Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IAD(SC)741; AIR1996SC2880; 1996(1)ALD(Cri)180; 1996CriLJ1367; 1996(1)Crimes54(SC); JT1996(1)SC480; 1996(1)SCALE477a; (1996)11SCC391; [1996]1SCR837
ORDER1. The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that there is non-compliance of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the N.D.P.S. Act') which renders the conviction of the petitioner illegal. The learned Counsel submitted, placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Saiyad Mohd. Saiyad and Ors. v. State of Gujarat : 1995CriLJ2662 , that the burden is on the prosecution to prove due compliance of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. It is sufficient to say that in the present case, the High Court has gone into this question and recorded a clear finding that there was compliance of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act in as much as the accused was given the option specified in the provision and on exercise of that option by him, he was searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that another requirement of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act is that the accused should also be gi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IAD(SC)873; AIR1997SC166; JT1996(1)SC622a; 1996(1)SCALE608; (1996)2SCC681; [1996]1SCR839
1. This Court by order dated March 2, 1995 disposed of the appeal in the light of the earlier law laid down this Court. Review petitions in these appeals were filed and the same came to be dismissed on May 10, 1995. Now these applications have been filed after changing the counsel, for clarification and modification of the order.IA. No. in CA No. 3450/952. When this Court asked the counsel as to under what provisions of law these applications are maintainable, the counsel found himself unable to bring to our notice any provision under which this application could be entertained. The counsel state that the Court can do it under its inherent power. Inherent power is meant only to correct orders when other remedy is not available. Since the remedy by way of review under the rules of this Court has been provided for and has been availed of, the inherent power cannot be invoked again for further clarification or modification. It would be an obvious abuse of the process of law without any re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IAD(SC)900; AIR1996SC2339; 1996(1)ALD(Cri)28; I(1996)BC271(SC); (1996)98BOMLR242; [1996]86CompCas30(SC); 1996CriLJ1692; 1996(3)Crimes82(SC); 1996(1)CTC193; JT1996(1)SC6
1. Leave granted.2. We have heard the counsel on both sides.3. The appellant laid the complaints Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the Act') for dishonour of cheque for insufficiency of the funds in the accounts of the accused. The complaint of the appellant read thus :The above cheque was presented by the complainant on 28.11.1990, through their Bankers M/s. Hyderabad Bank, Sarojini Devi Road, Secunderabad for realisation, with the promise by the accused, that the same will be honoured when presented. However, the said cheque was dishonoured with the Banker's endorsement dated 29.11.1990. '1. referred to drawer. 2. instructions for stopping payment and stamped. 3. exceeds arrangements'. It is evident from the Banker's memo dated 29.11.1990 that the said cheque was dishonoured by the Bank for wants of funds only.On receipt of the intimation dated 29.11.1990 from the Bank, the complainant has issued a notice on 6.12.1990 to the accused by Registered ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IAD(SC)839; JT1996(1)SC563; (1996)IILLJ26SC; (1996)113PLR323; 1996(1)SCALE527; (1996)7SCC295; [1996]1SCR826; 1996(1)LC775(SC)
G.B. Pattanaik, J.1. Leave granted.2. These appeals by the State of Punjab are directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Punjab High Court which dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal in limini and confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge. The question that arises for consideration is whether the respondents are entitled to relief of getting their pay step up and made equal to the pay drawn by other instructors irrespective of the trade in which they are working. The respondents filed Writ Petitions in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana alleging that even though they possess the same qualification and were appointed as instructors and were continuing as such, but with effect from 4.1.1961, pay scales of instructors in respect of 8 trades were changed whereas the respondents' pay scales have not been changed. In the subsequent pay revision even though there has been no distinction but yet those group of persons who were drawing a higher scale of pay on the basis o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IAD(SC)929; AIR1996SC1108; [1996(74)FLR2571]; JT1996(2)SC355; 1996(4)KarLJ278; 1996LabIC955; 1996(1)SCALE518; (1996)7SCC266; [1996]1SCR831; (1996)3UPLBEC1557
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Letters Patent appeal arising out of the Judgment of the Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 10421(W) of 1988. The question that arises for consideration is whether the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' has at all got any application to the case in hand following which principle the High Court has directed that respondent No. 1 would be entitled to the pay scale of 660-1600, which is the pay scale of the Education Officer under the Calcutta Municipal Corporation?3. The Calcutta Municipal Corporation was constituted under the provisions of Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 with effect from 4.1.1984. Prior to the constitution of the aforesaid Corporation, there was in existence the Calcutta Corporation under the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 and three other Municipalities called Jadhavpur Municipality, South Suburban Municipality and Garden Reach Municipality which had been const...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1998)8SCC690
ORDER1. Special leave granted.2. We have heard counsel for both sides and perused the orders of the Tribunal dated 16-12-1991 and 19-2-1993. By the previous order, the Tribunal's direction was to regularise the respondents with effect from the date of promulgation of the recruitment rules or from the date of their appointment, depending on the seniority list. That was a direction which was a flexible one leaving it to the management to consider from what date regularisation should take effect. In pursuance of the said direction, on the new recruitment rules being promulgated on 11-5-1985, the regularisation was given effect from that date. However, in the subsequent order passed by the Tribunal on 19-2-1993, the Tribunal has directed that they should be treated as having been conferred regular status with effect from 5-2-1981, that is, the date of their entry into service as InvestigatOrs. It must be remembered that they had entered as ad hoc appointees and the question was whether the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)11SCC398
S.C. Agrawal and; G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.1. Leave granted in SLP (Civil) No. 3665 of 1994.2. Both these appeals arise out of the judgment dated 19-2-1992 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in OA No. 113 of 1986.3. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows.4. H.S. Arora [appellant in CA No. ... of 1996, arising out of SLP (C) No. 3665 of 1994 and respondent in CA No. 1808 of 1993] was employed as Stenographer Grade ‘C’ in the office of the Chief Administrative Officer, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, New Delhi. He had been sent on deputation to the High Commission of India, London for a period of three years. After completion of the said period he was relieved of his duties in the High Commission on 3-12-1981. On compassionate grounds he was granted ex-India leave up to 19-7-1982 on the ground of the education of his children. Since he failed to report for duty in India after the expiry of the said peri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996(82)ELT441(SC); (2003)9SCC234
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. An application for rectification was made by the Department to the Tribunal for rectification of its order dated 23-6-1987 deciding the appeal. In the main order, the only relevant part is contained in para 4 thereof, with which alone the other member of the Bench expressed his concurrence. In that part of the order, it was held that the provision mentioned in the show-cause notice being inapplicable, the show cause notice was invalid and the correct provision to show-cause could not be seen to support the validity of the notice. The application for rectification made by the Department was on the ground that the mere mention of an incorrect provision of law in the show cause notice was not sufficient to invalidate the same and a decision was relied on in support of this proposition to make out the ground of an error apparent on the face of the order. This application has been rejected by the Tribunal. Hence, this appeal by special leave.3. It is settled that me...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1996]218ITR438(SC); JT1996(1)SC487; 1996(1)SCALE511; (1996)2SCC541; [1996]1SCR773
A.M. Ahmadi, C.J 1. Special leave granted in SLP (C) Nos. 5813-14 of 1982.2. The assessee in all these cases is a Co-operative Society registered under the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies (Amalgamation) Act, 1957, hereinafter called 'the Act'. While framing assessment for the relevant assessment years in question, the income Tax Officer, included in the taxable income of the assessee interest earned on securities earmarked against reserves and interest earned on Provident Fund deposits. The assessee contended that it was entitled to the benefit of Section 81 of the Income Tax Act as in force at all material time. The Income Tax Officer rejected this claim of exemption form tax put forward by the assessee. Since the assessee's contention did not find favour at the higher levels also, including the reference to the High Court, the assessee has approached this Court.3. Section 81 of the Income-Tax Act on which the assessee's case is based thus at all material time:Income of co-opera...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IAD(SC)1035; AIR1996SC1660; [1995(71)FLR877]; JT1996(2)SC408; 1996(1)SCALE812; (1996)2SCC344; [1996]1SCR818; 1996(1)LC595(SC); (1996)2UPLBEC866
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. We have heard counsel on both sides. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court made in C.W.P. No. 8687 of 1994 on July 25, 1994. The respondent had retired on January 31, 1994 and he claimed his pension and since his pension has not been paid, he invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court. In the impugned order, the High Court has directed to pay to the respondent the gratuity with 12% interest thereon within one month from the date of judgment. It further directed to determine the pension of the respondent on the basis of the emoluments last drawn by him which would be subject to the final decision that may be made in regard to the actual scale of pay to which he is eligible and on the basis of which pension may be computed. Arrears paid would be adjustable thereafter. Accordingly, direction was given to pay the pension with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. Thus, this appeal by special leave.3. ...
Tag this Judgment!