Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1997(10)SC535; 1995(4)SCALE823; 1995Supp(3)SCC445; [1995]Supp2SCR492
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The respondent has submitted his declaration under Section 8(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. The Land Reforms Officer held that the respondent's holding was in excess of 1.3590 standard Holding. On appeal, it was confirmed but the High Court in the revision, which by the impugned order allowed the exclusion of 3 acres 5 cents from the holding. The Advocate Commissioner has submitted his report and on perusal of the Commissioner's report it could be seen that the lands in S.No.118/1 situated in Alamuru village in a extent of 12 cents and 9 cents respectively should be excluded. Equally the lands in Mandapeta bearing S.No.178/3 in an extent of 6 cents and 3 cents respectively; lands in S.No. 174/1 in an extent of 4 cents; lands in S.No. 170/2 in an extent of 3 cents; lands in S.No. 227/4 in an extent of 2 cents and lands in S.No. 224/1 in an extent of 4 cents respectively need to be excluded. It is also reported...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1995(71)FLR846]; 1995(4)SCALE820; (1996)2SCC648a; 1995Supp(3)SCC471; [1995]Supp2SCR496; 1996(1)SLJ111(SC)
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. We have heard the learned Counsel on both sides. The appellant joined as a clerk in the Department of Legal and Legislative Affairs, State of Punjab in June, 1965. He was promoted as an Assistant on August 13, 1974. Ajit Lal Arora, 3rd respondent who was appointed as Clerk in another Department. When a vacancy as an Assistant had arisen and was notified for recruitment, Ajit Lal Arora had applied for the post and was appointed on August 22, 1974 and had joined on September 17, 1974. The Punjab Law and legislative Department Provincial Service Class III Rules, 1951 was in vogue at the date of the respective appointment. On that day, there is no distinction of a Technical and non-technical post. The Rules were amended in 1976. Thereunder dichotomy of technical and non-technical post was created and Ajit Lal Arora was working on technical side. When the vacancy as a Legal Assistant had arisen, the appellant was eligible for consideration. He claimed for promotion ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995CriLJ4018; 1995(3)Crimes499(SC); 1995(4)SCALE629; 1995Supp(3)SCC447; 1995(2)LC696(SC)
M.K. Mukherjee J.1. Kapur Singh, the appellant herein, was placed on trial before the learned Additional Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana, to answer charges under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 on the allegation that on March 27, 1984 he committed the murder of his real brother Darshan Singh with a pistol. On conclusion of the trial the learned Judge convicted him of both the charges and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to rigorous imprisonment for two years more for the former and to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, to rigorous imprisonment for three months more for the latter, with a direction that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The above order of conviction and sentence is under challenge in this appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 14 of the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984.2. Shorn of details, the prosecution case is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC351; [1995(71)FLR874]; 1995(5)SCALE56; (1995)5SCC625; [1995]Supp2SCR506; 1996(1)SLJ92(SC); 1995(2)LC686(SC)
1. Leave granted.2. We have heard the learned Counsel on both sides. The undisputed facts are that the appellant as a general candidate and the third respondent, Dr. Nitya Anand to backward class quota were selected for appointment as lecture in the Haryana Medical Education Service as per H.M.E.S. Rules, 1965 (for short, 'the Rules'). The Public Service Commission recommended the names of the appellant and Dr. Nitya Anand along with three other candidates for appointment as lecturers. It would appear that Dr. Diwakar Jain and Dr. Sidharth Dass had not joined the service. Though Dr. Om Prakash Kalra initially had joined the service, he too left the service. Consequently the appellant, as general candidate and Dr. Nitya Anand remained in service.3. The question is whether the appellant is senior to Nitya Anand. The contention of the appellant is that since the order of merit given by the Selection Committee and the letter of appointment do indicate that the appellant is high up in the o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1995(6)SC617; 1995(5)SCALE66a; 1995Supp(3)SCC547; [1995]Supp2SCR512
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking for a writ of mandamus directing the Commissioner of Police or the appropriate authority to transfer his complaint dated April 23, 1991 for investigation by an independent police agency other than the local police. The High Court dismissed the writ petition summarily on November 3, 1992. Thus this appeal by Special Leave.3. We have heard the learned Counsel on both sides. Unfortunately the appellant was done to death and the trial with regard to his murder is pending decision in the appropriate Sessions Court. Therefore, we need not go into the merits in that behalf. The grievance of the appellant-Late Sri Kaptan Singh was that he was the owner of properties mentioned in the writ petition; when he was kept in the police custody in connection with the crime imputed to him, some person holding himself to be his power of attorney was alienating his property and was inducting third parties into possessio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC2438; JT1995(5)SC647; 1995(4)SCALE595; (1995)5SCC139; [1995]Supp2SCR467; 1996(1)LC125(SC)
Kuldip Singh,J. This appeal has arisen from a civil suit instituted before the Bombay by the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (the Nigam) and the Union of India for a declaration that they alone have the right to print/publish the list of telephone subscribers and that the same cannot be printed or published by any other person without express permission of the Nigam/Union of India. A further declaration was sought that the Tata Press Limited (Tatas) have no right whatsoever to print, publish and circulate the compilation called "Tata Press Yellow Pages" (Tata- pages). A permanent injunction restraining the Tatas, their agents and servants from printing and/or publishing and/or circulating the "Tata - Pages" being violative of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (the Act) and the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 (the rules) - was also sought from the Court. The City Civil Court, Bombay by its judgment dated August 7, 1993 dismissed the suit. First appeal filed by the Nigam and the Union of Ind...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995(4)SCALE855; (1995)5SCC544; [1995]Supp2SCR494
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The High Court of Karnataka in the impugned order reversed the award and decree of the Reference Court and modified the same to the extent that the claimants will be entitled to compensation @ Rs. 9,160/- per acre for the irrigated land and Rs. 8,680/- per acre for dry land, as against the Reference Court's award of sum of Rs. 16,950/- and Rs. 9,975/- respectively, when the matter had come up for admission, since a batch of the matters was then pending, notice was ordered in these matters also and the same was directed to be tagged with them. Since the batch has been disposed of by order dated January 27, 1995 in C.A. arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 11963-70/96,this Court while affirming the compensation awarded by the High Court modified the judgment and decree to the extent of awarding benefits of enhanced solatium and interest under the Amendment Act 68 of 1984. The Court instead granted solatium at 15 per cent and interest at 6 per cent on the enhanced compensa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC181
1. Leave granted.2. One Smt. Laljhari Devi, maternal grandmother of the appellant and widow of one Kamla Prasad Singh filed Suit No. 106 of 1941 for partition of the Hindu joint family property. A compromise decree dated 2nd May, 1942 was made for maintenance, wherein a life estate for residence in a portion of the residential house was provided for her. In 1956, Title Suit No. 100 of 1956 was filed in which Laljhari Devi was impleaded as 15th defendant. It would appear that since one of the issues could not be tried by the civil court, a reference was made to the Revenue Court and a finding in that behalf was called for. After its receipt without further notice to her, she was set ex-parte, the other contesting coparceners entered into three compromises and a preliminary decree was passed thereon in which the rights secured by Laljhari Devi in her Suit No. 106 of 1941 were not reiterated. The preliminary decree became final. Subsequently, in the final decree proceedings she had appear...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC2337; 1995CriLJ3986; 1995(3)Crimes497(SC); JT1995(5)SC673; 1995(4)SCALE627
ORDERM.K. Mukherjee J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated June 25, 1984 passed by the Bombay High Court in criminal Appeal No. 286 of 1980 whereby it affirmed the conviction and sentence recorded against the four appellants under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code by the Sessions Judge,Bhandara.2. According to the prosecution case in the night between October 15/16, 1984 Antiram met with his death at the hands of his sons by his first wife (appellant Nos. 1 and 2 herein) and two sons of her brother (the other two appellants). The motive ascribed for the killing was that the deceased and his first wife, whom he had deserted some 10/12 years back, were fighting for, long over the ownership of the house in which the murder took place.3. In proving the charges leveled against the appellants, the prosecution rested its case principally upon the ocular version of, the incident as given out by Bhivarabai (P.W. 21) the mother of the deceased and Suresh (PW 22),...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC2398a; JT1995(7)SC481; (1996)1MLJ80(SC); 1995(4)SCALE589; (1995)5SCC206; [1995]Supp2SCR461; 1995(2)LC596(SC)
Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appeal pertains to land admeasuring I ground and 1602 sq. ft. in T. S. No. 3/1/part. Block No. 3), Mambalam Village. Madras owned by the appellant society. By a Notification dated 24-8-1982 issued by the respondent-Government under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894. a portion of the said land was notified as required for a road and water drainage arrangements, the Notification was published in Tamil Nadu Gazette dated 8-9-1982. Thereafter the respondent Government issued a declaration dated 19-12-1983 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act acquiring the said [and for the public purpose of providing a road, drainage and water facilities. The Notification was published in Tamil Nadu Gazette dated 15th of February. 1984. On 13-8-1984, the appellant was also served with notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act. Pursuant thereto, the appellant submitted a claim for compensation. No award, however, was made the...
Tag this Judgment!