Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1995(3)SC510; 1995(2)SCALE95; (1995)3SCC74; [1995]2SCR316
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is filed against the Judgment dated 9.5.1986, of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, in L.P.A. No. 139 of 1986 and C.M. No. 903 of 1986, affirming the Judgment of the Single Judge rendered in R.F.A. 390/75 dated 25.10.1985 regarding the award of compensation made under Land Acquisition Act, The appellant - Society is running educational and charitable institutions in the State of Haryana. For providing a playground to one of its colleges, the appellant - Society got acquired 7 bighas of land belonging to the second respondent in this appeal (original claimant in the land acquisition proceedings), under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. Notifications under Section 4 of the Act were issued on 15.05.1968, and 11.06.1968. The notification under Section 6 was issued on 13.8.1969. By an award dated 29.9.1970, compensation was awarded to the second respondent - the land owner, at the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1995(71)FLR202]; JT1995(3)SC119; 1995LabIC1636; (1995)IILLJ293SC; 1995(2)SCALE7; 1995Supp(2)SCC495; [1995]2SCR321; 1995(2)SLJ123(SC); (1995)2UPLBEC717
K.S. Paripoornan, J.1. Special leave granted.2. The defendant in O.S. No. 1204 of 1981, in Munsiff Court No. 3, Deoria, is the appellant. The plaintiff in the suit is the respondent. The appellant - Integrated Rural Development Agency - is a body registered under the Societies Registration Act. It has its own Articles of Association. The respondent-plaintiff was appointed as Junior Clerk in the Integrated Rural Development Agency on 14.5.1980 against a permanent vacancy. His service was terminated on 6.6.1980. Thereupon, the respondent filed a suit and prayed for the grant of a declaration that the termination order was illegal and void and it was passed in violation of the rules governing the appellant. The learned Munsiff held that the appointment of the respondent was temporary and the termination order was not illegal or void and dismissed the suit. The respondent-plaintiff filed an appeal before the VI Additional District Judge, Deoria-Civil Appeal No. 186 of 1982. By judgment dat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC1565; (1996)ILLJ14SC; 1995(2)SCALE14; (1995)3SCC401; [1995]2SCR341; 1995(2)SLJ104(SC); (1995)3UPLBEC1756
ORDERSujata V. Manohar, J.1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.3. Applications for intervention are allowed as the applicants are in a position similar to that to the respondents in these appeals. Some of the applications for intervention were made after the hearing of these appeals was over and the judgment was reserved. Normally, we would not have allowed such applications. But in view of the fact that the applicants in these applications are also similar situated and would, in any case, be governed by the ratio of the judgment, we have allowed these application also as a special case.4. A Census is conducted in the country ever 10 years under the Census Act of 1948, under the directions of the Registrar General and, Census Commissioner of India. For this purpose of conducting the census, Directorates of Census Operations have been established in each State and Union Territory of India. The Directorates of Census Operations work under the Registrar Ge...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC1976; (1995)2CALLT10(SC); 1995CriLJ3633; 1995(1)Crimes852(SC); 1995(1)CTC388; 1995(2)SCALE47; (1995)2SCC768; [1995]2SCR369; 1995(1)LC784(SC)
ORDERA.S. Anand, J.1. Leave granted.2. The only question that we are called upon to consider in these appeals is whether the employees of a nationalised Bank can be held to be 'public servants' within the meaning of Section 21 of Indian Penal Code and triable by Special Courts for the offences triable by these courts. The question arises in the following circumstances.3. The respondent was the Branch Manager of Bank of India at the relevant time. A case was registered against him and another person for offences under Sections 120B, 420, 409, 467, 468, and 477A IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. After completion of investigation by the CBI, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of the Special Judge at Alipur, Calcutta on 4.12.85. Cognizance was taken but before charges were framed, the respondent moved a petition for his discharge before the Special Judge stating that he is not a 'public servant' and therefore cannot be tried by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1995(3)SC74; 1995(2)SCALE29; 1995Supp(2)SCC481; [1995]2SCR351
Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. Leave granted in C.A. Nos. 3039-40-95 S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 14935-14936 14935-14936 of 1994.2. Substitution allowed in Civil Appeal Nos. 3774-3775 of 1992.3. All these appeals raise a common question of law relating to the interpretation of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Principal Act') read with Tamil Nadu Act No. 17 of 1970 which is the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Reduction of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1970. The latter Act is hereinafter referred to as 'the Reduction Act'. As the facts are different in each group of appeals, they are dealt with separately.CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3774-3775 OF 19924. The deceased, V. Gopal Reddiar, the first appellant and his wife, the second appellant in these appeals, held agricultural lands in excess of the ceiling limit on 6.4.1960, which is the date of commencement of the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961. under Section 5 of the Principal A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC1364; JT1995(3)SC32; 1995(2)SCALE1; (1995)3SCC377; [1995]2SCR308
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. Leave granted. Heard counsel for the parties.2. The respondent was working as Superintendent in the office of the Regional Deputy Director Collegiate Education, Madurai in 1986. Complaints of corruption were received against him. An enquiry was held into those complaints by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department which opined that the charge was true. Accordingly, the respondent was prosecuted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, who convicted the respondent under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The charge was that the respondent received a sum of Rs. 10,000 from one Vijay Kumar promising him to secure a job for him. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year in addition to fine of Rs. 1,000. The respondent filed an appeal in the High Court against the conviction and sentence aforesaid and on 14.2.1991, the court suspended the sentence imposed on the respondent and re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995(1)SCALE852; (1995)3SCC189; [1995]2SCR303; 1995(2)SLJ111(SC); 1995(1)LC827(SC)
B.L. Hansaria, J.1. Article 229(2) of the Constitution has provided that the conditions of service of officers and servants of a High Court shall be such as may be prescribed by the rules made by the Chief Justice of the Court or by some other Judge or officer of the Court authorised by the Chief Justice to make rules for the purpose. The staff of the High Court of Kerala made certain representations to the Chief Justice of that Court ventilating various grievances. The representatives of the staff were heard by the Chief Justice on 24th March, 1984 and after applying due mind to various aspects involved in the matter, which were recorded in the Minutes which run to almost 12 pages, it was felt that a need for amendment of the Kerala High Court Service Rules, 1970 existed. A Notification was issued accordingly on 14.6.1984, by which the existing provision in Sub-rule (d) of Rule 16 was substituted to read as below:16(d) Not more than eight posts of Court Officers (category 6A in Divisi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC1357; JT1995(3)SC523; 1995(2)SCALE43; (1995)3SCC252; [1995]2SCR332
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. Leave granteds. 2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. These appeals are by the auction purchaser of a property sold to him in execution proceedings. A money decree was passed against respondent No. 1 in O.S.No. 148 of 1970 filed by respondent No. 2. In execution of the said decree the property of respondent No. 1 was sold by auction on March 26, 1985 to the appellant whose bid of Rs. 3,01,000/- was the highest. In the sale certificate dated April 8, 1987 the property that was sold was thus described in the Schedule :East Godavari District, Rajahmundry Taluk, Gandhi-nagaram, Block No. II, Rajahmundry belonging to the judgment debtors and named as 'Chandrika Nilayam' in S.S.No.67 and present No. 21-6 terraced house, situated within the following boundaries -East : House of M.V. Reddy South : Main Road West : Park North : House of Mullapudi Satyanarayana4. The same description was given in the sale proclamation. Before issuance of the sale certificate resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC183; JT1995(3)SC466; 1996LabIC1; (1995)IILLJ670SC; 1995(2)SCALE5; (1995)3SCC144; [1995]2SCR327
ORDERK.S. Paripoornan, J.1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.2. The State of Haryana and the Accountant General, respondents in Civil Writ Petition No. 9110 of 1993 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, are the appellants. The petitioner in the civil writ petition is the sole respondent herein. The prayer in the writ petition was for a declaration that the deduction of the alleged Government dues from DCRG (Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity) of the petitioner is illegal and for a direction in the nature of mandamus calling upon the respondents in the writ petition - the State of Haryana and the Accountant General - to refund the amount of Rs. 24,996 along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. By order dated 10.12.1993 the Division Bench of the High Court, comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Agnihotri and Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.S. Nehra, allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents in the writ petition to refund the amount of Rs. 24,996, deducted by the State Government fr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1996)8SCC105
The Text below is only a summarized version of the order pronouncedAppointments of the respondents on the impugned posts were held to be in accordance with the State Government's reservation policy for scheduled Caste and backward classes and were held to be valid as the letter of the Chief Secretary stating that whenever there were two posts, the same were not to be filled by applying reservation policy did not have any approval of State Government...
Tag this Judgment!