. Finally the State Government confirmed-the findings in exercise of the powers vested in it under the Act. Nirmalchand Bothra and others challenged the findings of the authorities under the Act by way of two writ petitions under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court. The Patna High Court by its judgment dated January 20, 1983 allowed the writ petitions and set aside the orders of the authorities under...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC21; JT1998(4)SC512; 1994(3)SCALE261; (1994)5SCC314; [1994]Supp1SCR322
ORDERKuldip Singh, J.1. The Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, (the Act) was amended by the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery (Amendment) Act, 1972 and Section 52-A was inserted in the Act. The validity of Section 52-A of the Act was challenged before the Madras High Court by way of a batch of writ petitions on the ground the Tamil Nadu legislature has no legislative competence to enact the said section. A Division Bench of the High Court by its judgment dated October, 7, 1980 allowed the writ petitions and declared Section 52-A of the Act ultra vires the powers of the State Legislature. These appeals by the State of Tamil Nadu are against the judgment of the Madras High Court.2. Section 52-A of the Act reads as under : -52-A. Recovery of sums due to the Tamil Nadu Agro- Industries Corporation and other Corporations, etc. - Without prejudice to any other mode of recovery which is being taken or may be taken, all loans granted and all advances made to any person-(i) by the Tamil Nadu Agro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1994]81CompCas780(SC); JT1994(6)SC350; 1994(3)SCALE83; (1994)5SCC1; [1994]Supp1SCR294; 1994(2)LC470(SC)
1. In Company Petition No. 27 of 1971 for winding up of the Company - M/s. Glass Carboys & Pressed wares Limited - on the ground, contained in Clause (e) of Section 433 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), that the Company was unable to pay its debts, the learned Company Judge of the Bombay High Court made a winding up order on 15.11.1972; and the Official Liquidator took possession of the assets of the Company. The appellant UCO Bank was a secured creditor of the Company. It chose to stand outside the winding up proceedings and obtained a decree on 22.4.1976 to recover its debt. In pursuance of the decree obtained by the appellant, the High Court's Commissioner for Taking Accounts was directed to sell certain movables of the Company. In the meantime, the Companies Act, 1956 was amended by the Companies (Amendment) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Amending Act') with effect from 24.5.1985 by which Sections 529 and 530 of the Principal Act were am...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994(3)SCALE269; (1994)5SCC324
ORDER1. We have pronounced judgment today in C.A. Nos. 2620-64 of 1981. For the reasons recorded therein these transferred cases have to be dismissed. We may, however, briefly deal with the controversy involved in these cases.2. Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1914 (the Bihar Act) was amended by Act IV of 1974 thereby incorporating 'any money payable to the State Bank of India' within the list of Public Demands set out in Schedule 1 to the Bihar Act. In these transferred cases the only point argued before us was that the Bihar Legislature had no legislative competence to enact law providing for recovery of bank dues as arrears of land revenue.3. We may refer to the facts relating to Transferred Case No. 40 of 1989. Harish Tara Refractories (P) Ltd., had entered into several agreements with the State Bank of India, Main Branch, Ranchi. The case of the bank is that there were various dealings and transactions between the parties and large sums of money became due and payabl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(3)SCC593
R.M. Sahai and; N.P. Singh, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against an interim order granted by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on 27-1-1994 to the following effect:“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.Issue notice.Until further orders of this Court, the operation of the notification dated 3-9-1993 (Annexure 12 to the writ petition) shall remain stayed and the respondents are restrained from interfering with the petitioner's right of collection of toll tax over bridge Shadra Nala from Dadri Surajpur Chalera Marg to Okhla Barrage Approach Marg at 3 kms in District Ghaziabad.”3. Although normally this Court does not entertain petitions against interim orders passed by the High Courts, but the facts are so glaring that this Court would be failing in its duty in permitting the said order passed by the High Court to remain on record.4. A bridge was constructed on Shadra Nala from Dadri Surajpur Chalera Marg to Okhla ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC2538; JT1994(4)SC471; 1994(3)SCALE98; (1994)4SCC707; [1994]Supp1SCR300; [1994]95STC565(SC)
ORDERKuldip Singh, J.1. This appeal by the State of Madhya Pradesh is directed against the order dated April 8, 1987 of Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, wherein the expression 'Trader' under Section 2(p) of the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 (the Act) has been interpreted to include an 'agriculturist'.2. Sub-sections (b), (e) and (p) of Section 2 which are relevant are reproduced hereunder: -(b) 'agriculturist' means a person whose main source of livelihood is wholly dependent on agricultural produce and who cultivates land on one's own accounts -(i) by one's own labour; or(ii) by the labour of either spouse; or(iii) under the personal supervision of oneself or any member of one's family referred to in Sub-clause(ii) above by hired labour or by servants on wages payable in cash or kind but not as crop share, but does not include a trader, commission agent, processor, broker, weighmen or ham mal of agriculture produce although such trader, commission agen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1994(4)SC374; (1995)IILLJ56SC; 1994(3)SCALE194; 1994Supp(2)SCC541; [1994]Supp1SCR317; 1995(1)SLJ9(SC); (1994)3UPLBEC1593
Kuldip Singh, J.1. Special leave granted.2. Uttar Pradesh Bhumi Sudhar Nigam Limited (the Corporation) advertised for the post of Financial Controller in the year 1990. As a result of the interviews held by the selection committee, a panel of three names was recommended to the Corporation. One S.K. Sachdeva was at number one and Shiv Narain Gupta, respondent in the appeal herein, was at number two in the said panel. An appointment letter was issued to S.K. Sachdeva and he was asked to join the post by October 31, 1990. S.K. Sachdeva having failed to join the post, Shiv Narain Gupta represented before the Corporation that he, being next on the merit panel, be considered for appointment to the post. When no action was taken by the Corporation for considerable time, Shiv Narain Gupta filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The writ petition was allowed by a learned single Judge of the High Court and a Manda...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1994(4)SC307; (1994)108PLR433; 1994(3)SCALE103; 1994Supp(3)SCC213; [1994]Supp1SCR312
Kuldip Singh, J.1. Maru Ram (deceased), father of Ajmer Singh, respondent in the appeal herein, was a big landowner. The Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (Punjab Act) came into force with effect from April 15, 1953. On that date Maru Ram owned 61 standard acres 9 units of land. It was stated that there was a partition decree by the civil court on the basis of which the holding of Maru Ram was partitioned amongst him and his three sons namely Prithi Singh, Surat Singh and Ajmer Singh. Proceedings under the Punjab Act were initiated and 9 acres and 3-3/4 units of land owned and possessed by Maru Ram was declared surplus by the Collector, Karnal, on March 10, 1961. The Collector, Karnal, took into consideration the partition decree and all other material placed before the Collector. Against the order dated March 10, 1961, the three sons of Mara Ram filed a review petition which was heard by the Collector, Karnal on merits and was dismissed by his order dated July 26,1962. It is n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC441; JT1994(4)SC519; (1995)109PLR315; 1994(3)SCALE168; (1994)5SCC380; [1994]Supp1SCR340
ORDERM.N. Venkatachaliah, C.J.1. Civil Appeal No. 1581 of 1993 arises out of and is directed against the appellate judgment of the Division Bench dated 29th January, 1992 of the High Court of Delhi dismissing RFS [OS] No. 36/91 preferred by the present appellants and affirming the judgment and decree dated 28th May, 1991 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the appellants' Original Suit No. 39/90. There was a further order by the Division Bench which declined to entertain fresh and further arguments in the appeal which were sought by the present appellants by means of C.M. No. 3209/92. That order is assailed in Civil Appeal No. 1582 of 1993. The appeals raise a short and interesting question as to the scope of restitutionary jurisdiction of the courts.2. On 27th March, 1989, the appellants instituted Civil Suit No. 74/1989 in the Court of Senior Sub-Judge, Chandigarh. Simultaneously, appellants sought an injunction under Rules 1 and 2, Order 39 C.P.C. The averments in the plaint were...
Tag this Judgment!