Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC2484; 1995(4)SCALE776; (1995)5SCC615; [1995]Supp2SCR426
ORDER1. This special leave petition arises from the order of the Division Bench of Orissa High Court dated March 16, 1995 in Civil Writ Petition No. 1545 of 1995. The petitioner has established a Saw mill in the year 1980 in Keonjhar District of Orissa State. The notice under Section 4(1) of Orissa Saw Mills & Saw Pits (Control) Act, 1991 (for short 'the Act') was issued to the petitioner to close down its operations with immediate effect. Challenging the validity of Section 4(1) of the Act and the notice, he filed the writ petition contending that it violates his fundamental right to carry on trade and business and also created invidious discrimination to the Saw Mills/Saw Pits situated in that district vis-a-vis other districts. It was also contended that the Act did not create any total ban but gave discretion to the licensing authority to grant or refuse the renewal of licence. Without considering their application for renewals direction to close down the mill is arbitrary. The Div...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2003(2)JCR140(SC)]
The Text below is only a summarized version of the order pronouncedProperty requisitioned under Section 8 (1). Any property requisitioned under Section 8 (1) shall be paid with compensation which is determined by agreement between parties and in absence of such agreement Government to appoint an arbitrator to decide the same. High Court denied compensation on ground that no agreement existed between parties. On appeal Supreme Court set aside decision of High Court and directed Central Government to appoint arbitrator. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(4)SCC583
T.K. Thommen,; V. Ramaswamy and; R.M. Sahai, JJ.1. Heard counsel on both sides. The possession of the land in question was taken over by the Government under an agreement dated March 7, 1963. Subsequently a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued in respect of the same land on December 20, 1989. The present dispute is as regards the claimants' right to get compensation for the period preceding the date of Section 4(1) Notification, i.e., the period between March 7, 1963 and December 20, 1989.2. We are of the view that the claimants are entitled to mesne profits for the aforesaid period from March 7, 1963 to December 20, 1989. They are not entitled to any other amount for the said period. It is proper that the mesne profits are determined by the concerned District Judge to whom necessary directions may be issued by the High Court. The High Court is directed accordingly. These petitions are disposed of in the above terms. SLPs (C) Nos. 6746-53 of 19923. In ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998(1)CTC180; JT1997(10)SC580; (1998)2MLJ19(SC); 1995(4)SCALE768; (1995)5SCC335; [1995]Supp2SCR421; 1995(2)LC619(SC)
ORDER1. We do not find any justification warranting interference in this matter. Admittedly, notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, 'the Act') was published on January 29, 1957 and thereafter the owner sold the properties to the petitioners on June 11, 1957 and August 22, 1958. Declaration under Section 6 was published on August 14, 1958. Thus, it could be seen that the sales made after the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) are void sales and the State is not bound by such a sale effected by the owner. Admittedly, the notice under Section 9 and 10 was served on September 23, 1958 and award was made on October 9, 1959 and possession was taken on November 18, 1959. Thus, the acquisition was complete. The possession of the Government is complete as against the original owner and title of the original owner stood extinguished and by operation of Section 16 the State acquires the right, title and interest in the property free from all encumb...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC2464; 1995(2)ARBLR449(SC); JT1995(6)SC612; (1996)1MLJ54(SC); 1995(4)SCALE821; (1995)5SCC329; [1995]Supp2SCR417
1. Leave granted.2. We have heard both the counsel. The only question in this case is whether the Civil Court, while exercising the power under Sections 5, 8, 11 and 29 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short, 'the Act') would be justified in revoking the appointment of an arbitrator appointed in terms of Clause 25A of the contract. Clause 25-A reads thus :Clause 25-A : -If question, difference or objections whatsoever shall arise in any way connected with or arising out of this instruments or the meaning or operation of any part therefor, the rights, duties or liabilities of other party, then save in so far as the decision of any such matter is herein before provided and has been so decided every such matter including whether it has been finally decided accordingly, or whether the contract should be terminated or has been rightly terminated and regards the rights and obligations Of the parties as the result of such termination shall be referred for arbitration to the Superintending En...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1995(5)SC505; 1995(4)SCALE573; (1995)5SCC173; [1995]Supp2SCR396; (1995)3UPLBEC1447
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. These writ petitions highlight the faulty manner in which reservations have been provided and implemented by the Government of Uttar Pradesh and its authorities in the matter of admission to medical courses for the year 1994-95. Though the dispute pertains to the academic year 1994-95, we are told that the admissions have been made only in June-July, 1995 and are yet to be finalised in respect of certain courses.2. The story begins with the announcement of policy of reservation in the matter of admission to medical courses issued by the Government on May 17, 1994. According to this notification, sixty five percent of seats were reserved in favour of various classes/categories leaving only thirty five percent for open competition (O.C.) category. The reservations provided were to the following effect: 1. Backward Class 27% 2. Hill Region 3% 3. Uttarakhand Region 3% 4. Scheduled Caste 21% 5. Secheduled Tribe 2% 6. Real dependents of 5% freedom fighters 7. Son/daug...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1995(5)SC569; 1995(4)SCALE584; (1995)5SCC527; [1995]Supp2SCR390; [1995]99STC83(SC)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appeals are preferred against a common judgment of the Orissa High Court in five writ petitions. All the five writ petitions were filed by the respondent herein, Jagannath Cotton Company, wherein the question is whether the respondent is entitled to the benefit of exemption from sales tax under the Industrial Policy Resolution of 1986 as well as of 1989, It also involves the question whether the process undertaken by the respondent, applying which he obtains cotton from waste cotton, can be called 'manufacturing' activity.3. With a view to encourage the industrialisation of the State, the Government of Orissa published the Industrial Policy Resolution (dated May 13, 1986) in the Gazette of June 11, 1986. It provided several incentives to those establishing new industries in the State and also those who expanded their existing capacities. Inter alia, it provided for certain concessions in the matter of sales tax. In the case of village, cotta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1999)IIILLJ449SC
ORDERJ.S. Verma, J.1. Leave granted.2. Heard.3. The respondents in all these appeals have worked as Mobile Booking Clerks in the Railways for various periods prior to November l7, 1986. They challenged their disengagement from service and sought reinstatement and regularisation together with some other reliefs by filing applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal has allowed those applications. These appeals by special leave have been filed by the Union of India against the orders made by the Tribunal in those applications. It is not necessary to mention the details of the directions given by the Tribunal in the impugned orders granting relief to the respondents for the reasons stated hereafter.4. It is common ground before us that the facts of these appeals are the same as those in the matter relating to Usha Kumari Anand v. Union of india in which the Tribunal's order on similar applications is reported. It is also admitted that the special leave petitions f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995(43)BLJR1165; 1995(3)Crimes524(SC); 1995(2)CTC255; II(1995)DMC372SC; JT1995(5)SC670; 1995(4)SCALE660; (1995)5SCC299; [1995]Supp2SCR380; 1995(2)LC623(SC)
A.M. Ahmadi, CJI. 1. Special leave granted.2. The facts in brief reveal that the appellant married the respondent some time in 1970 and then gave birth to two issues from the said wedlock. Unfortunately, her married life was not smooth and in 1980 divorce by mutual consent was obtained under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. While granting divorce by mutual consent, no order in regard to maintenance or alimony was made. The decree is silent on that count. Few years later the appellant filed an application under Section 125 of the CrPC, 1973 (hereinafter called 'the Code') seeking maintenance from the respondent. The learned Magistrate dismissed the application holding that a divorcee woman was not entitled to maintenance once it is found that the divorce was by mutual consent Against that order the appellant filed a Revision Application to the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the appellant was entitled to maintenance notwithstanding the divor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995CriLJ3984; 1995(3)Crimes409(SC); JT1995(5)SC529; 1995(4)SCALE555; 1995Supp(3)SCC390
M.K. Mukherjee J.1. This appeal under Section 14 of the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts, Act, 1984 is directed against the judgment and order dated March 26, 1985 rendered by the Additional Judge Special Court Hoshiarpur convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of his grand-father Mehar Singh on March 6, 1984 and sentencing him to imprisonment for life.2. The prosecution case is that the deceased Mehar Singh owned 22.1/2 Killas of land in Village Swal and 10.1/2 Killas of land in Village Alfuke, About four years before his death Mehar Singh had divided his land in village Swal in three equal shares and given one share to his son Mangat Singh another to his son Kirpal Singh father of the appellant, and retained the balance. While Mangat Singh with whom Mehar Singh used to live cultivated his share of that land and also that of Mehar Singh, the appellant cultivated the land given to his father, Being apprehensive that Mehar Si...
Tag this Judgment!