Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IVAD(SC)453; AIR1996SC2397; [1996(73)FLR1699]; JT1996(5)SC378; 1996(4)SCALE163; (1996)11SCC173; [1996]3SCR1051; 1996(2)LC326(SC)
1. Leave granted.2. We have heard the learned Counsel on both sides.3. The appellant was appointed as a direct recruit to the M.P. State Civil Service (Deputy Collector) on January 7, 1967 and joined the service on February 15, 1967. He was put on probation w.e.f. the said date. He had passed the prescribed test on June 27, 1972. The Government had confirmed his appointment on regular basis on March 13, 1973. The appellant has sought his confirmation w.e.f. his date of joining the duty, viz., February 15, 1967 and claimed seniority from that date. The Tribunal has not granted the relief in O.A. No. 521 of 1988 by order dated December 17, 1992. Thus this appeal by special leave.4. The learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that since he has been appointed w.e.f. the date of joining of duty, his seniority should be reckoned from the date of his starting discharging duty of the post, viz., February 15, 1967. As he has not been discharged from service due to his failure to pass th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1996(5)SC457; 1996(3)SCALE300; (1996)8SCC482
B.L. Hansaria, JJ.1. Leave granted. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused written submissions filed on behalf of the respondents.2. The appellant claims the benefits of Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 1984. As to when such benefits are available has been spelt out by two Constitution Bench decisions: (1) Union of India v. Raghubir Singh : [1989]178ITR548(SC) ; and (2) K.S. Paripoornan v. State of kerala : AIR1995SC1012 . As the award by the Collector in the present case was passed on 20.11.63, the appellant is not entitled is not entitled to any additional sum visualised by Section 23 (1-A) in view of the decision in Paripoornan's case. But the decree of the Reference Court being of 22.9.83, benefits of amended Sections 23(2) and 28 would be available because of the decision in Raghubir Singh's case.3. The appeal is allowed accordingly. The additional amount which has become payable because of this judgment shall be paid to the appellant within a period of three months from t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IVAD(SC)66; AIR1996SC3234; [1996(73)FLR1340]; JT1996(4)SC371; 1996LabIC1610; (1996)IILLJ801SC; 1996(3)SCALE672; (1996)4SCC195; [1996]3SCR1056
1. Leave granted.2. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides.3. Pursuant to the direction given by this Court the appellants have framed the scheme. Shri K.B. Sharma, Superintending Engineer, Construction Circle No. 2, Chandigarh Administration has placed the same along with the additional affidavit. The Scheme has been approved by the Central Government. The scheme reads as under :For work charged employees :(i) All the works establishment ('excluding office of Ministerial Clerical and drawing cadres below the level of junior Engineer), engaged in the construction/execution of maintenance work, shall be called 'Work Force'. The work force includes buildings, roads, public health activities comprising augmentation of water supply, canals, drainage, electrical and electricity etc. The 'work division' shall be a unit for casual or daily wage work force and a 'circle'for work charged establishment. Separate cadre and seniority list for each category shall be maintained in the Division ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IIIAD(SC)621; AIR1997SC259; [1996(73)FLR1314]; JT1996(4)SC230; 1996(3)SCALE510; (1996)8SCC270; [1996]3SCR1049; (1996)4UPLBEC2917
1. Leave granted.2. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides.3. Appellant was temporarily appointed in the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission itself in the year 1975-76, for regular recruitment, she was selected and appointed in the Finance Department as a Junior Assistant in August 1990. For regularisation of her service passing the Tamil language test was a pre-condition. Initially, she had appeared in the year 1977. While she was temporarily working she had passed the exam. She was asked to pass the same examination again after her regular appointment. It would appear that she had requested a companion who was sitting by her side to keep an eye on her answer book and also it was taken that she committed malpractice in copying the paper. On that ground the paper written by her in the year 1977 was also cancelled along with the examination in which she is imputed to have committed malpractice. When she challenged the order, the High Court held that since the examination passed by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IVAD(SC)70; AIR1997SC256; [1996(73)FLR1627]; JT1996(4)SC584; 1996(3)SCALE671; (1996)8SCC654; [1996]3SCR1054; 1996(2)LC200(SC)
1. Leave granted.2. Admittedly, the appellant was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the Technical Education Department. He was transferred on deputation to the Transport Department. In the impugned order he was repatriated to the Technical Education Department. Calling that action in question, the appellant filed the Writ Petition No. 2058/89. The learned single Judge of the High Court by order dated 16.7.1990 dismissed the same. On appeal, in Civil Special Appeal No. 215/90, it was confirmed by the Division Bench by order dated May 13, 1994. Thus this appeal by special leave.3. The only controversy raised by Shri K. Madhava Rcddy, the learned senior counsel for the appellant is that in view or the letter addressed by the Technical Education Department that his lien was suspended and he could not be taken back into the service, the appellant has lost his lien in the parent department. Therelore, he must be deemed to have permanently absorbed in Transport Department. We find no for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IIIAD(SC)764; AIR1996SC1807; JT1996(4)SC425; (1996)2MLJ81(SC); 1996(3)SCALE689; (1996)4SCC457; [1996]3SCR1042
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. We have heard the counsel on both sides.3. Admittedly, T. Ramesh Chandra Chowdhry and his mother v. Smt. T. Venkata Subbamma had a compromise in a suit for partition between them. Compromise decree came to be passed on August 28, 1969 by the District Court, Khammam. It would appear that thereafter when Smt. Venakata Subbamma was attempting to alienate the properties given to her under the compromise decree, the appellants filed O.S. No. 313/89 in the Court of the District Munsif at Khammam for a perpetual injunction restraining her from alienating the property. The contest in the suit centers round the question whether Venkata Subbamma got an absolute estate under the compromise decree so as to enable her to alienate the properties to third parties or she had a limited estate thereunder covered under Section 14(2) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Pending suit, she died. Respondents have come on record under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC claiming that Venkata Subbama had ex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IVAD(SC)419; AIR1996SC1960; JT1996(4)SC324; 1996(3)SCALE704; (1996)8SCC365; [1996]3SCR1045
1. Leave granted.2. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides.3. The appellant had two sale deeds dated April 24, 1990 and July 20, 1968 executed by the respondent transferring the schedule property. On the later date, i.e., July 20, 1968, an agreement of reconveyance was also executed by the appellant with a stipulation that in the event of the respondent repaying Rs. 5,000 within eight years from that date in one lump sum, she would be entitled to have the sale deed executed and registered in her favour. It is the case of the respondent that before the expiry of eight years, some time in June 1976, she had approached the appellant but he avoided the reconveyance. Consequently, she requested her lawyer to issue a notice which came to be issued to the appellant to be present before the sub-Registrar to receive the amount and execute the sale deed but he failed to do that. On July 19, 1976, the sub-Registrar had issued notice calling upon the appellant to be present in the sub-Registr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IIIAD(SC)327; AIR1996SC3098; 1996(1)ALD(Cri)246; 1996CriLJ2159; 1996(2)Crimes1(SC); JT1996(3)SC615; 1996(3)SCALE168; (1996)8SCC186; [1996]3SCR1021
ORDER1. These three criminal appeals have been filed by in all 8 accused who have felt aggrieved by their conviction and sentence recorded by Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Case No. 56 of 1983 by his judgment dated 8th August 1986 convicting them under Section 148 and Section 302 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and sentencing them respectively to two years' rigorous imprisonment each and imprisonment for life. Sentences were ordered to run concurrently. They have also felt aggrieved by the dismissal of their Criminal Appeal No. 908 of 1986 by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur on 26th February 1988. Though all the 8 appellants had filed one criminal appeal before the High Court, in this Court they have filed separate appeals by obtaining special leave to appeal. Criminal Appeal No. 318 of 1988 is moved by accused nos. 6, 7,8 and 5 respectively. Criminal Appeal No. 501 of 1988 is filed by accused No. 2 while Criminal Appeal N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IIIAD(SC)368; [1996(73)FLR1243]; JT1996(4)SC39; 1996(3)SCALE231; (1996)4SCC64; [1996]3SCR964; (1996)4UPLBEC2895
Sujata V. Manohar, J. 1. Leave Granted.2. The appellants have challenged the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna dated 28th of July, 1995 as a result of which the Tribunal has set aside the selection made of the Selection Committee on 30th of March, 1994 of officers of the Bihar Administrative Service for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service.3. The Tribunal by its impugned order set aside the entire selection made at the meeting of the Selection Committee on 30th of March, 1994 on an interpretation of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, holding that only three times the number of anticipated vacancies for the year plus 20% could have been considered as within the zone of consideration before the Selection Committee. The consideration of other officers under Regulation 5(3) was contrary to the said regulations. It also said that the proceedings of the Selection Committee were vitiated on acco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1997(90)ELT13(SC); (1997)10SCC722
ORDER1. These appeals are preferred against the judgment of Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appeals preferred by the appellant. In view of the order we are proposing to make herein, it is not really necessary to state the facts in detail. Suffice it to mention that the appellant imported in September/October, 1991 certain goods declared as disperse dyes blue/red. There were two consignments. They were declared to be of China origin but the appellant did not file the requisite details as required by Rule 10 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. There were certain other defects also. On being tested, the goods were found to be synthetic organic dye stuff (disperse dye) in the form of coloured powder with the shade similar to colour index (C.I.) disperse blue 165/red 343. The authorities also found that the valuation was mis-declared. Ultimately, the adjudicating authority, Collector of Customs, Madras found that the invoice filed and value declared we...
Tag this Judgment!