Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC1453; 1995CriLJ2907
1. On 6th June, 1988 at about 8.00 p.m. while deceased Rekha was sitting at her house along with her mother Janabai, PW-2, Her brother Ashok, PW-1 and two other brothers Raju and Vijay, the appellants along with, three others intruded into her house. On account of some previous enmity, Ramesh, A-1 abused Ashok, PW-1 and thereafter made an attempt to assault him with the knife which he had come armed with. Rekha intervened with a view to save her brother from being assaulted and in the bargain received an injury with the knife at the hands of Ramesh on her chest which injury ultimately proved fatal. One of the co-accused of the appellants, Ravindra, who was armed with a chain caused injuries to Janabai, PW-2. Baban, A-2 assaulted the deceased with the knife with which he was armed causing an injury on her lower abdomen (pubic region).2. Nilkanth, another co-accused, also allegedly assaulted the deceased and caused her an injury with a knife on the lower abdomen (pubic region). PW-1 lodg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1995(1)SC663; 1995(1)KLT506(SC); 1995(1)SCALE200; (1995)2SCC387; [1995]1SCR328
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. These are connected cases. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 118 of 1958, Sub Court, Ernakulam -Cochin Devaswom Board, Trichur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') -is the appellant in C.A. No. 2312 of 1977. The respondents in the said appeal, defendants 2, 4, 6, 11 legal representatives of the 8th defendant and the legal representative of the 1st defendant in the suit are the 'tenants' of the suit property. They are the petitioners in S.L.P. No. 4906 of 1978. The Board - appellant in C.A. No. 2312 of 1977 - is the respondent in S.L.P. No. 4906 of 1978.2. The suit, O.S. No. 188/58, Sub Court, Ernakulam had a chequered career. It was filed by the Board, representing one of its institutions or units - the Ayyampilly Devaswom (hereinafter called 'Devaswom') against the tenants under different demises - Kanam, verumpattom and other demises. The Board prayed for a declaration that it has the right of fishing in and over the plaint lands, nearly 220 acres in extent, out of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(3)SCC188
M.M. Punchhi and; Jayachandra Reddy, JJ.1. Criminal Appeals Nos. 709-10 of 1990 at the instance of S.P. Nanda and other officers of the Orissa State Financial Corporation and Criminal Appeals Nos. 48-49 of 1991 by the Orissa State Financial Corporation and others have a common object to achieve, inasmuch as the orders of the High Court of Orissa passed in contempt proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short “the Act”) are sought to be quashed and, in the alternative, for substantial modification.2. It appears that in a bunch of writ petitions, the High Court vide its judgment dated 11-1-1990 granted two reliefs to the writ petitioners, i.e., (i) to grant them wages as ad hoc employees on a par with regular employees; and (ii) directing the Corporation to frame a scheme to envisage absorption of the writ petitioners to the regular service. Since there were no clear-cut directions to keep the writ petitioners on roll pending preparati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1996)7SCC387
M.M. Punchhi and; K. Jayachandra Reddy, JJ.1. The appellant who challenges the judgment and order of the Gauhati High Court dated 7-3-1974 passed in Second Appeal No. 119 of 1971, obtained a lease of some vacant land from the respondent way back in the year 1947 at the rate of Rs 150 per annum as rent. The duration of the lease was five years. Under the terms of the lease, the tenant was permitted to construct houses on the land and to remove the structure on the expiry of the period of lease. The appellant raised certain residential structures which the courts below have termed as ‘permanent’. Prima facie, though the description of those structures cannot in the normal sense be termed as ‘permanent’, but they are understood as permanent in the strict legal sense under precedent for the purposes of the Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955 so as to extend some protection to the tenants. Instantly, on the expiry of the lease after five years, there...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC1123; [1995(70)FLR1063]; JT1995(2)SC642; 1995LabIC613; 1995(1)SCALE320; (1995)2SCC538; [1995]1SCR274; 1995(1)LC611(SC)
1. Leave granted.2. The facts are telling that the appellant was appointed in the Revenue Department as Second Division Clerk in Mangalore on October 8, 1963. He was sent on deputation to the Food and Civil Supplies Department which was then part of Revenue Department as Assistant Civil Supplies Inspector on December 26,1967 and was promoted as Second Grade Civil Supplies Inspector on September 11, 1968 which is stated to be equivalent to Sheristedar. The 5th respondent Mr. R.K. Vasudev was appointed as a Second Division Clerk on January 22, 1965 in Food Wing of the Revenue Department. Thereafter he was regularised as second Division Clerk on September 30, 1971 and was promoted as a Sheristedar on June 17, 1982. From these facts, it is clear that at all levels of appointments and promotions, the appellant was always senior to 5th respondent. But one fact that remain on record is that the appellant continued to be on deputation in the Food Wing of Revenue Department. When he was sought ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC983; (1996)10SCC72
ORDER1. By this petition the petitioner who was a Railway employee and who retired in the year 1971 but did not opt for Pension Scheme as introduced by the Railway Board by its letter dated 16th November 1957, rather opted for the Provident Fund System seeks direction to the opposite party to grant him same Benefit as was granted to others by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay by its order dated 11th November 1987. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Tribunal is extracted below:The respondents are directed to implement the directions given in clauses (i) to (iv) of this order in respect of all the Railway Employees who were similarly placed like the applicants i.e., those who retired during the period from 1-4-1969 to 14-7-1972 and who had indicated their option in favour of pension scheme either at any time while in service or after their retirement and who now desire to opt for the pension scheme.It is not disputed that the S.L.P. filed by the Union against the O...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC885; JT1995(1)SC458; (1995)3SCC86; [1995]1SCR256
B.P. Jeevan, Reddy, J.1. Leave granted. Heard counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Patna High Court striking down Clauses (a) and (c) of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Assessment of Annual Rental Value of Holding Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'Assessment Rules') framed by the State Government under Section 227 read with Section 130 of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act and the two notifications issued by the Patna Municipal Corporation under Rules 3 and 5 of the said Rules. The High Court is of the opinion that the said clauses offend the equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India.3. Sub-section (1) of Section 123 of the Municipal Corporation Act empowers the corporation to impose, with the previous approval of the State Government, the taxes mentioned under Clauses (a) to (p) of the said sub-section. We are concerned herein with the taxes mentioned under Clauses (a), (b) and (c), viz., '(a) a tax on holding...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1995)IILLJ677SC; 1995(1)SCALE237; (1995)2SCC98; [1995]1SCR243; 1995(1)LC542(SC)
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Admittedly, the respondent entered into service in 1958 showing his date of birth as 15.1.1935. He claims to have made an application for correction of the date of birth on 17.4.1986 which was ultimately rejected in the proceedings of the Collector dated 75.1.93. Thereafter the respondent filed the petition on 27.1.93 before the Tribunal. He attained superannuation as per the original entry in the records on 31.1.93. The Tribunal, by its order dated 23.1.1.93, while holding that his correct date of birth is 12.1.93, directed the appellant to continue the respondent in service for a period of one, year. That order is now under challenge. It is beyond comprehension to believe at the belated stage the horoscope evidence or dial statement; The school register was available when he entered into service which was recorded on the basis of the entries in the SSLC register. Volume could he spelt out of the authenticity of the present alleged entries in the school regist...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995(1)SCALE309; (1995)2SCC451; [1995]1SCR250
ORDER1. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Lund Acquisition Act was published on March 30, 1972. The award was made by the Land Acquisition Collector on September 15, 1976 and the possession was taken on October 15, 1976. The point raised now is covered by the judgment of the Constitution Bench in K.S. Paripooman v. State of Kerala, reported in : AIR1995SC1012 . In view of these facts, the respondents arc not entitled to the payment of the additional amount as contemplated under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by Amendment Act 68/84. As a consequence, the claimants are not entitled to the above benefit. The Review Petition is ordered.2. Leave granted in S.L.P. The appeal is allowed only to the above extent. The award of the Courts below arc accordingly modified. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC711; JT1995(1)SC361; 1995(1)SCALE142; (1995)2SCC74; 1995(1)LC303(SC)
ORDERR.M. Sahai, J1. This appeal is directed against judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court. The appellant, a bank constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970 had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 8,86,864/- together with costs and interest against respondent Nos. 1 to 5. It was contested by respondent Nos. 1 to 4. It proceeded exparte against respondent No. 5 who had deposited the title deeds of his property over which equitable mortgage was created for repayment of the dues. The house of respondent No. 5 which was offered as security is situated at Ghaziabad. Therefore, the suit was filed at Ghaziabad. An application under Order 11 Rule 12 of the CPC was filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 2 for summoning of the departmental proceedings against the employees of the bank as they had come to know that departmental proceedings had been initiated against the official for creation of the mortgage. The application was dismissed by the Trial ...
Tag this Judgment!