Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)ILLJ687SC; 1996(8)SCALE336; (1997)9SCC523; [1996]Supp8SCR16
ORDER1. These special leave petitions have been filed against the Order of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court made on September 9, 1996 in Writ Petition Nos. 17011/94 and 9851/87.2. The admitted facts are that the petitioner, while working as a Manager of the respondent-Bank, was charged on November 3, 1986 for an offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 471, 477 IPC read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short, the 'Act'). The trial Court convicted the petitioner for an offence under Section 420 and 477A IPC and 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of the Act and sentenced to undergo one year imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs. 3,000 on each of the counts. On appeal, the High Court suspended the sentence on September 15, 1987 and enlarged the petitioner on bail. The respondents had issued a show cause notice pending trial to the petitioner on September 24, 1987. The petitioner challenged the same which was subsequently withdrawn. After the convi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIIAD(SC)737; AIR1997SC1441; 1997(2)ALD(Cri)386; 1997CriLJ353; 1996(4)Crimes125(SC); JT1996(9)SC551; 1996(7)SCALE840; (1996)11SCC606
ORDERG.N. Ray, J.1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 16.1.1986 passed by the Bombay High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 36 of 1986. The appellants were charged under Section 409 IPC and Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act for making false panchnama disclosing recovery of 90 gold biscuits on 21.9.1969 although according to prosecution case the appellants had recovered 99 gold biscuits. The appellants were tried in special case No. 8 of 1971 before the Special Judge for Greater Bombay. Two of the appellants were acquitted by the learned trial Judge and the remaining two appellants were acquitted on 6.12.1995 by the High Court inter alia on the finding that the prosecution had failed to prove misappropriation.2. The appellants were also tried for offence under Section 120B IPC and Sections 135 and 136 of the Customs Act. Section 85 of the Gold Control Act and Section 23(1A) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and Section 5 of Imports and Export Control Act. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996(8)SCALE381; (1997)1SCC477; [1996]Supp8SCR32
ORDER1. Leave granted. 2. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides. 3. This appeal by special leave arises against the judgment and decree of the Karnataka High Court made on February 14, 1995 in RSA No. 350/90.4. The admitted position is that appellant's father Chenne Gowda apart from himself being Chenne Gowda had four brothers, namely, Linge Gowda, Hala Gowda, Bale Gowda and Channiah. The appellants (defendants 8 and 7) are sons of Chenne Gowda. The first defendant is the son of Linge Gowda. Bole Gowda is the third defendant and Chenne Gowda is the second defendant. Bole Gowda's sons are defendant Nos. 4 to 6. The appellant had filed the suit for a declaration of his title and injunction against all the defendants to restrain them from interfering with his possession. It is his specific plea that the property was the ancestral property and prior to 1936, there was a partition by meets and bounds among five brothers of his father. Subsequently, in 1936, there was a further partiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIIIAD(SC)693; AIR1997SC2560; 2001(78)ECC671; 1997(89)ELT646(SC); JT1996(10)SC239; 1996(8)SCALE287; (1997)1SCC508; [1996]Supp7SCR818
1. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. We do not think that it is a case warranting interference for the reason that the appellate authority had initially referred back the matter to the primary authority to reconsider the matter in the light of the directions issued in that order. After reconsideration, the confiscation order has been passed in respect of the gold and in respect of the two items, i.e., FAX machine and video camera and compounding fee was ordered. On appeal, it was confirmed and on revision it was also confirmed. The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court. The High Court in the impugned order dated January 30, 1996 summarily dismissed the writ petition. Thus, this special leave petition.2. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to cross-examine the Panch witnesses and the Seizing Officer for the goods seized in contravention of the FERA and Customs Duty Act and that the opportunity has not been gi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIIIAD(SC)114; [1996(74)FLR2752]; JT1996(9)SC686; 1996(7)SCALE803; (1996)6SCC721; [1996]Supp7SCR750; 1997(1)SLJ69(SC); 1997(1)LC41(SC)
S.C. Agrawal, J. 1. The short question that falls for consideration in this appeal is whether it is permissible to club vacancies of a number of years while preparing the select list for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service (for short 'Service') from the State Civil Service. By the impugned judgment dated November 30, 1993 the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') has held that such clubbing of vacancies is not permissible and that separate select lists should be prepared by the Selection Committee for each year.2. The Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 make provision for appointment to the Service by promotion from amongst the substantive members of a State Civil Service [Rules 4(1)(b) and 8(1)]. Such promotion to the Service from the State Civil Service is governed by The Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations'). Regula...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IXAD(SC)63; AIR1997SC1907; 1996(8)SCALE435; (1997)9SCC83; [1996]Supp8SCR1
1. Leave Granted2. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides.3. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the 'Act') was published on January 23, 1965 acquiring about 14,000 bighas of land in Kalkaji, Tughalakabad for planned development. The dispute in the present proceedings relates to 38 bighas, 5 biswas of the land. The District Collector awarded compensation @ Rs. 700 per bigha for lands with deep pits of 8 to 10 ft. The reference Court enhanced the compensation @ Rs. 4,000 per bigha. The High Court enhancing the compensation @ Rs. 7,000 per bigha for land with pits and for the leveled land, Rs. 17,000 per bigha deducted 1/3rd towards the development charges and determined the compensation accordingly.4. Shri Mukul Mudgal, learned Counsel for the appellant, contended that the High Court having enhanced the compensation to Rs. 40,000 per bigha for the leveled up land in a similar case, compensation Rs. 7,000 per bigha for the land with pits of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIIIAD(SC)532; JT1996(10)SC236; 1996(8)SCALE295; (1997)2SCC225; [1996]Supp7SCR814; 1997(1)LC215(SC)
1. This writ petition under Article 32 is one of the series of cases we have come across to reopen the judgment/orders of this Court rendered under Article 136 of the Constitution of India after their becoming final.2. The admitted facts are that the petitioners who joined service under the Special Security Bureau (SSB) in North Eastern Region of India, claimed special duty allowances as per order of the Central Government. The question was considered by this Court in Union of India v. S. Vijay Kumar CA No. 3251 of 93 decided on September 20, 1994; therein this Court had held thus:We have duly considered the rival submissions and are inclined to agree with the contention advanced by the learned Additional Solicitor General, Shri Tulsi for two reasons. The first is that a close perusal of the two aforesaid memoranda, along with what was stated in the memorandum dated 29.10.1986 which has been quoted in the memorandum of 20.4.1987, clearly shows that allowance in question was meant to at...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIIIAD(SC)529; 1996(8)SCALE334; (1997)3SCC211; [1996]Supp7SCR820
1. Leave granted.2. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides.3. These appeals by special leave arise from the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar made on 25.5.1992 in OA No. 1549/90 and batch.4. The admitted position is that all the respondents are Government servants. They were allotted Government houses in Bhubaneswar and Cuttack during their tenure of office as Government servants. On their retirement, they did not vacate the premises, though their allotments have been cancelled. Consequently, the Government had charged them with penal rents of 5 times the standard rent prescribed under the Orissa Service Code. When they challenged the levy in the Tribunal, it held that the Government have no power to assess damages by way of penalty in excess of one time standard rent. Therefore, the order passed by the Government is not valid in law. Mr. P.M. Misra, learned Counsel for the State, contends that the view taken by the Tribunal is contrary to Rule 11 of the Or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIIIAD(SC)104; AIR1997SC252; [1996(74)FLR2749]; (1997)2GLR1053; JT1996(9)SC635; (1997)ILLJ1212SC; 1996(7)SCALE791; (1996)6SCC590; [1996]Supp7SCR762; 1997(1)SLJ125(SC)
ORDER1. The only question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Labour Court, having found that the employee was guilty of misconduct in an inquiry held in accordance with law and in compliance with principles of natural justice, can set aside the order of his discharge and substitute the same with an order of reinstatement with forty per cent back wages. 2. The respondent was engaged as a Badli workman, by the appellant, some time in October, 1971. On 29th December, 1976 the respondent entered the office of the Deputy Manager and started abusing him and threatened that the mill officers will not be safe outside the mill and that he did not care if he had to go to jail for murder of four to five officers.3. In view of the aforesaid abusive behavior of the respondent a show cause notice under Clause 22 [1] of the Standing Orders was served on him. This notice was based on the complaint dated 31st December, 1976 which was made by the said Deputy Manager to the mana...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIIIAD(SC)553; 1996(8)SCALE243; (1996)11SCC496; [1996]Supp7SCR812
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. We have learned Counsel on both sides.3. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the single Judge of the Madras High Court made on November 16, 1996 in Second Appeal No. 1234/95.4. Admittedly, the appellant and the respondent are brothers. They inherited the property consisting of three floors in Salainagar Koil Street, Madra. It would appear that as per the partition deed the ground floor was required to be enjoyed by both the parties. The partition deed dated August 27, 1953 does disclose that the appellant and the respondent have to enjoy the property in equal shares. Though the recitals of the partition deed were not happily worded, the fact remains that the respondent is in possession of first floor and the appellant is in possession of second floor.5. It is not disputed that the ground floor was converted into shops and the appellant is in possession of one portion and the respondent in two portions through tenants.6. The question, theref...
Tag this Judgment!