Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1995(70)FLR299]; JT1995(1)SC23; 1994(4)SCALE707; 1994Supp(3)SCC674; [1994]Supp4SCR119
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. These appeals arise from the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 1218/88 dated December 12,1993. The appellant was promoted from the post of A.S.I. to S.I. but he was confirmed w.e.f. January 4, 1989 though it was stated that his case for promotion had to be considered with effect from October 1, 1982. This claim was resisted by the respondents on the ground that in 1983, he was charged for an offence under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and he was kept under suspension and he was also communicated of adverse remarks for the period from June 7,1980 to March 31,1981 and that he became eligible to be considered for promotion as S.I. w.e.f. December 16,1985. Therefore, his case was considered and he was promoted in 1989. Counsel for the respondent was directed to produce the record relating to the D.P.C. proceedings. We have perused the proceedings of D.P.C. which would clearly show that the reasons which prevailed with the D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996(83)ELT20(SC); 1995Supp(3)SCC151
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy and S.C. Sen, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. Heard counsel for both the parties. This appeal is directed against the order of the High Court dismissing the writ petition. The writ petition was directed against an interlocutory order passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, rejecting the application filed by the appellant to summon certain documents from the Assistant Collector, Baroda. The documents which the appellant wanted to be summoned are the following :1. Photocopies of five sample gate passes of January 1985 of M/s. Petro Fills Ltd., Baroda showing the clearance of LOY/POY yarn are made at take-up stage and the duty is paid on take-up denierage. 2. Refund order dated 13-2-1984 by which Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Baroda has refunded roughly Rs. 33,00,000 to M/s. Petro Fils for refund of excess payment.3. Photocopies of five sample gate passes of January 1985 of M/s. Garware Nylons Ltd., Pimpri, Poona showing the clearance of LOY/POY yarn are ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994(4)SCALE442; 1994Supp(3)SCC551; [1994]Supp4SCR110
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The Notification under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, issued by the Lt. Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, published in the gazette, dated May 3, 1994, has been placed before us. Rule 2 mentions that:2. Amendment of Rule 2 - In the Delhi Cinematograph Rules, 1981 [(hereinafter called the 'Principal Rules' in Rule 2 for the existing Clause (2)], the following shall be substituted: Local body in relation to the licensing of any place for cinematograph exhibitions, means Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi Municipal Committee, Cantonment Board, as the case may be in whose jurisdiction the place for cinematograph exhibitions, situates. 3. In view of this, the controversy that was focused on the Original Side of the High Court as to who is the competent local authority, has been resolved. In the cases at hand, it is an admitted fact that the place of cinematograph exhibition in which the cinema building is being con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC189; [1995]82CompCas191(SC); JT1994(6)SC379; 1994(4)SCALE364; 1994Supp(3)SCC569; [1994]Supp4SCR87; 1995(1)LC200(SC)
ORDERS. Mohan, J.1. Leave granted.2. Life Insurance Corporation of India is the appellant.3. The Jabalpur Municipal Corporation formulated a scheme for the benefit of its employees known as Nagar Nigam Karamachari Privarik Kalyan Yojna. That scheme provided, in the event of death of an employee while in service a sum of Rs. 10.000 or Rs. 5,000 payable to the dependents, depending upon the rate of monthly contribution. If the monthly contribution was Rs. 10 the amount payable was Rs. 10,000 and where the monthly contribution was Rs. 5 the amount payable was Rs. 5,000. The scheme was also known as Family Benefit Fund Scheme. It was implemented with effect from 1.6.75 by effecting appropriate monthly deductions from the salaries of the employees. The payment of specified amount in terms of the scheme was also made to the retiring employees as also to the dependants of the employees who died while in service.4. While the scheme was in operation the question arose as to the validity of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(3)SCC446
S.C. Agrawal and; Faizan Uddin, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. The respondent was employed as peon-cum-chowkidar in the Government Middle School at Mandi Cholian. By order dated 21-7-1975, he was dismissed from service. He was reinstated in service by order dated 6-3-1981. After his retirement from service he filed the civil suit giving rise to this appeal in the court of Sub-Judge, Second Class, Jalandhar, on 20-4-1990, for a declaration to the effect that he was entitled to regularisation of his services for the period 21-7-1975 to 6-3-1981 as well as arrears of salary for the said period from 21-7-1975 to 6-3-1981 and the pensionary benefits by taking into account the said period. In the said suit the trial court on 16-12-1992, passed a decree declaring that the respondent is entitled to the regularisation of his services for the period from 21-7-1975 to 6-3-1981 and to all the consequential benefits with full back wages for the period of his dismissal and he was also entitled to retirement...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998(1)CTC76; JT1997(10)SC608; 1994(4)SCALE436; (1994)6SCC620; [1994]Supp4SCR114
ORDER1. Leave granted in both matters.2. K.R. Srinivas, the appellant in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 2828 of 94 is aggrieved against the order of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 17.12.1993 passed in Writ Appeal No. 53 of 1993 whereby the writ petition No. 2082 of 1991, preferred by Dr. R.M. Premchand the first respondent under Article 226 of the Constitution, was allowed in public interest. Since certain adverse remarks came to be made by the Division Bench against the father of K.R. Srinivas i.e., Professor K.V. Ramana, the then Vice Chancellor of the Andhra University, the other appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 2392 of 94 seeks the limited...relief of expunction of all those remarks.3. We are refraining from giving herein the facts elaborately, for we have felt a sense of discomfort and uneasiness in which the High Court's jurisdiction in public interest was invoked at a point of time when the appellant stood cornered and cross checking beca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC223; JT1994(6)SC356; 1994(4)SCALE354; 1994Supp(3)SCC511; 1994(2)LC609(SC); (1995)1UPLBEC103
ORDERS.C. Agrawal, J.1. These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment of Rajasthan High Court dated August 25, 1984 in Special Appeals Nos. 288/80, 96/81 and 300/80 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court has affirmed the order of learned single Judge dated April 30, 1980 allowing Writ Petitions (Civil) Nos. 1888/73, 253/74 and 1047/74 and setting aside the award of the Judge, Labour Court, Rajasthan dated February 24, 1972.2. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows:3. The appellant was appointed as a Caner in the Public Works Department of the Government of Rajasthan with effect from February 13, 1953. In the said department there are two posts of Supervisors -one is Supervisor, Workshop, Furniture Store and the other is Supervisor Workshop, Mechanical Sub-Division. One Bhairon Bux, who was working as Supervisor, Workshop, Furniture Store, retired on July 1, 1967 and on his retirement Tarachand, L.D.C., was promoted as officiating Supervisor with effect from ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC186; 1995(1)BLJR41; (1995)109PLR256; (1994)6SCC456; [1994]Supp4SCR103
ORDERN. Venkatachala, J.1. In this appeal by special leave, directed against the Judgment and Decree dated June 19,1990 in Appeal No. 2234 of 1986 of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh, enhanced compensation for irrigation wells of the agricultural lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - 'the Act' is claimed by the owners of those lands - the appellants.2. Several extents of agricultural lands comprised in different survey numbers of Nedunoor Village. Karimnagar District of the State of Andhra Pradesh were required for submergence under the waters of Maneru Dam. Those agricultural lands were acquired pursuant to Notification published in the State Gazette dated February 2, 1979, as required by Section 4(1) of the Act. The agricultural lands so acquired, were dry lands, single crop wet lands, and double crop wet lands. In some of those agricultural lands, there were irrigation wells, as well.3. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO), by an award made under Section 11...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994LC3(SC); 1994(74)ELT5(SC); JT1994(6)SC375; 1994(4)SCALE376; 1994Supp(3)SCC562; [1994]Supp4SCR81
ORDER1. An interesting question of law relating to applicability of rules of interpretation appended to the Schedule of Customs Act arises for consideration in this appeal.2. The appellant is a manufacturer of, 'volumetric displacement type flow meter' (for short 'the meter'). It imported goods described as 'components and accessories of volumetric displacement type flow meter' for use in the end product. The flow meter manufactured by the appellant consists of the following devices:(a) a device for measuring the variable to be controlled.(b) control device which compares the measured value with the desired value and actuates the starting stopping (or) operating device.(c) a starting, stopping (or) operating device.(d) action device which carries out orders received either directly (or) through amplifying relays from device (C).3. In the Bill of Lading the item imported is described as Industrial Metric Equipment (component and accessory or Volumetric Type Flow Meter). In the Purchase ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1995]211ITR111(SC); 1995Supp(3)SCC208
ORDERS.P. Bharucha, J.1. The first two appeals arise out of a common judgment. The second two appeals arise out of orders that follow the common judgment. The respondents in the two sets of appeals are brothers, the kartas of their joint Hindu families and assessees as such. The question to be considered may be quoted in respect of the first appeal, whose facts we shall state:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the income earned by Suresh kumar Jayantilal and Ashok Kumar Jayantilal from the partnership of Messrs. A. J. and Co., cannot be included in the income of the assessee ?2. The assessment years with which we are concerned in the first set of appeals is assessment year 1964-65 and in the second set assessment year 1965-66.3. The assessee (in the first appeal) is a Hindu undivided family of which Jayantilal Premchand Shah was the karta. He represented the Hindu undivided family as a partner in the firm of A. J. and Comp...
Tag this Judgment!