Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC1357; JT1996(11)SC677; 1996(9)SCALE712; (1997)3SCC395
ORDERKuldip Singh. J.1. Special leave granted.2. The question for consideration before the Central Administrative Tribunal (The Tribunal) was whether the Defence Research and Development Organisation (Junior Scientific Officer) Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 1988 (1988 Rules) notified on March 14, 1988 and enforced with effect from March 8, 1980 have the effect of nullifying the judgment dated March 17, 1987 of the Tribunal in R.P. Joshi v. Union of India and Ors. (A.No. 497/86).3. The Tribunal answered the question in the negative and against the appellant. This appeal by the Union of India is against the judgment of the Tribunal dated December 20, 1991.4. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. We are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of this case no fault can be found with the impugned judgment of the Tribunal. One R.P. Joshi in A. No. 497/86 had approached the Tribunal with the contention that the promotion of a Senior Scientific Assistant (SSI) to the cadre of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC1757; JT1997(1)SC307; 1996(9)SCALE710; (1997)9SCC92
ORDERKuldip Singh. J.1. This is landlord's appeal. He filed a suit for eviction of the respondent-tenant from the premises in dispute, inter alia, on the ground of subletting. The trial court came to the conclusion that Mohsin Rangwalla - though the common partner - was not a real partner in the firm respondent 2 - defendant 2 and as such respondent 1 - defendant 1 had parted with the possession of the suit premises by putting respondent 2 in exclusive possession. In view of the said finding, the trial court decreed the suit. The appeal filed by the tenant was heard by a Bench of the Small Cause Court. The appellate court on re-appreciation of the evidence on record, reversed the reasoning and the conclusions reached by the trial court and dismissed the suit. The High Court in its writ jurisdiction upheld the findings of the appellate court. This appeal, by the landlord, is directed against the judgment of the appellate court and that of the High Court.2. We have heard learned Counsel ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC764; JT1996(11)SC576; 1996(9)SCALE705; (1997)9SCC713
ORDERKuldip Singh, J.1. Special leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated July 9, 1992 quashing the letter of intent dated August 31, 1988, the order of Collector, Bombay dated September 3, 1988 and the consequent order of allotment of land bearing city survey No. 211 of Malabar Hill Division of the Angarki Cooperative Housing Society Limited (the Society) - the appellant before us.3. The society was allotted land admeasuring 3725 sq. mts. (Two Plots) out of survey No. 211 of Malabar Hills, Bombay. The land was applied for in June/July, 1986 and the letter of intent for allotment was issued to the society in August, 1988. In June, 1989, Bal-Kalyani, a trust running a pre - primary school in the plot of land adjoining the plots allotted to the society, filed writ petition in Bombay High Court (No. 1754/ 89), seeking cancellation of the allotment alleging violation of rules and also mala fide in the process of allotment. Another writ pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC734; (1996)8SCC462; [1996]Supp10SCR973
ORDERKuldip Singh, J.1. Taj Mahal - The Taj - is the 'King Emperor' amongst the World-Wonders. The Taj is the final achievement and acme of the Moghul Article It represents the most refined aesthetic values. It is a fantasy-like grandeur. It is the perfect culmination and artistic interplay of the architects' skill and the jewellers' inspiration. The marble-in-lay walls of the Taj are amongst the most outstanding examples of decorative workmanship. The elegant symmetry of its exterior and the aerial grace of its domes and minarets impress the beholder in a manner never to be forgotten. It stands out as one of the most priceless national monument, of surpassing beauty and worth, a glorious tribute to man's achievement in Architecture and Engineering.2. Lord Roberts in his work 'Forty one years in India' describes the Taj as under:Neither words nor pencil could give to the most imaginative reader the slightest idea of all the satisfying beauty and purity of this glorious conception. To t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)2SCC353a
KULDIP SINGH, J.1. Taj Mahal — The Taj — is the “King Emperor” amongst the World Wonders. The Taj is the final achievement and acme of the Moghul Art. It represents the most refined aesthetic values. It is a fantasy-like grandeur. It is the perfect culmination and artistic interplay of the architects' skill and the jewellers' inspiration. The marble in-lay walls of the Taj are amongst the most outstanding examples of decorative workmanship. The elegant symmetry of its exterior and the aerial grace of its domes and minarets impress the beholder in a manner never to be forgotten. It stands out as one of the most priceless national monuments, of surpassing beauty and worth, a glorious tribute to man's achievement in Architecture and Engineering.2. Lord Roberts in his work “Forty-one years in India” describes the Taj as under:“Neither words nor pencil could give to the most imaginative reader the slightest idea of all the satisfying beauty and puri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC1739; 1997CriLJ1508; 1997(1)SCALE95; (1997)2SCC642
ORDER1. This writ petition has its origin in a letter dated 12.4.1984 by a prisoner of Central Jail, Bangalore (one Rama Murthy) to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court making grievance about some jail matters. The letter was ordered to be treated as a writ petition and court proceedings followed which are being wound up by delivering this judgment.2. The expostulatory power had been invoked earlier also in a similar matter when Sunil Batra had written a letter to a Hon'ble Judge of this Court from Tihar Jail, Delhi. The judgments in his cases and that of Charles Sobraj are such which can be said to be beacon lights insofar as management of jails and rights of prisoners are concerned. this Court in these judgments (1) Charles Sobraj v. Superintendent Central Jail Tihar : 1978CriLJ1534 ; (2) Sinil Batra (1) v. Delhi Administration and Ors. : 1978CriLJ1741 ; and (3) Sunil Batra (II) v. Delhi Administration : 1978CriLJ1741 on being approached either through formal writ petitions or by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC2725; 1997(1)BLJR110; 1996(9)SCALE680; (1997)1SCC444; [1996]Supp10SCR925
ORDERHansaria, J.1. The administrative law has of late seen vast increase in discretionary powers. But then, the discretion conferred has to be exercised to advance the purpose to subserve which the power exists. Even the Minister, if he/she be the repository of discretionary power, cannot claim that either there is no discretion in the matter or unfettered discretion. This proposition was rejected emphatically by the House of Lords in landmark decision of Padfield 1968 AC 997. This apart, as pointed out in United States v. Wunderlish 342 US 98:Law has reached its finest moments, when it has freed man from unlimited discretion of some ruler, some...official, some bureaucrat.... Absolute discretion is a ruthless master. It is more destructive of freedom than any of man's other invention.1A. These high principles of administrative law have been placed at the forefront because, as would appear from what is being stated later, in the present case there was gross misuse of discretionary pow...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1997AIHC1696; 1997(89)ELT447(SC); JT1996(11)SC733; 1996(9)SCALE720; (1997)11SCC194
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. The Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, came into force on 28th February, 1986. It substituted the Schedule in the Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944, whereunder, till then, the excise tariff was prescribed. Prior to 28th February, 1986, exemption notifications issued under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules had been in force. They ceased to have effect on the coming into force of the Tariff Act on 28th February, 1986, though not precisely in the same terms. The process of issuance of these exemption notifications took some means. It was realised that by reason thereof manufacturers of exempted items would have to pay duty for the periods between the date on which the new tariff came into force and the dates on which the exemption notifications were issued. It was, therefore, that the Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986, was passed. It gave retrospective effect to the exemption notifications. What is relevant for our purpose is Section 2, which, s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC1005; 1997(1)Crimes182(SC); JT1997(1)SC486; (1997)1MLJ1(SC); 1997(1)SCALE286; (1997)9SCC736; [1996]Supp10SCR915
ORDER1. It is a sad spectacle that new practice unbecoming and not worthy or conductive to the profession is cropping up. Mr. Mariaputham, Advocate-on-Record had filed vakalatnama for the petitioner-respondent when the special leave petition was filed. After the matter was disposed of, Mr. V. Balachandran, Advocate had filed a petition for review. That was also dismissed by this Court on April 24, 1996. Yet another advocate, Mr. S.U.K. Sagar, has now been engaged to file the present application styled as 'application for clarification', on the specious plea that the order is not clear and unambiguous. When an appeal/special leave petition is dismissed, except in rare cases where error of law or fact is apparent on the record, no review can be filed; that too by the advocate on record who neither appeared not was party in the main case. It is salutary to note that court spends valuable time in deciding a case. Review petition is not, and should not be, an attempt for hearing the matter ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC1808; 1997(1)ALD(Cri)528; 1997(1)BLJR547; JT1997(1)SC406; (1998)9SCC238; [1996]Supp10SCR905
ORDERThomas, J.1. For Bhagelu Singh Yadav, his own residence became most devastatingly unsafe when he and his wife were gunned down by armed assailants during a summer night in the month of June, 1980. His wife Sona Devi fell down dead on the spot though Bhagelu Singh escaped death as the pellets did not injure his vital organs. But the irony of fate of his neighbour Ram Janam Rai was horrendous as he too was shot dead just because he woke up hearing the sound of commotion from his neighbourhood. Balroop Yadav (first cousin of Bhagelu Singh Yadav). His two sons (Nathuni Yadav and Chela Yadav) and his son-in-law (Chandrika Yadav) were charge-sheeted by the police on the aforesaid incident before the Sessions Court. After trial learned Sessions Judge acquitted all of them. But a Division Bench of the Patna High Court has reversed the acquittal and convicted them of murder and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. This appeal, is filed under Section 2A of the Supreme Court (Enl...
Tag this Judgment!