Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(3)SCC382
ORDER 1. In this writ petition which has been brought in public interest, the exercise of discretion in allotment of retail outlets for petroleum products, LPG Dealership and SKO Dealership by the Central Government is challenged. It is urged that there are no guidelines to regulate the exercise of discretion in the matter of such allotments which results in exercise of the discretion arbitrarily. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we requested the learned Attorney General to submit a draft of the proposed guidelines to regulate exercise of the discretionary power in the matter of such allotments in the light of the suggestions made on behalf of the petitioner at the hearing. The learned Attorney General submitted a draft of the proposed guidelines together with the general conditions on which the applicants may be chosen for making the allotments. In addition, the learned Attorney General also indicated certain details for being inserted in the brochure ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1997(10)SC507; 1995LabIC1806; (1996)IIILLJ350SC; 1995(2)SCALE644; 1995Supp(2)SCC681
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. Leave granted.2. The Employee(sic) State Insurance Corporation, represented by its Director General and Regional Director, is the appellant in all these appeals. Respondent No. 1, in each of these appeals, is the contesting respondent. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellants and the contesting respondents who have appeared in person.3. The appellant-Corporation has a Regional Office at Bangalore and local offices at smaller places. One such local office is at Shahbad town. In the year 1982 the Corporation invited options from the Upper Division Clerks for being posted as the UDC Incharge at the local offices. The contesting respondents who were senior to Respondent No. 2 and working in the Regional Offices expressed their unwillingness for being posted as UDC Incharge at the local offices. Therefore, Respondent No. 2 came to be posted as UDC Incharge of the local office in Shahabad with effect from 21.9.1984 as no official senior to him was willing to be po...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996LabIC588; 1995(3)SCALE54; 1995Supp(3)SCC363; [1995]3SCR115
ORDER1. Leave granted. We have heard counsel on both sides.2. The appellant being a Scheduled Tribe candidate was appointed initially in 1981 to a vacancy reserved for the Scheduled Tribes and thereafter he had been continuously working as a Lecturer till 1993. It is also on record that he is a specialist in Anatomy and Surgery. As regards his qualifications and eligibility and experience to hold the post, the Government has not, in fairness, disputed. The only dispute is whether he could be allowed to continue in service, when candidates selected and appointed by the Public Service Commission (PSC) are available for appointment?3. It is settled law that temporary candidates working on ad hoc basis have to give place to the candidates selected by the PSC and appointed by the Government, in accordance with rules. It is not in dispute that the appellant appeared for selection in three vacancies reserved for Scheduled Tribes but he was not among three candidates selected. The respondents ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1996)8SCC461
B.P. Jeevan Reddy and; Suhas C. Sen, JJ.1. Leave granted. Heard counsel for both the parties.2. The appellant filed the writ petition challenging the Government order dated 4-8-1992 whereunder the earlier orders of the Government contained in Government order dated 20-1-1990 were revised partly. Under first order (dated 20-1-1990), it was directed as follows:“Since after complete examination of the explanation of Shri Janardan Dubey, the Governor has reasons to believe that Shri Janardhan Dubey is not guilty of charges communicated through above resolution. Therefore, the Governor of Bihar exonerating Shri Janardan Dubey from all those charges drops the departmental enquiry against him and in partial modification in letter No. 813 dated 22-4-1988 cancelled the Government concurrence for instituting criminal case against him.”The subsequent Government order dated 4-8-1992 states:“After review of facts it has transpired that at the time of issuance of abovesaid resoluti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995(2)SCALE643; (1995)3SCC412; [1995]3SCR109; 1995(2)LC186(SC)
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Heard counsel for the parties. The eviction petition filed by the landlady-lesser was dismissed by the High Court as she was not the owner since even on her own admission the premises belonged to the Municipal Corporation. The word 'owner' used in Section 23-A(b) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act has in our opinion been construed narrowly. A lessor whose-title cannot be disputed by the lessee undoubtedly is owner at whose instance the proceedings for eviction were maintainable. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in setting aside the decree passed in favour of the landlord on the ground that since the premises belonged to Municipal Corporation, therefore, the proceedings were not maintainable.3. The order of the High Court is accordingly set aside. The matter remitted back to the High Court to decide the same afresh in accordance with law and on merits as expeditiously as possible.4. The appeal is disposed of....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1995(6)SC113; 1995(3)SCALE590; (1995)3SCC724; [1995]3SCR113
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, learned senior counsel for the respondents, placed reliance on the order passed by this Court in CA No. 174 and 602- 605/82 dated October 29,1987, wherein the counsel appearing for the appellant had conceded in those appeals that 'the respondents have agreed that the provisions of the amending Act shall apply and escalated rates provided therein would be available.' Based thereon, it is contended by Sri Gopal Subramaniam that it is no longer open to the appellant to contend that the respondents are not entitled to the benefits provided under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act as amended under Act 68/1984. Section 23(1-A) provides that in addition to the compensation the owner is entitled to the payment of 12% per annum of the enhanced cmpensa-tion from the date of the notification under Section 4(1) till date of passing award by the Collector or taking possession, whichever is e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1995(6)SC112; 1995(2)SCALE808; 1995Supp(2)SCC302; [1995]3SCR111; (1995)3UPLBEC1439
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Heard both the counsel.3. This Court, on January 12, 1986 in similar circumstances, directed the Government to declare the result of the Fourth Year Diploma Course Examination taken by one Ramesh, appellant therein, and it was undertaken by him that if he succeeds in passing the examination, he may be entitled to that benefit and in case he failed, he will not file any Writ Petition in the High Court questioning the result of the examination. The appellant herein also seeks the same relief.4. It would appear that pending Writ Petition before High Court the appellant obtained orders to appear for the 4th year examination, but the result has not been declared. If the records are still available after passing the examinations, the respondents are directed to declare the result of the examination. If the appellant passes in the examination, then it would be open to the respondents to grant diploma certificate according to rules and subject to fulfilment, other cond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995(77)ELT500(SC); (1996)9SCC413
ORDER1. We are concerned in this appeal against the decision of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal only with the appellant's product known as 'Amrutanjan Pain Balm Ayurvedic'. The appellants sought classification of the same on the basis that it was an ayurvedic medicament under Tariff Heading 3003.30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and attracted nil rate of duty. The authorities below as also the Tribunal did not accept this classification. The Tribunal, in the order under appeal, upheld the contention of the Excise authorities that the balm was not an ayurvedic medicine because its main ingredients were Menthol IP, Camphor IP, Turpentine IP and Methyl Salicylate IP, which were of a synthetic nature. The contention of the appellants that the same ingredients had an ayurvedic nomenclature as could be found in authoritative text books was rejected because, according to the Tribunal, ayurvedic science recognises only the use of natural extracts from medicinal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1995(3)SC428; 1995(2)SCALE539; 1995Supp(2)SCC225; [1995]3SCR76; 1995(2)LC129(SC)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. The question that arises for consideration in this petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, by the petitioners, who were residents of villages which formed part of Rourkela is whether the respondents were bound to give employment to all the erstwhile residents and even their descendents and in any case to treat them preferentially for employment as they or their members of families were displaced due to setting up of Rourkela Steel Plant even though they were given market value for their land acquired.2. Rourkela Steel Plant, one of the largest steel plants was conceived in the year 1954. It was decided to set it up at Rourkela which at that time consisted of small villages and for this purpose nearly 2000 acres of land were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, Compensation was paid. When the project was in offing there was probably resistance by local residents, therefore, the State Government issued statement that the displaced persons would ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC2829a; 2002(82)ECC460; 1996(83)ELT492(SC); (1996)9SCC402
ORDER1. Civil Appeal Nos. 4658/85, 4659-60/85 : In these three appeals the short question arising for consideration is whether Dant Manjan Lai manufactured by the appellant-Company falls within the meaning of an Ayurvedic Medicine to qualify for exemption from payment of excise duty under Notification No. 62/78-C.E., dated 1st March, 1978 issued in exercise of power conferred by Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The relevant entry introduced by amendment reads as 'all drugs, medicines, pharmaceuticals and drug intermediates not elsewhere specified'. The appellant contends that the product in question is a scientific medicine which would attract the aforesaid entry and would, therefore, be exempt from the payment of excise duty. The Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, by a detailed order came to the conclusion that in common parlance the product in question could not be described as a medicinal preparation and that it could rightly be described as ...
Tag this Judgment!