Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IAD(SC)879; (1996)1CALLT319(SC); JT1996(1)SC680; 1996(1)SCALE598; (1996)2SCC380; [1996]1SCR1046; 1996(1)LC596(SC); (1996)2UPLBEC1049
M.M. Punchhi, J. 1. Special leave granted.2. This appeal voices a cry for gender justice.3. The two appellants before us are a married daughter and father. The second appellant was in service of the Indian Railways, While in service, he was allotted quarter No. 30/3, Railway Colony, Kishan Ganj, Delhi. He was due to retire on 31.12.1993. It is a different matter that he was permitted to retain the railway quarter for the maximum permissible period of eight months thereafter upto 31.8.1994. Much prior to retirement, the second appellant on 18.3.1993 requested the railway authorities concerned in permitting his married daughter, the first appellant to share the accommodation allotted to him on the basis that she was a railway employee at Delhi described as 'Sr. S.O./T.A./D.K.Z.'. He pointed out that he had two sons working out of Delhi, but neither of them was a railway employee, whereas he married daughter was one, and he needed her to look after him and his ailing wife. His request was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1998(9)SC301; (1997)11SCC383
ORDER1. The respondent was employed as Upper Division Clerk in the Delhi Administration. He was prosecuted for offences under Section 120B read with Sections 409 and 477A I.P.C. and Section 5(1)(c) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The Special Judge, Jalandhar, by judgment dated 17.5.1985 convicted the respondent for the said offences and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs 500 and on default in the payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. The respondent has filed an appeal in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana against his conviction and sentence for the said offences under the said judgment dated 17.5.1985. During the pendency of the said appeal, an order dated 20.11.1986 was passed by the Superintending Engineer, PWD Circle No. V(DA), New Delhi, whereby the respondent was dismissed from service with effect from 22.11.1986. The said order was passed under Rule ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IIAD(SC)61; JT1996(2)SC166; 1996(4)KarLJ668; (1996)8SCC89; [1996]1SCR1058
ORDER1. Leave granted. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel on both sides.3. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 17th October, 1981. The possession of the land was taken in January 1982. The land Acquisition Officer in his award dated July 31, 1982 determined compensation @ Rs. 2,000 per acre. On reference, the civil Court by award and decree dated November 7, 1983 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 4,000 per acre. On appeal, the High Court by judgment and decree dated August, 9, 1989 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 6,000 per acre and awarded interest under the unamended Act as per the State amendment, thus this appeal by special leave.4. In view of the fact that the Land Acquisition officer has made the award on July 31, 1982, i.e., after the introduction of the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 on the floor of the Parliament, the claimants are entitled to interest under Section 34 @ 9% per annum from the date of taking possession till date of paym...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1998)8SCC594
ORDER1. On a complaint filed by the appellant herein, the respondent-Company and two others were summoned by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhubaneswar to stand trial for an offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. After entering appearance, the respondent-Company filed an application for recalling the process issued against it for reasons mentioned therein. In opposing the application, the appellant contended, inter alia, that once process was issued against an accused, the court had no power to recall or review it. The learned Magistrate rejected the above contention of the appellant relying upon the following passage from the judgment of this Court in K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala, : 1992CriLJ3779 '8. It is open to the accused to plead before the Magistrate that the process against him ought not to have been issued. The Magistrate may drop the proceedings if he is satisfied on reconsideration of the complaint that there is no offence for which the accu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IAD(SC)906; AIR1996SC3386; JT1996(1)SC708; 1996(4)KarLJ306; 1996(1)SCALE31; (1996)2SCC199; [1996]1SCR1053
ORDER1. The true scope of this writ petition has been indicated during the earlier hearings. At this stage, when some charge sheets have been filed in the Special Court and there is considerable publicity in the media regarding this matter, with some speculation about its true scope, it is appropriate to make this order to form a part of the record.2. The gist of the allegations in the writ petition are that Government agencies, like the CBI and the revenue authorities, have failed to perform their duties and legal obligations inasmuch as they have failed to properly investigate matters arising out of the seizure of the so called 'Jain Diaries' in certain raids conducted by CBI. It is alleged that the apprehending of certain terrorists led to the discovery of financial support to them by clandestine and illegal means, by use of tainted funds obtained through 'hawala' transactions; that this also disclosed a nexus between several important politicians, bureaucrats and criminals, who are...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IIIAD(SC)250; AIR1996SC1697; 1996(3)ALT18(SC); JT1996(3)SC98; 1996(2)SCALE864; (1996)8SCC525; [1996]1SCR1068
1. Leave granted.2. We have heard the counsel on both sides.3. The appeal by special leave arises from the Judgment dated July 2, 1992 of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court rendered in LPA No. 161 of 1988.4. The appellants are the alienees from Sellathachi, widow of Somasundram Pillai who had executed a will, Ex-A43 on 16.7.1950 bequeathing the suit properties to his wife and his cousin's widow Janakathache mentioning there under as follows :Whereas I have no male or female issues and may wife (1) Sellathachi and (2) Janaka Thathachi, wife of my senior paternal uncles' son Thabasuya Pillai are living with me and in my family and other than the other 2 persons, there is none else in my family. Amongst the aforesaid persons, the aforesaid Janaka Thachi have got only maintenance relationship and none else in my family have any right in the share or have maintenance relationship. I am duty bound to provide maintenance for the aforesaid two persons and I have no other duty to be pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IIAD(SC)364; AIR1996SC1809; JT1996(2)SC494; 1996(4)KarLJ723; (1996)1MLJ112(SC); 1996(2)SCALE314; (1996)8SCC47; [1996]1SCR1056; 1996(1)LC762(SC)
1. Though notice has been sent on second occasion to respondent No. 3 on May 24, 1994, so far acknowledgment has not come back. Therefore, notice on 3rd respondent must be deemed to have been served. Respondents 1 & 2 are represented by Mr. G.S. Chatterjee.2. Lave granted.3. The respondents filed Suit No. 19/75 on May 19, 1975 for eviction of the tenant Harkesh Rai Agarwal on three grounds, namely, default, subletting and personal requirement. The suit was dismissed on August 25, 1975. Again another suit was instituted on September 25, 1975 for the same grounds. The suit was again dismissed. Pending appeal, Harkesh Rai and the respondent have compromised the matter. By compromise decree dated November 26, 1981, Harkesh Rai agreed to surrender one room now in possession of the appellant. When execution was sought to be taken and the appellant resisted the execution, an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC was filed to remove the obstruction which was ordered by the Executing Court....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)11SCC437
S.C. Agrawal and; G.T. Nanavati, JJ.1. The respondent, Krishna Kumar Sharma, was recruited as a Temporary Fireman Constable in the Office of the Superintendent of Police, in Police Fire Brigade with effect from 23-11-1971. By order dated 20-1-1980, his services were terminated by paying him one month's pay in lieu of notice under the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Services) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”). The respondent filed a claim petition before the U.P. Public Services Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) but the same was dismissed by the Tribunal by its judgment dated 21-11-1985. Thereafter, the respondent filed a writ petition (CWP No. 3909 of 1986) in the Allahabad High Court which has been allowed by the High Court by the impugned judgment dated 10-12-1991. The High Court has held that the termination of the services of the respondent was by way of punishment and since he was not afforded reasona...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IIIAD(SC)1; AIR1996SC1623; (1996)3CALLT62(SC); 1996(2)CTC109; 2002(143)ELT249(SC); JT1996(3)SC371; 1996(2)SCALE820; (1996)3SCC132; [1996]1SCR1060; 1996(2)LC105(SC)
1. Leave granted.2. We have heard the counsel on both sides. We decline to express any opinion on merits. The Division Bench of the High Court refused to condone the delay of 109 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. We have perused the reasons given for the delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeal.3. Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 (for short, the 'Act') extends prescribed period of limitation in filing an application or an appeal except under the provisions of Order 21 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, the 'Code') and gives power to the Court to admit the appeal or application after the prescribed period. The only condition is that the applicant/appellant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period. In Ramlal, Motilal & Chhotellal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. : [1962]2SCR762 , it was laid down that in showing sufficient cause to condone the delay, it is not necessary that the applicant/appell...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC2590a; [1996(73)FLR1049]; JT1996(2)SC648; (1996)IILLJ432SC; 1996(2)SCALE400; (1996)7SCC634; [1996]1SCR1026; (1996)2UPLBEC827
ORDER1. Leave granted2. We have heard the counsel on both sides.3. The appellant was appointed on April 20, 1990 and was discharged from service on July 22, 1992 on the ground that he remained absent from duty for more than 1 month 9 days. Another ground was that he was irregular in attending to the duty. So he could not prove himself to be an efficient Constable. We had sent for the records which disclose that he was absent on three occasions. On the first occasion, when he was called upon to report for duty at 12 noon, he reported on September 10, 1990 and was late by six hours. On the second occasion, he was absent, on June 30, 1991, from night duty. The third occasion was on April 24, 1995. The explanation offered for the absence on third occasion was that since in his wife's delivery certain complication had arisen, he to attend to his wife and so he could not be present. The Medical Certificate in that behalf was produced. In view of the Medical certificate, it cannot be said tha...
Tag this Judgment!