Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC1377; 1995(43)BLJR886; JT1995(3)SC281; (1995)111PLR225; 1995(2)SCALE512; (1995)3SCC426; [1995]3SCR9; 1995(2)LC241(SC)
ORDERN.P. Singh, J.1. The Municipal Committee, Jind, has filed this appeal for setting aside the judgment of the Additional District Judge (hereinafter referred to as 'the Court of Appeal') decreeing the suit filed on behalf of the respondent, which had been dismissed by the Trial Court. The Second Appeal filed on behalf of the appellant, before the High Court was dismissed in limine. Thereafter, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 562 of 1987 was filed before this Court, which was permitted to be withdrawn, to enable the appellant to file a Review Petition before the High Court. That Review Petition was dismissed by the High Court saying that no ground for review had been made out.2. The respondent filed the suit in question for injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with the possession of respondent over 5 kanals of land, comprised in Khewat No. 134, Khatoni No. 155, rectangle No, 173, Killa No. 27/1. The respondent claimed to be the owner of the said land and asserted ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC1401; JT1995(3)SC329; 1995(2)SCALE445; (1995)3SCC347; 1995(1)LC723(SC)
ORDERSujata V. Manohar, J.1. The appellants had filed a suit being O.S. No. 159/83 before the Additional Munsiff, Guntur to evict the respondent from their property consisting of vacant site, zinc sheet shed and Saw mill machinery which had been leased in the year 1967 to the respondent under an oral lease. The property is situated in Guntur Town, Nagarmelem Old Ward No. 17, New Ward No. 23, Block No. 14, TS No. 411. The respondent contended, inter alia, that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit; the Rent Controller alone had jurisdiction in the matter under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. The respondent also contended that there was no valid quit notice, that he was entitled to continue in the suit premises till April, 1986 and that the appellants did not require the premises for their personal use as was contended by them. The Additional Munsiff, Guntur decreed the suit of the appellants. He hel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC1598; 1995(2)ALT(Cri)159; 1995(2)Crimes188(SC); JT1995(5)SC373; 1995(2)SCALE623; (1995)3SCC574; [1995]3SCR27; 1995(2)LC201(SC)
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur dated 29th November, 1985 in Criminal Appeals 326 and 327 of 1980. Criminal Appeal No. 326/80 was preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh against the accused Gulab Chand and 7 other accused. Criminal Appeal No. 327/80 was preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh against Gulab Chand and Durga. It may be stated that both the appeals were preferred against the Judgment dated 7th December, 1979 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 147/79. In the said Sessions Trial, Gulab Chand was accused No. 1 and Durga was accused No. 3. Gulab Chand, Durga and other six persons stood charged under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code for entering into a criminal conspiracy in order to commit murder of Kapuriyabai and robbery of her ornaments on or about 23rd April, 1979 in the village Bhakarwara. The accused Gulab Chand, Durga and Parsoo were charged under Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC1601; 1995(2)ALT(Cri)201; 1995(2)Crimes148(SC); JT1995(3)SC495; 1995(2)SCALE482; (1995)3SCC367; 1995(2)LC29(SC)
ORDERA.S. Anand, J.1. The appellants was tried for an offence under Section 302 IPC in connection with the murder of one Ajmer Singh on 11.7.1984 at about 7.30 p.m. The learned Judge Special Court, Ferozepur convicted him for the said offence and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment. Through this appeal, under Section 14 of the Terrorists Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984, the appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence.2. According to the prosecution case, the appellant is married to the sister of Pal Singh. An engagement had been brought about through the instrumentality of the appellant between the daughter of Pal Singh and Lakhmir Singh son of Kashmir Singh. The deceased, Ajmer Singh and his brother, Gurmej Singh PW3 were on friendly terms with Kashmir Singh but for some reason or the other, that engagement was snapped and Lakhmir Singh was married to some other girl about 3 days prior to the occurrence. The appellant suspected that Ajmer Singh deceased and hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC1380; (1995)125CTR(SC)119; [1995]214ITR721(SC); JT1995(3)SC506; 1995(2)SCALE496; 1995Supp(2)SCC262
ORDERSujata V. Manohar, J.1. These appeals by special leave arise from a common judgment of the High Court of Orissa in seven Reference Applications before it under Section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The High Court was required to consider the following question:-Whether the word 'jewellery' in Section 5(1)(viii) of the Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 prior to the amendment of the section and the introduction of the Explanation by the Finance Act (No.2) of 1971 could take in gold ornaments without precious or semi-precious stones embedded on them? The High Court has answered the question thus:-The word 'jewellery' in Section 5(1)(viii) of the Wealth Tax Act of 1957 prior to amendment of the provision and introduction of Explanation I by the Finance Act (No. 2) of 1971 would not take in gold ornaments without precious or semi-precious stones embedded on them. The Commissioner of Wealth Tax has filed the present appeals from the above decision.2. The relevant assessment years are 1965-66 to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC1472; JT1997(10)SC574; 1995(2)SCALE834; 1995Supp(2)SCC651; 1995(2)LC189(SC)
1. Leave granted.2. The only question in whether the respondents are eligible to be considered for appointment as Clerks in 'A' Class offices on the admitted position that they are not matriculates with first division. The High court in W.P. No. 11553/93 by judgment dated 14.7.94 found them to be eligible. Admittedly, the respondents are dependents of ex-servicemen. The Government while reserving the posts for ex-servicemen, have prescribed qualifications for the posts in class 'A' offices, as under :-Qualifications of the posts of Clerks, Steno-typists and Stenographers in all 'A' class offices. __________________________________________________________________________________ Name of Post Qualifications __________________________________________________________________________________ Clerks 1. Metric Ist Div./Higher Secondary IInd Division/Intermediate IInd Div./ Graduates or Equaling (For Ex- Servicemen Metric only) 2. Knowledge of Hindi upto Metric standard. 3. Hindi/English typin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(4)SCC589
A.M. Ahmadi, C.J.,; K.S. Paripoornan and; Sujata V. Manohar, JJ.1. On 12-12-1994 while issuing rule nisi this Court observed after having perused the decision taken by the Medical Council of India (Migration Committee) permitting the migration of the petitioner Deepti Gupta from Goa Medical College to K.G. Medical College, Lucknow in view of the extraordinary factual situation of her suffering from malignancy. The Government of India by its communication dated 7-3-1995 stated in no uncertain terms that the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Department of Health) once again coveys its no objection to her migration to K.G. Medical College, Lucknow on extreme compassionate grounds. The Medical Council of India had also, placing reliance on clause V(e) of the Migration Rules took a decision on extreme compassionate grounds and as a special case, keeping in view the fact that she was suffering from malignancy, to permit her migration from Goa Medical College to K.G. Medical College, Luc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(3)SCC591
Kuldip Singh and; N. Venkatachala, JJ.1. IA No. ... of 1995 in CA No. 3844 of 1989 for clarification is taken on board.2. In Civil Appeal No. 3844 of 1989 decided by a two-Judge Bench of this Court (of which one of us was a member)†, the question before this Court was whether the retrospective operation of the amended Rule 13 of the Indian Statistical Service Rules, 1961 (the Rules) was constitutionally valid. Upholding the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, this Court came to the conclusion that so far as the retrospective operation of Rule 13 of the Rules was concerned, it was unconstitutional and as such inoperative. Prior to the amendment of the Rules, out of turn promotions were given to the Scheduled Caste candidates on the interpretation of the existing rules. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the Scheduled Caste candidates were not entitled to the benefits under the existing rules and as such promotions given to them were struck down. Meanwhile, Rule...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1995]83CompCas662(SC)
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Heard.3. We are satisfied that there was no ground available to the High Court for setting aside the trial court's order refusing to grant the injunction for holding the extraordinary general meeting (EGM) of the company. We are informed that the extraordinary general meeting is scheduled to be held on March 30, 1995: The injunction granted by the High Court is, therefore, vacated. Moreover, the appellants also undertake to circulate a copy of the letter dated January 7, 1995, annexure 'B' to the shareholders who attend the extraordinary general meeting before commencement of the extraordinary general meeting.4. The appeal is allowed in these terms.5. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1995(3)SC417; 1995LabIC1775; 1995(2)SCALE433; 1995Supp(2)SCC230; 1995(2)SLJ177(SC); (1995)2UPLBEC758
Kuldip Singh, J.1. This Appeal is sequel to the selection of candidates for appointment to the post of Judicial Member, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, made by a Selection Board headed by a sitting Judge of this Court. The Selection Board was constituted under Sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 4 of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Members (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1963 (the 'Rules'). The Selection Board prepared a panel of selected candidates which included the name of the appellant and sent its recommendations on January 25, 1988 to the Central Government for consideration under Sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 4 of the Rules. The Central Government did not make any appointment and issued fresh advertisement on February 22, 1990 inviting applications for the same post. The appellant filed Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking a direction to the respondents to appoint him as Judicial Member, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on the basis of t...
Tag this Judgment!