Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IXAD(SC)221; JT1997(10)SC405; 1996(8)SCALE665; (1996)11SCC35; [1996]Supp9SCR410; 1997(1)LC153(SC)
ORDER1. These two applications relate to Idgah Slaughter House, Delhi. The common prayer in both of them is to hold that the order dated July 8, 1996 [ passed in IA No. 22 connected with WP (C) No. 4677 of 1985 does not have the effect of modifying and/or setting aside the order dated 19.2.1996 passed in the connected Civil Appeals, by which interim order of status quo was passed, while grating special leave. As the order of status quo is in conflict with the order passed in the writ petition, a clarification has also been sought that notwithstanding the later order, the order of status quo would continue to remain in operation.2. The order in the writ petition relates not only to Idgah Slaughter House, but to 168 industries, of which the Slaughter House is one. By that order it was held that all the 168 named industries are 'hazardous/noxious' and, therefore, a direction was given that these industries shall stop functioning and operating in the city of Delhi with effect from November...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IXAD(SC)644; 1996(9)SCALE242; (1997)2SCC638; [1996]Supp9SCR377
1. Leave granted.2. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides.3. These appeals by special arise against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, made on 10.2.1994 and 1.3.1995 in OA No. 753/93 and RA No. 22/94 respectively.4. The admitted position is that the appellant and the respondents came to be selected by Railway Recruitment Board and were placed in a panel prepared on June 28, 1985 as Assistant Station Masters. The appellant was sent for training on December 23, 1985 and had completed the same on June 22, 1986. The respondent Nos. 6 and 7 were sent on July 20, 1986 and they completed the training on January 19, 1987. In preparation of the inter-se seniority, the appellant claimed seniority over the respondents on the ground that he had completed his training earlier to them and as per Rule 303(1)(a) of the Railway Establishment Code, the seniority has to be reckoned from the date of completion of the training and joining the post. Since the appellant ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)11SCC605
A.M. Ahmadi, C.J.,; Sujata V. Manohar and; K. Venkataswami, JJ.1. By our order dated 10-7-1996 we had passed an interim order to the effect that construction which has begun at the site but had not proceeded beyond the plinth shall not be permitted to be started till we know the stand of the State of U.P. and the Union of India as regards the applicability of the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the Rules made thereunder. We had also noticed the submissions of the counsel for MDDA that the provisions of the said statute has limited application, in that, it prohibits breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for the cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, rubber, palms, oil-bearing plants, horticulture crops or medicinal plants for any purposes other than afforestation excluding any work relating or ancillary to conservation, development, management of forest and the establishment of check-posts etc. The question which this Court is required to consi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)IILLJ180SC; (1997)2SCC252
ORDER1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, made on November 30, 1990 in Writ Appeal No.767/88 reversing the judgment of the learned single Judge.3. The admitted position is that the respondent was appointed as an agent in the National Savings Scheme called Mahila Pradhan Kshetriya Bachat Yojana as per order dated August 7, 1976 under which the respondent was working as an agent. The agency was terminated by order dated August 2, 1994 on the ground that the respondent is a near relation to the employee working in the Post Office (brother) and, therefore, agency was not validly created. The respondent challenged that order by filing a writ petition in the High Court and also the circular dated December 5, 1981 on the basis of which the said order was passed. The circular was challenged on the ground that it was discriminatory and arbitrary. The High Court found that the circular was neithe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC2283; 1997(II)OLR(SC)217; 1997(1)SCALE34; (1997)2SCC349; [1996]Supp9SCR392; 1997(1)SLJ245(SC)
CA. @ SLP (C) NOS. 18886-87/91 & 9056-57/921. Leave granted.2. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides.3. Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal at Madras by purported judgment and order, made on June 11, 1991 in T.A. Nos. 123 and 127 of 1989, has held that under Rule 4(a) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules on preparation of the panel either with the names or 'nil' annual list, the Government exhausted their power to make another list in the same year for promotion of the subordinate officers to the higher post in the State or Subordinate service. The said view is in question in these appeals.4. The admitted position is that due to bifurcation of new firkas and upgradation of Sub-Taluks into Taluks 23 vacancies of Assistants had arisen in Pudukottai District. The crucial date for preparation of the panel, is as prescribed by the appropriate rules. It is not in dispute in these cases that the crucial date is March 15, 1979. As on the date, there were no vacancies exis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1998(9)SC421; (1997)11SCC334
M.M. Punchhi and; K.T. Thomas, JJ.1. Leave granted. Heard learned counsel at length.2. The High Court of Karnataka upheld partial eviction of the tenant-respondent, preserving the truncated tenancy to a room, left with him. There were two grounds for eviction, (i) for personal necessity and (ii) sub-letting or otherwise transferring whole or part of interest in the tenancy. The admitted facts are that the tenant had obtained the lease of the premises in writing, ex facie singularly. The defence put up in the eviction petition was that the need of the landlord was not bona fide and that as per terms of the deed, the lease had been obtained for members of his family, which included his brother. The ground of bona fide requirement was satisfied by the courts below by ordering partial eviction. The ground of sub-letting or otherwise transferring interest in the premises was however repelled. The point thus for consideration is whether the brother of the tenant-respondent was by himself a t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 84(1997)CLT531(SC); (1997)IILLJ382SC; 1996(9)SCALE277; (1997)9SCC296; [1996]Supp9SCR380
1. Delay condoned 2. Leave granted.3. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in CJC No. 1970/89 dated 19th July, 1991. The respondent No. 1 was a conductor in the appellant-Corporation. While he was posted in the District of Baripada, he committed misconduct. Disciplinary enquiry was conducted against him and on proof of his misconduct, he was dismissed from service, while Industrial Dispute Case No. 25 of 1981 under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the 'Act') was pending decision. The respondent filed an application under Section 33(1)(a) of the Act contending that since the dispute relating to an employee in Bhadrak zone was pending adjudication in the Industrial Tribunal, without the leave of the Tribunal under Section 33A his service could not be terminated. The Tribunal dismissed the petition but in the writ petition, the Division Bench in the impugned judgment has set aside that order a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)11SCC427
S.P. Bharucha and; K.S. Paripoornan, JJ.1. Special leave granted.2. Under challenge is the order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing in limine the writ petition filed by the appellants.3. The land in question is at Village Dundahera, District Gurgaon. The said land was proposed to be acquired by notifications issued under the provisions of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and Section 14 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act. The said land was thereafter purchased by the appellants with the intention of putting up a factory thereon. The appellants moved the 1st respondent for release of the said land to them for such purpose. On 16-10-1984 an agreement was entered into in this behalf between a Director of the appellants and the 1st respondent whereunder, in consideration of the 1st respondent agreeing to release the said land to them, the Director of the appellants made certain promises in regard to development charges, effluent treatment...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC1903; 1996(9)SCALE249; [1996]Supp9SCR383
1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court made on 30.11.1990 in Writ Appeal No.767/88 reversing the judgment of the learned single Judge.4. The admitted position is that the respondent was appointed as an agent in the National Savings Scheme called Mahila Pradhan Kshetriya Bachat Yojana as per order dated 7th August, 1976 under which the respondent was working as an agent. The agency was terminated by order dated 2.8.1994 on the ground that the respondent is a near relation to the employee working in the Post Office (brother) and, therefore, agency was not validly created. The respondent challenged that order by filing a writ petition in the High Court and also the circular dated 5.12.1981 on the basis of which the said order was passed. The circular was challenged on the ground that it was discriminatory and arbitrary. The High court found that the circular was neither discriminatory and a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC1909; 1996(9)SCALE290; (1997)3SCC317; [1996]Supp9SCR387
1. 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 Kerala High Court, made on 22.7.1993 in S.A. No. 616/85.4. The admitted facts are that item 6 of the Plaint Schedule Property belonged to the Tarawad. The Karanawan had executed the possessory mortgage as per Exhibit B-1 for a sum of Rs. 200. The appellant Ithiridutty Appachi filed suit No. OS-114/70 in the Court of Munsiff, Pattambi for redemption of the mortgage, Exhibit B-1. The property was redeemed by the appellant. Thereafter, the present suit came to be filed for partition of the plaint schedule property in their respective shares. We are not concerned in this case with other items. We are concerned only with respect to item 6 of the mortgage property. Based on the contentions, it was found and accepted by the trial Court and the District Court that since the appellant had redeemed the property, he subrogated himself into the shoes of the ...
Tag this Judgment!