Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC1620; JT1995(4)SC394; (1996)ILLJ757SC; 1995(3)SCALE273; (1995)4SCC341; [1995]3SCR785
ORDERR.M. Sahai, J.1. Fishing and its export is a flourishing trade in the State of Kerala. Its rare varieties of shrimps, lobsters, cuttle fish and squid etc. are exported on large scale. The persons involved in it are fishermen, the agents who purchase from fishermen or those who deshelled or clean and cut the fish and exporters or those who carry on business of buying and selling fish, or processing fish for export or are commission agents and brokers or non-residents. The condition of fishermen of whom 90% are traditional fishermen is miserable. Their pathetic condition was described in a report published by the Fisheries Department in 1980 thus,They are all traditionally down trodden and illiterate and hence subjected to indebtedness and hardships as well as exploitation by middlemen. It is a painful fact that, through the implementation of various plan schemes for past 30 years no substantial changes have been brought about in improving their living conditions.In a study carried ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1995(71)FLR492]; JT1995(2)SC582; 1995(3)SCALE65; (1995)4SCC462; [1995]3SCR773; (1995)3UPLBEC1499
Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. Leave granted.2. This is an appeal filed by the Union of India and the Director General, Border Security Force, New Delhi against a decision of the Delhi High Court dated 25.8.1994 in CWP No. 5042 of 1993 which was filed by the respondent against the appellants. The point in issue between the parties relates to the age of retirement of a Commandant (Selection Grade) in the Border Security Force.3. The Constitution and regulation of an Armed Force of the Union for ensuring the security of the borders of India and matters connected therewith, are governed by the provisions of the Border Security Force Act, 1968. Section 141 of the Border Security Force Act enables the Central Government, by notification, to make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Act as set out in that section. In exercise of that power, the Central Government has notified the Border Security Force (Seniority, Promotion and Superannuation of officers) Rules, 1978....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC1572; I(1996)BC134(SC); JT1995(4)SC233; (1995)2MLJ59(SC); (1995)111PLR596; 1995(3)SCALE159; (1995)4SCC26; [1995]3SCR765
ORDERR.M. Sahai, J.1. The question of law that arises for consideration in these appeals directed against the judgment' and order of the High Court of Kerala is whether the decretal amount deposited by the judgment-debtor in pursuance of an order passed by this Court is to be adjusted towards the principal amount due first or against interest and other charges.2. The amounts due under the Land Acquisition Award passed by the Court in 1985 comprised of enhanced market value, solatium at 15% and interest at 4% on the additional amount. In cross appeal filed by the appellant, the State and the company the enhancement of market value was affirmed but the appellant was further granted solatium at 30% of the entire market value, additional compensation under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 and interest under the amended Section 28 at 9% for the first year and 15% for the subsequent years. The company challenged the order of the High Court by way of Special Leave...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC1851; I(1997)DMC104SC; 1995(3)SCALE165; [1995]3SCR743; 1995(2)LC270(SC)
1. Petition under Section 13(B)(1) & (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 for a decree of divorce by mutual consent duly signed by both the parties is taken on record.2. As per the directions of this Court by order dated October 21, 1994, the parties have filed the petition for mutual divorce. In terms of the order, the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent stands dissolved and the divorce takes effect from today. In terms of the compromise all the proceedings instituted by either party in any Court or before any authority stand withdrawn and dismissed.3. In terms of the order passed by this Court earlier, amount of Rs. 1.25 lakhs in addition to Rs. 30,000 were deposited by the respondent in the name of daughter Approva. The said amount shall remain in the name of minor till she attains majority. The respondent has also paid Rs. 1.5 lakhs to the petitioner.4. It is brought to our notice that the respondent had not given to the petitioner 2000 Units of Seven Years Monthly Income ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC1853; [1995(71)FLR30]; JT1995(4)SC134; (1995)IILLJ705SC; 1995(3)SCALE11; 1995Supp(3)SCC56; [1995]3SCR754
ORDERS.B. Majmudar, J.1. Leave granted.2. By consent of learned Advocates of parties, the appeal was heard finally and is being decided by this judgment. The appellant, State of Bihar and its Officers, have brought in challenge the order passed by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court allowing writ petition filed by the respondent herein. In the said writ petition, the respondent had challenged initiation of fresh departmental proceedings against him by issuing a notice dated 17.07.1993 and also a show cause notice dated 27.09.1993 calling upon the respondent to show cause as to why action should not be taken against him under Rule 139 of the Bihar Pension Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') for withholding of 70 per cent of pension. He also challenged the final order dated 13.12.1993 passed in exercise of power under Rule 139 (a) and (b) of the Rules to withhold 70 per cent of pension. All these challenges were upheld by the High Court. That is how these appellants are b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1995)4SCC252
A.M. Ahmadi, C.J.,; S.P. Bharucha and; K.S. Paripoornan, JJ.1. The appellant, who was serving as a Land Acquisition Officer, has been convicted and sentenced by the High Court of Rajasthan for contempt by directing that he suffer imprisonment for fifteen days. Even his prayer for suspension of the sentence to enable him to move this Court was rejected and he was directly sent to jail from the court premises itself. It is against that order that the said officer has filed this appeal. The abridged facts are as under.2. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), a notification was issued on 13-5-1960 for acquiring land belonging to a single Khatedar Chhotey Lal bearing Khasra Nos. 34 to 37 and 277 situate in Village Bhojpura, Tehsil Jaipur. So far as Khasra No. 35 is concerned, it admeasured 3 bighas and 16 biswas but the acquisition was restricted to 6 biswas only. Thereafter, on 3-5-1961 a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC1569; JT1995(7)SC614; 1995(2)SCALE867; (1995)4SCC533; [1995]3SCR745
ORDERS. Saghir Ahmad, J.1. The correctness of the decision of this Court in Chandrika Misr v. Bhaiya Lal and Ors. : [1974]1SCR290 is questioned in this appeal on the ground that an important statutory provision relating to the jurisdiction of Civil or Revenue Court, as contained in the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ZA & LR Act) was not brought to the notice of the Court and, therefore, the decision was rendered per incuriam. It is also questioned on the ground that decision was based on a wrong concession made on a question of law by the counsel appearing on behalf of one of the parties to the appeal.2. This question has arisen in the circumstances set out hereinbelow.3. On the initiation of proceedings under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, plots of Khatas No. 156 and 266 situated in Village Chibila Pargana Mahaich, District Varanasi, were found recorded in the name of Faqir, who died during the pendency of proceedings in the Hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC1552; 1995(3)SCALE164; (1995)3SCC723
ORDER1. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the State Gazette on October 19, 1957 followed by a declaration under Section 6 published on November 6, 1957. The possession was taken on December 7, 1957. The Collector made his award on September 29, 1958. The petitioner sought for reference under Section 18 and the Collector referred the matter on November 8, 1986. The District Judge in his award dated December 16, 1985 declared the notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6 to be null and void. Against that, an appeal was filed before the High Court under Section 54. By the judgment and order dated October 31, 1994, the Division Bench has set aside the order holding that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to declare the notification under Section 4(1) to be void. Thus, this SLP.2. Mr. Sunil Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, in his usual vehemence, contended that the notification under Section 4(1) di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC114; 1995(3)SCALE604; 1995Supp(3)SCC456; [1995]3SCR729; 1995(2)LC274(SC)
1. Leave granted.2. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides. Since there is a conflict of decisions rendered by the High Court of Allahabad on interpretation of exception (iii) to Section 59(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (for short, 'Act'), we are inclined to resolve the conflict.3. Declaration under Section 3 was published on September 3, 1977. Notification under Section 28 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 (for short 'the Adhiniyam') was published on June 7,1982. Immediately the appellant had sought for the approval of the Government through the letter dated July 27,1982. The Government approved the scheme on August 24, 1982. The declaration under Section 32 of the Adhiniyam was published on February 28, 1987. The respondents filed Writ Petition No. 14708/84. The Division Bench following the ratio in Writ Petition No. 17372/87 dated March 18, 1993 titled Narinder Mohan Foundation Trust v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Meerut, al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)10SCC289
Order 1. Leave granted. 2. The respondents applied before the Central Government for grant of freedom fighters' pension. The Government of India on consideration of the application of the respondents granted freedom fighters' pension w.e.f. the date of the order. The respondents filed a writ petition before the High Court claiming pension with retrospective effect from 1980. The High Court relying upon Duli Chand v. Union of India1 directed that the freedom fighters' pension be given to the respondents w.e.f. 1980. This appeal by the Union of India is against the judgment of the High Court. 3. On 27-3-1995 we passed the following order: “Mr V.R. Reddy, the learned Additional Solicitor General, states that under the scheme and the guidelines, the respondents were only entitled to freedom fighters' pension prospectively because these were the cases where benefit of doubt was given to them. Learned counsel for the respondents states that this averment has been made...
Tag this Judgment!