Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995(6)SCALE777a; (1996)1SCC626; [1995]Supp6SCR15
ORDER1. Though the case has been called twice, the appellants are not present in person. We have taken the assistance of Shri K.S. Chauhan, learned Counsel appearing for the State.2. The controversy raised in this case is covered by the Judgment of this Court in Ramesh Chand v. State of U.P. : [1980]1SCR498 where this Court had held that 'failure to specify number of services would not invalidate the draft scheme under Section 68C or the approved scheme under Section 68D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939', Same is the question in these appeals also. Under these circumstances, the omission to specify the number of services in the approved scheme does not invalidate the scheme already approved.3. The appeals are accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances without costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC751a; (1996)IILLJ831SC; 1995(6)SCALE759; (1996)7SCC1; [1995]Supp6SCR17
1. In these appeals the only question is whether the appellants-motor pump attendants are semi-skilled or skilled workers as determined in the Government circular dated May 11, 1983. After the III Pay Commission, mazdoors working in the military engineering have been classified as unskilled and their scale of pay is Rs. 196-232, semi-skilled Rs. 200 to 290; skilled Rs. 260 to 400 and highly skilled grade II Rs. 330-480, highly skilled grade I Rs. 380-560. As a consequence of fitment, all the unskilled mazdoors, chowkidars who passed the test, were initially classified into skilled category and later it was discovered that it was a wrong classification. Consequently, directions were issued to fit them in the semi-skilled category and direction to recover the arrears paid during the period of 1984 to 1986 was also given. Some of the persons came to challenge these orders before different Benches of the Central Administrative Tribunal. In the Cuttack Bench, the same categories of persons ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IAD(SC)143; JT1995(8)SC602; 1995(6)SCALE769; (1996)1SCC708; [1995]Supp6SCR4
ORDER1. This appeal speaks of several events that have taken place during the pendency of the litigation. About 40.99 acres comprising of Plot Nos. 63, 66, 96, 34, 53, 37 & 102 situated in Village Lakhimpur, Pargana Suar, in former Rampur State are the subject matter of this appeal. It is the claim of the appellant that his son is disabled Sirdar. Consequently, he had sub-leased the properties to respondents 3 to 10. On his demise on October 21, 1954, the appellant-his father succeeded to the estate. He also is a disabled person. The U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act') was brought into force in the State of Rampur with effect from January 26, 1956. The respondents claimed the status as Adhivasis as they were cultivating the land and have Bhumiswami rights. The appellant claimed the Asami right. The Assistant Settlement Officer by his proceedings dated September 30, 1963 negatived the claims of the appellant and held that the respondents became Adhi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IAD(SC)367; JT1995(9)SC21; 1995(7)SCALE250; (1997)7SCC173; [1995]Supp6SCR1
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The only question is whether the appellant's Orphanage is a person within the meaning of Section 2(43) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1961. Section 75(1) says of 'kudikidappu karan' (Homestead dweller) to have fixity of tenure and shall not be liable to be evicted from his homestead except on grounds mentioned in Sub-sections(i) to (iv) thereof. Sub-section (2) says 'Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), the person in possession of the land on which there is a homestead or hut in the occupation of a Kudikidappukaran may, if he bona fide requires the land for constructing a building for his own residence require the Kudikippukaran to shift to a new site.' Sub-section (3) says that notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1) and (3) where the total extent of land held by a person, either as owner or as tenant, is less than one acre and there is a Kudikidappu on any land held by him, he may, if he requires the land occupied by such Kudi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IAD(SC)139; AIR1996SC981; JT1995(9)SC127; 1995(6)SCALE764; (1996)1SCC669; [1995]Supp6SCR8
1. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on May 10, 1962 acquiring a total extent of 62.5 acres belonging to the appellant for extension of the South Eastern Railway Station. The award under Section 11 was made on May 13, 1965 determining the compensation @ Rs. 250 per acre. On reference under Section 18 by award and decree dated December 8, 1971, the Court had enhanced the compensation to Rs. 2,000 per acre. On further appeal under Section 54, the Division Bench of the High Court by judgment and decree dated September 29, 1984 further enhanced the compensation to Rs. 7,000 per acre. Dissatisfied therewith, the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave. The State did not file any appeal against the enhanced compensation.2. Shri Joshi, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant, even before the acquisition was initiated, had offered the land @ Rs. 4 per sq. yd. and the Department had agreed and proceeded with the acquisition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC733; 1996(1)ALD(Cri)768; 1996CriLJ1134; (1996)3GLR333; 1995(7)SCALE142; (1996)7SCC194; [1995]Supp6SCR21
1. These appeals are directed against the judgment dated March 24, 1993 passed by the High Court at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 3062/79 and Criminal Appeal No. 3247/79. Both the aforesaid appeals were preferred by the accused-appellants against their conviction and sentence passed by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut in Sessions Trial No. 5/79 under Section 302 read with Section 148 and 149 IPC and convicting the appellants for life imprisonment on the charge of murder and also convicting them under Section 148 IPC. The five appellants, namely, Trikha (A-1) his two sons, Sohanvir (A-2) and Amar Pal (A-3) his brother's son, Krishana Pal (A-4) and Veerpal (A-5) also a relation of Trikha, were prosecuted under Section 302 read with Sections 148 & 149 IPC for causing death of one Amar Pal on October 11, 1978 at about 12.30 P.M.2. The prosecution case in short is that the family of the deceased Amar Pal and the family of Trikha had strained relations and there had been ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IAD(SC)323; AIR1996SC977; 1996(1)ALD(Cri)772; (1997)1CALLT12(SC); 1996CriLJ1354; 1996(53)ECC115; (1996)2GLR699; JT1995(9)SC411; 1996(1)SCALE48; (1996)2SCC37; [1995]Supp
1. Leave granted. 2. We have heard the counsel on both sides. On march 24, 1986, on receipt of a secret information that a contraband, viz., Charas was being dealt with at the bus stand, Head Constable Rattan Singh alongwith other police officials was present at bus stand, Amb. They secured the presence of one Pradhan Subhas Chand and one Gurdas Ram and raided the house of the first respondent. On search, they found 1 kilo 15 grams of Charas. They took sample and divided the same into three parts. One was given to the accused another was sent to the court and third one was sent to the Chemical Examiner for analysis. On analysis, it was found that it was Charas Accordingly, charge-sheet was filed to prosecute him under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [for short, 'the Act']. After considering the charge sheet, the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated July 6, 1987 discharged the respondent from the offence under Section 20. On revisions, the Hig...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC722; 1996(1)ALD(Cri)139; 1996CriLJ1127; 1995(6)SCALE674; (1996)1SCC542; [1995]Supp5SCR812
ORDERB.N. Kirpal, J.1. These are appeals by special leave granted against the Judgment of a Single Judge of Bombay High Court in exercise of his jurisdiction under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.) and Article 227 of the 'Constitution of India whereby the proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which were pending against the respondent herein before the Special Judge at Greater Bombay, were quashed.2. The respondent had joined the police force as a P.S.I. Cadet on 1.6.1966 and after completion of his training, he was posted as police Sub-Inspector in the Police force in 1968. He was promoted to the post of Police Sub-Inspector in September, 1974 and in August, 1981, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Commissioner of Police. It was the case of the respondent that he had held various important assignments and that his record was unblemished.3. It appears that one A.C.P. R.B. Kolekar of 'Anti-Corruption Bureau, Bombay on 1....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC836; 1996(1)ALD(Cri)152; 1995(6)SCALE727; (1996)7SCC155a; [1995]Supp5SCR827
1. The appellants along with Gurmukh Singh and Sunder Singh were sent up for trial before the learned Additional Judge of the Special Court, Ferozepur Zone, Faridkot for various offences in connection with the death of Pritam Kaur wife of Mukhtiar Singh appellant. Gurmukh Singh and Sunder Singh were acquitted of all the charges. Appellant Mukhtiar Singh was convicted for an offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default, to undergo six months R.I. The remaining appellants Kartar Singh, Ran Singh, Dhan Singh and Piara Singh were convicted for the offence under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to two years RI each and to pay a fine of Rs. 200 each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for one month each. They have filed this appeal under Section 14 of the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984 challenging their conviction and sentence.2. The prosecution case is that Pritam Kaur deceased was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC715; JT1995(8)SC352; 1995(6)SCALE648; (1996)1SCC272; [1995]Supp5SCR782
ORDER1. Heard Mr. Raju Ramachandra (A.C.) and Mr. Arun Jaitley, the learned Counsel for the DDA on the question as to what action is called for against the officers named in the Report of Justice Chinnappa Reddy, orders are reserved. Mr. Jaitley shall file a statement by tomorrow specifying the present designation of the officers named in the report and if they have retired when they have retired and from what post. The statement shall also indicate the authority competent to initiate disciplinary action against each of the said officers.2. Mr. V.S. Bobde, the learned Counsel appearing for one of the purchasers of the space in the building which was raised by Skipper on the plot in question, submitted that the balance of Rs. 9 crores must yet be recovered from the Skipper and be paid to the purchasers who have been duped by him. We are of the opinion that the proper course in such a situation would be that separate application is filed seeking whatever relief such purchaser wants to ob...
Tag this Judgment!