Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC976; JT1995(8)SC276; 1996LabIC912; (1996)ILLJ1103SC; 1995(6)SCALE364; (1996)1SCC283; [1995]Supp5SCR35; 1996(1)LC422(SC); (1996)1UPLBEC710
1. It is rather unfortunate that the Recruitment Boards have adopted wholly unconstitutional procedure in selecting candidates for the State Bank of India ('SBI', for short) and other nationalised banks in Eastern Region of India. On April 19, 1982, a requisition was given by the SBI for recruitment of 960 vacancies. Equally, other nationalised banks pooled together and had given requisition for recruitment of 1713 vacancies.2. It would be clear that in 1983, while making recruitment the Recruitment Board for the SBI prepared a select list in excess of the requirement notified by the respective banks, i.e., 3100 candidates were put in the select list to be appointed by the State Bank of India. Equally, since vacancies had arisen to the extent of 6700, combined examination Board for the national banks made a mess in the recruitment of the candidates in excess of the notified vacancies.3. It would also appear that with a view to clear the mess created by Recruitment Boards, a high-power ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC536; 81(1996)CLT91(SC); JT1995(8)SC105; 1995(6)SCALE298; 1995Supp(4)SCC165; [1995]Supp5SCR31
1. The Steel Authority of India, the sole respondent herein, employs a fleet of buses meant to carry its employees from its township to its factory at Rourkela. This has been so for over three decades. For some inexplicable reasons, the Steel Authority of India Ltd. was all along being made to pay tax under Item 3 of the Schedule to the Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1975 on buses kept by it on the footing of being goods carriers. As is the case of both sides, Item 3 was hardly applicable and yet tax was kept asked and paid. With effect from 19.12.1990, the appellant herein, i.e., State of Orissa and its officers, put to change the head of taxation and required the respondent to pay higher tax under Item 4 of the Schedule, whereunder rates of tax are prescribed for motor vehicles plying for hire and used for conveyance of passengers, including motor cabs. Challenging such step the respondent - Steel Authority of India, moved the High Court of Orissa in a writ petition under Articl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996ACJ1; 1995(6)SCALE270; (1995)6SCC623; 1996(1)LC13(SC)
K. Venkataswami, J.1. Leave granted.2. Heard counsel on both sides.3. This appeal by special leave is preferred against the judgment and order in F.A.F.O. No. 994/94 Allahabad High Court dated 22.9.94. The appellant while working as Beldar, to be more specific while pouring water on then wheels of road-roller moving on the road, met with an accident on 8.5.1989. As result of the said accident, the appellant's right leg had to be amputated. As the accident was due to the negligence on the part of the person who drove the road-roller belonging to the first respondent, the appellant moved a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Etawah, claiming a sum of Rs. 5,30,000/-. The Tribunal found that the negligence was on the part of the person who drove the road-roller. It may be mentioned at this place that the regular driver who was permitted to drive the said road-roller was on leave and the cleaner who had no licence factually drove the road-roller on the date of accident...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC535; JT1995(8)SC220; 1995(6)SCALE254; (1995)6SCC728; [1995]Supp5SCR5; 1996(1)LC96(SC)
ORDERJ.S. Verma, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short 'the R.P. Act') by the returned candidate against the judgment dated 18th December, 1991 by N.D. Patnaik, J. of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Election Petition No. 7 of 1990, setting aside the election of the appellant to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly from No. 6 Pathapatnam Assembly Constituency held on 22.11.1989. The appellant was candidate of the Telugu Desam Party while respondent No. 1 Narayana Rao Dharmana was the Congress (I) candidate at the election. The appellant polled 41,040 votes and was declared elected against respondent No. 1 who obtained 40, 766 votes. The election petition was filed on several grounds including the corrupt practice under Section 123(3) of the R.P. Act of appealing for votes on the ground of his religion. The High Court has recorded a finding that the appellant is guilty of the corrupt practice under Section 123(3) and on ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1995(8)SC508; 1995(6)SCALE391; (1996)1SCC299; [1995]Supp5SCR39
ORDER1. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order dated July 18, 1979 made in Special Civil Application No. 92/75 by the High Court of Bombay. Notification under Section 4(1) acquiring an extent of about 5 acres of land was published in the State Gazette on September 17, 1970 for public purpose, namely construction of staff quarters for Maharashtra Road Transport Corporation employees. Declaration under Section 6 was published on July 29, 1971. The award also was made on September 15, 1971. It would appear that respondents 1-3 had purchased three plots of land from Usmanshahi Mills which was under liquidation through the Official Liquidator on June 17, 1968. But the mutation of their names in the revenue records was not effected. In consequence, notices could not be issued. They, in turn, sold these plots to 4th respondent in 1973. A writ petition was filed on December 19, 1974 challenging the validity of the notification and also the award. The High Court set asi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1996)2CALLT1(SC); JT1995(8)SC289; 1995(6)SCALE353a; 1995Supp(4)SCC660; [1995]Supp5SCR25
Ramaswamy, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order dated March 5, 1993 passed in C.W.P. No. 316 of 1993 by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The competent authority, viz., the Special Land Acquisition Collector made an award under Section 8 of the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (for short, 'the Act') and awarded compensation @ Rs. 375 per kanal. This was done as early as in 1970. In 1986, Civil Writ Petition No. 2391 of 1986 was filed by the respondents for appointment of an arbitrator. The High Court allowed the writ petition on July 28, 1986 and directed the appellants to appoint an arbitrator. The arbitrator thus appointed, by his award dated December 12, 1991 determined compensation @ R. 150 per marla. He also awarded solatium @ 30% and interest @ 9% per annum for one year and on expiry thereof @ 15% on the enhanced compensation. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellants filed an appeal in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)11SCC425
K. Ramaswamy and; S. Saghir Ahmad, JJ.1. This writ petition is filed against the refusal of permission to publish a book titled Commentary on Karnataka Rent Control Act. When the petitioner filed CWP No. 59 of 1988 in this Court, this Court upheld the vires of Rule 9 to Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules. Since the petitioner being a judicial officer intends to publish the commentary on the above law, this Court opined that the High Court may reconsider for giving permission. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted his representation on 8-3-1988. The High Court had considered and opined that grant of such permission was not conducive. Therefore, it declined to grant permission. It being discretionary and the petitioner being in judicial service, we do not find any illegality in declining to grant permission.2. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC607; 1996(1)ALD(Cri)748; 1996CriLJ883; JT1995(8)SC81; 1995(6)SCALE261; 1995Supp(4)SCC259; [1995]Supp5SCR10
ORDERAnand, J. 1. The appellant on conviction by the learned Judge, Special Court, Patiala for offences under Section 302/201 IPC was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,0007 - and in default to suffer further EI for two years for the offence under Section 302 IPC and 2 years RI for the offence under Section 201 IPC, Both the sentences were, however, directed to run concurrently. Through this appeal under Section 14 of the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984, he has questioned his conviction and sentence.2. The prosecution case in brief is that the appellant and Smt. Tajinder Kaur, PW-2 were married about 10 years prior to the date of occurrence which allegedly took place on 18.3.1984. Two daughters Pinky and Rozy aged about 6 & frac12; or 7 years and 2 & frac12; years respectively were born out of this wedlock. Ajraer Kaur, mother of the appellant as well as the appellant were unhappy with Tejinder Kaur, PW-2 for giving birth to daughte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC642; II(1996)BC166(SC); [1996]86CompCas60(SC); JT1995(8)SC283; 1996(6)KarLJ616; (1996)113PLR209; 1995(6)SCALE501; (1996)1SCC90; [1995]Supp5SCR42
1. Leave granted.2. We have heard the counsel on both sides. The admitted facts are that the appellant had got insured his truck bearing registration No. HPA 6288 with the respondent No. 1 on March 28, 1983. During the course of employment of carriage of goods, the truck handed over to the driver on October 7, 1983 was not returned to the appellant. Thereby he lost the truck by an act of misfeasance of the driver. The appellant in the interregnum had the insurance renewed on April 19, 1984 operative upto April 18, 1985. On July 9, 1984, the appellant demanded payment of insured amount due to loss of the truck which liability was disclaimed by the respondents through their letter dated December 31, 1984. After exchange of legal notice and reiteration of denial thereof, case No. 34 of 1986 was instituted in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, seeking a declaration that the appellant is entitled to the total loss of the truck from the Insur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1995(8)SC335; 1995(6)SCALE349; (1996)7SCC32; [1995]Supp4SCR840
O R D E R The Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh dismissed the writ petition of the appellants in limine, which has given rise to this appeal. On the bare outlines of the matter, it is clear that there is not much scope for interference at our end. The appellants are heirs and legal representatives of Mathura Parshad, deceased, cashier-cum-member of the Cooperative Society, respondent no.3. On his demise, it was discovered that he had defalcated large sums of money of the Society. Since a dispute arose between the Society and its deceased member, about the recovery thereof, the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased, Mathura Parshad were made to face proceedings. An arbitrator was appointed to go into the matter in accordance with the provisions of Sections 55 and 56 of The Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. An award was made by the Arbitrator against the appellants, being heirs and legal representatives of Mathura Parshad, deceased, not only for the principal a...
Tag this Judgment!