Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1996)2SCC70; [1995]Supp6SCR795
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Passing the Hindi test is a condition for promotion and since the appellant had passed the test on September 20, 1981, he was given promotion and seniority was fixed with effect from the passing of the said test. Under these circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference.3. The appeal is accordingly dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1996)2CALLT10(SC); JT1995(9)SC478; 1996(1)SCALE67; (1996)7SCC331; [1995]Supp6SCR792
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties. The admitted facts of the case are that the land was notified for acquisition under Section 7 of the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act') on July 10, 1968. The Collector passed his award on March 10, 1973 and the notice was issued on Form-J to the respondents. They did not accept the offer of the Collector nor they executed any agreement in terms thereof. Consequently they sought for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 8(3) read with Rule 9 of the Rules on August 23, 1977. The arbitrator came to be appointed on September 5, 1988 who made his award on March 14, 1989. He granted solatium and interest under the Land Acquisition Amendment Act 68 of 1984.3. It is contended by Shri Nambiar, learned senior counsel for the Union that in view of the ratio in Union of India v. Hari Kishan Khosla : 1992(2)SCALE621 , the Tribunal has no power and jurisdiction to awar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1995(9)SC173; 1995(7)SCALE253; (1996)1SCC612; [1995]Supp6SCR780; 1996(1)LC191(SC)
B.L. Hansaria, J.1. The appellant, who was once accepted by respondent No. 5-Ram Chandra (hereinafter the respondent), as a tenant when proceeding under Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (Tenancy Act) was initiated against him, has lost that right when the respondent agitated the matter again under Section 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. Shortly put, this is the grievance of the appellant, and the same is well founded as it would appear from what is being stated later.2. In the first proceeding, the respondent had sought eviction of the appellant by invoking Section 177 of the Tenancy Act on the ground that the latter had become liable for ejectment because of using the land contrary to the purpose for which it was leased. The respondent lost that suit on the ground that the land being part of jagir he had no locus standi to file the suit, as jagir stood abolished by the force of the Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952 (Jagir Act). That order was passed on 3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1996)7SCC178; [1995]Supp6SCR784
1. Leave granted.2. The only controversy is as regards the entitlement of the respondents to the additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Since the award of the Collector is of June 4, 1979, the claimants arc not entitled to the additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the said Act.3. The appeal is accordingly allowed to the above extent. The Order of the High Court is set aside. No costs.CA. No. 12121 of 19954. Leave granted.5. The only controversy with which we are concerned in this appeal is as regards the entitlement of the respondents to the additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Since the award of the Collector is of April 21, 1980, the claimants are not entitled to the additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the said Act.6. The appeal is accordingly allowed to the above extent. The order of the High Court is set aside. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IAD(SC)655; (1996)7SCC174
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The only controversy with which we are concerned in this appeal is as regards the entitlement respondents to the additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Since the award of the Collector is of April 21. 1980, the claimants are not entitled to the (sic) amount under Section 23(1-A) of the said Act. The appeal is accordingly allowed to the above (sic) The order of the High Court is set aside. No costs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IAD(SC)636; AIR1996SC1050; JT1995(9)SC476; 1996LabIC933; 1996(1)SCALE121; (1996)7SCC153; [1995]Supp6SCR786
1. Leave granted.2. This appeal by special leave arises from the common order passed by the High Court of Punjab & haryana on 30th May, 1994 in CWO No. 4635/95 and batch.3. In view of the allegations made in the appeal that selection of Constable was not fair and was vitiated by ministerial interference, we had summoned the original record and we have carefully perused the select list. Three officers had participated in selecting the candidates and all of them had signed at the bottom of each page of the select list.4. Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel for the appellants, contended that though one candidate initially had failed, when the High Court had summoned the records and noted on perusal thereof that he was not properly treated, it has directed the Government to conduct the test afresh and he was, thereafter, selected. It is next contended that there was over-writings against (the names of some appellants in the select) list which would establish that some attempts were made ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC1201; 1996LabIC1042; 1995(7)SCALE295; (1996)2SCC187; [1995]Supp6SCR748; 1996(1)LC220(SC)
ORDERK. Venataswami, J.1. These two writ petitions are filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. At the time of argument learned Counsel appearing in these writ petitions confined their relief to the restoration of one-third portion of the fully commuted pension as per the decision of this Court in Common Cause, Registered Society and Ors. v. Union of India : [1987]1SCR497 , and consequently to quash para 4 of O.M. 3412/86. P & PW issued by government of India Department of Pension and Pensioner's Welfare dated 5.3.1987.2. Brief facts leading to filing of these two writ petitions are as follows:The members of the petitioner's welfare association in W.P. (C) No. 11855/85 and the individual petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 567/85 were Central Govt. Servants. Government of India some years ago decided to start public undertakings/enterprises in the core sector of industries. To start with the Government of India, sent some of their officers to the public undertakings, on deputation....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC770; JT1995(9)SC393; 1995(7)SCALE202; (1996)1SCC361; [1995]Supp6SCR694; 1996(1)LC197(SC)
ORDERA.M. Ahmadi, CJ.1. The short but interesting question that arises for our consideration is:Whether the Awards, Bharat Ratna, Padma Vibhushan, Padma Bhushan and Padma Shri (hereinafter called 'The National Awards') are 'Titles' within the meaning of Article 18(1) of the Constitution of India?2. Before dealing with the legal aspects of the question at issue, we may briefly set out the factual matrix of the two cases. The two petitions which have given rise to this issue were filed in the High Courts of Kerala and Madhya Pradesh (Indore Bench), respectively. The petitioner in T.C.(C) No. 9/94, Balaji Raghavan (hereinafter called 'petitioner No. 1') 'had filed O.P. No. 2110/92 (hereinafter called 'the O.P.') on February 13, 1992 before the Kerala High Court. The petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, sought, by way of a writ of mandamus, to prevent the respondent from conferring any of the National Awards. The petitioner in T.C.(C) No. 1/95, S.P. Anand (hereinafter call...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC922; 1996(1)ALD(Cri)128; 1996(1)ALT(Cri)252; 1996(2)BLJR1533; 1995(4)Crimes722(SC); JT1995(9)SC509; 1995(7)SCALE228; (1996)1SCC490; [1995]Supp6SCR731
ORDERS. Saghir Ahmad, J.1. Subhra Chakraborty (alias - Kalpana) who was student of the Baptist College, Kohima where the opposite party, Shri Bodhisattwa Gautam was a lecturer, filed a complaint in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kohima, Nagaland, alleging, inter alia, as under:3. That, your complainant begs to state that in April 1989 the accused person entered into Baptist College, Kohima as a Lecturer thereof and the complainant was a student of the said College at that relevant period.4. That, the accused person was in said Service in Kohima from April 1989 till he resigned the Service on 27th Jan, 1995 and was residing in a rented house in Kenezou Valley, Kohima owned by Dr. Zakiebatsu Angam.5. That, on 6th Feb. 1995 the accused person left for Silchar and presently residing in his uncle's (Shri Amiya Kanta Chakraborty) house in Premtala, Silchar-4, Dist. Cachar, in the State of Assam and assumed his service as Lecturer in Cachar College (Commerce Dept.) Silchar -...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IAD(SC)268; 1996(53)ECC85; JT1995(9)SC4; 1995(7)SCALE239; (1996)1SCC468; [1995]Supp6SCR719; [1996]100STC571(SC)
Suhas.C.Sen, J. 1. The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') was amended by insertion of Sub-section (3) of Section 5 by Act No. 103 of 1976 with effect from 1st April, 1976. The said Section 5(3) reads as under:5. When is a sale or purchase of goods said to take place in the course of import of export.(1) . . . .(2) . . . .(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), the last sale or purchase of any goods preceding the sale or purchase occasioning the export of those goods out of the territory of India shall also be deemed to be in the course of such export, if such last sale or purchase took place after, and was for the purpose of complying with, the agreement or order for or in relation to such export. 2. The common contention of the appellants in this batch of appeals is that the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Travancore-Cochin and Ors. v. Shanmugha Vilas Cashew Nut Factory and Ors. : [1954]1SCR53 , deals with Article 286 of the Constitutio...
Tag this Judgment!