Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC414; JT1994(5)SC245; 1994(3)SCALE627; (1994)5SCC695; [1994]Supp2SCR326; 1995(1)SLJ23(SC); 1994(2)LC359(SC); (1995)1UPLBEC256
ORDERS.P Bharucha, J.1. Special leave granted.2. These civil appeals are directed against the orders of various Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, all of which found no ground to interfere with the Judgment of a learned single Judge whereby the writ petitions filed, inter alia by the present appellants, were dismissed. In substance, therefore, it is the judgment and order of the learned single judge which is under challenge.3. The Haryana Subordinate Services Selection Board (now called 'the Board') issued an advertisement inviting applications for the appointment of 40 Assistant Sub Inspectors of Police in the State of Haryana. Intending candidates were informed that they would have to appear in two written examinations of 100 marks each and, if they obtained 50% or more marks (40% or more for Scheduled Caste and Backward Class candidates), would be called for a physical test and an interview. They were also informed that successful candidates would have to qualify ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1996)IILLJ733SC; 1995Supp(4)SCC157
ORDERKuldip Singh, J.1. The appellant was working as a conductor with the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Nagpur (the Corporation). A departmental enquiry was held against him on the allegations that he misappropriated a sum of Rs. 2300. The charge of misappropriation was proved against him and as a consequence he was dismissed from service by the order dated April 10, 1980. The appellant raised a dispute and the State Government made a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the enquiry held against the appellant was neither fair nor proper and as such it gave an opportunity to the Corporation to prove the charge against the appellant before the Labour Court. Finally the Labour Court by its award dated April 23, 1991 upheld the dismissal of the appellant. The appellant challenged the said award by way of a writ petition before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court. The only point raised before the High Court was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(4)SCC623
ORDER 1. These five appeals arise out of an incident/incidents which took place on 21-3-1981 in Village Gorkapar. Injuries were received by the complainant party as well as by the accused party. The trial court acquitted all 33 accused persons vide its judgment dated 17-5-1983 in Sessions Trial No. 105 of 1981. The High Court, by its impugned judgment dated 25-1-1985, set aside the acquittal of 21 accused persons while maintaining the acquittal of 12. The 21 accused persons were convicted for various offences by the High Court and sentenced in the manner which we shall presently indicate. The accused filed Criminal Appeals Nos. 36-38 of 1986 by special leave challenging their conviction and sentence while the complainant filed Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 1986 by special leave questioning the inadequacy of the sentence as also the acquittal of the 12 accused. The State has also filed an appeal, being Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 1986 on special leave being granted, questioning the acqu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(4)SCC642
ORDER 1. The appellant is the husband. He married the respondent on 24-2-1978. For about 15 months they lived together and thereafter differences arose necessitating a separation. The husband then filed a divorce petition in 1981 seeking dissolution of the marriage on three counts, namely (1) desertion, (2) cruelty and (3) unsoundness of mind. The trial court granted decree for divorce on the first two counts rejecting the third count. The First Appellate Court, however, affirmed the decree on the first count only, namely, cruelty, rejecting the second count of desertion. In second appeal the High Court reversed the decree holding that the husband had failed to prove cruelty. It is against this order of the High Court that the present appeal is preferred. 2. We may also mention that after the First Appellate Court affirmed the decree of divorce on 29-8-1988 and after the second appeal was preferred by the wife, the husband married again on 21-11-1988 and has a child through...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(4)SCC640
S.C. Agrawal and; S. Mohan, JJ.1. This is an appeal by the tenant against the decree for eviction passed on the ground of wilful default in payment of rent. The respondent had purchased the premises from the previous owner on 28-1-1983. On 9-5-1983, he gave a notice to the appellant informing him about the said purchase and also stating that the appellant had defaulted in payment of rent from 1-2-1983. Thereafter, another notice was served by the respondent on 26-12-1983. The appellant deposited rent for the months of April 1983 to January 1984 but he did not deposit the rent for the months of February and March 1983. He has raised the plea that the rent for these two months was paid by him to the previous owner of the premises since he was informed about the purchase by the respondent only by notice dated 9-5-1983 and that he could not be said to have committed wilful default in payment of rent for the months of February and March 1983. It is true that the appellant was informed about...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994(3)SCALE604; 1994Supp(3)SCC282; [1994]Supp2SCR267; 1994(3)SLJ237(SC)
ORDER1. This short question that falls for consideration in this appeal is whether the employees of the appellant-organisation, viz., the Central Plantation Corps. Research Institute are entitled to House Rent Allowance (HRA) although 'they are offered official accommodation and they refuse to occupy the same.2. The respondent-employees are occupying various posts in the appellant-organisation. Orders allotting official quarters they were entitled to, were passed by the appellant-organisation. However, the employees declined to occupy the same for one reason or the other. On their refusal to occupy the quarters, the appellant issued orders denying to them the benefit of HRA which they were till then drawing. The respondent-employees challenged these orders before the High Court. Their writ petitions were subsequently transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Tribunal by the impugned common decision dated 5.5.1988, held that the employees cannot be compelled to occupy t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(4)SCC668
A.S. Anand and; Faizan Uddin, JJ.1. The appellant was convicted for an offence under Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter called 'TADA') and sentenced to suffer five years' rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs 500. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The appellant has questioned his conviction and sentence through this appeal under Section 19 of TADA2. The prosecution case against the appellant is that on the night intervening 26th and 27th of January, 1993 Sub-Inspector Siri Krishan PW 3 held Nakabandi on the road leading from Chotpura to Dabkali in the area of Village Dabkali when the appellant was apprehended on suspicion at about 5.00 a.m. in the presence of Gurnam Singh PW 1. From the search of the appellant by Siri Krishan SI PW 3, in the presence of Gurnam Singh PW 1 and the other members of the police party, a 12 bore loaded country-made pistol was recovered from th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1996)IILLJ684SC; 1995Supp(4)SCC617
ORDERMr. S.C. Agrawal, J.1. The respondent was appointed as a Shorthand Instructor with the Industrial Training Institute, Ghazipur. The said appointment was made by letter dated December 6, 1989 on daily-wage basis. He was being paid @ Rs 20 per day. The said appointment was continued till February 4, 1991 with two breaks in service. He moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ, order or direction commanding the appellants to treat the respondent as continuing in service. The High Court disposed of the said writ petition by order dated September 23, 1993 with the direction that the respondent shall henceforth be paid regular salary admissible for his post.2. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the High Court was in error in giving the directions regarding payment of regular salary admissible for the post of Shorthand Instructor to the respondent. It has been pointed out that the work and duties of Regular Instructors are differ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC366; JT1994(5)SC283; 1994(2)KLT610(SC); 1994(3)SCALE664; 1994Supp(3)SCC241; [1994]Supp2SCR274; [1994]95STC306(SC)
1. These appeals, by special leave, arise from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court dt. February 20, 1989 in T.R.C. 213-14/87 which relate to the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83. The Sales Tax Officer by his order dt. August 16, 1983 assessed sales to sales tax the income derived by the appellant from the sales of the books excluding the income actually utilised for charitable purpose. On appeal, the Assistant Appellate Commissioner by his proceedings dt. April 23,1985 confirmed that order. However, the Tribunal by its order dt. February 20, 1989, in further appeal brought before it, accepted the case of the appellant and reversed the decisions of the lower Authorities and held that the entire income derived during the assessment years went towards utilisation of charitable purpose and therefore, remitted the matter to the Sales Tax Officer for reconsideration in the light of the decision of the Tribunal. But on revision as stated earlier, the High Court hel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(4)SCC680
S.C. Agrawal and; S. Mohan, JJ.1. Delay in filing vakalat/appearance is condoned.2. This appeal by the landlady arises from proceedings for eviction instituted under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as “the Act”, as applicable in the State of Gujarat. It relates to premises which were let out by the appellant to Respondent 1. Respondents 2 and 3 are sub-tenants in the said premises. Admittedly the sub-tenancy of Respondents 2 and 3 was created after 21-5-1959, the date of commencement of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control (Amendment) Ordinance, 1959. The eviction of Respondent 1 was sought on the ground of default in payment of rent. Respondent 1 did not avail of the protection available to him under Section 12(3) of the Act. The question is whether Respondents 2 and 3, who are sub-tenants, are entitled to claim the protection of Section 12. The High Court, reversing the finding of the appellate ...
Tag this Judgment!