Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IIIAD(SC)455; AIR1996SC1551; 1996(1)CTC715; JT1996(3)SC664; 1996(3)SCALE196; (1996)8SCC5; [1996]3SCR498
1. Leave granted.2. Heard counsel for both the parties.3. In execution of money decree in O.S. No 67/87, the property, Le., 1053 sq. feet of land with built-in house was sold for a sum of Rs. 15,100 subject to discharge of the mortgage sum of Rs. 40,000 encumbered on the property. The appellant/judgment-debtor questioned the validity of the sale under Order 21, Rule 97, CPC. The executing Court rejected the same which was confirmed in C.R.P. No. 1895/93 by the impugned order dated September 26, 1993 of the High Court of Madras. Thus this appeal.4. Having heard the learned Counsel on both sides, we are of the view that the sale is in excess of the execution. It is not in dispute that the property sold consists of a built-up house in a portion measuring 1053 sq. ft. The property was originally valued for a sum of Rs. 75,000. But subsequently, it was reduced to Rs. 50,000. At an auction, it was sold for a mere sum of Rs. 15,000. The upset price was Rs. 15,000. The respondent's bid was for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1998)8SCC324
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. This appeal has been filed against an order dated 29-6-1992 passed by learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court rejecting the application for restoration of the writ petition dismissed for default filed on behalf of the appellant.3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. It appears that some order had been passed by this Court which could not be communicated to the counsel and in the meantime the aforesaid writ petition was taken up for hearing and dismissed for default. In the order rejecting the prayer for restoration, learned Judge has said that absence of intimation from the counsel was not sufficient ground for restoration of the writ petition. In view of the fact that an order had been passed by this Court arising from the said writ petition, we are of the opinion that the learned Judge should have restored the writ petition. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 29-6-1992 is set aside. The writ petition is restored to its original file....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1998)8SCC562
ORDER1. The respondent was subjected to a disciplinary enquiry on a charge of misappropriation. By an order dated 6-8-1988 he was dismissed from service. On appeal the appellate authority while confirming the finding of guilt, reduced the punishment to one of compulsory retirement. The respondent challenged that order before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the original application on the only ground of not furnishing the enquiry officer's report. Liberty was given for holding a fresh enquiry. The date of the Tribunal's order is 9-8-1991. On 4-11-1991, the authorities passed an order stating that in terms of Rule 10(4) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, the respondent shall be deemed to be under suspension pending enquiry with effect from the date of dismissal, i.e., with effect from 6-8-1988. Against the order dated 4-11-1991 the respondent again approached the Tribunal which has allowed the same on 11-6-1992 under the impugned order. This SLP has been preferred with a delay of 407 days by the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IIIAD(SC)657; AIR1996SC1616; (1997)1GLR88; JT1996(4)SC208; 1996(3)SCALE495; (1996)4SCC174; [1996]3SCR510
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. We have heard the counsel on both sides.3. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 (for short, the 'Act') was published on August 2, 1984 acquiring the lands situated in village Sarigatn, District Bulsar in Gujarat State for industrial purpose. Possession also was taken after dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A. It is not necessary to dilate on the proceedings taken earlier under Article 226 of the Constitution. Suffice it to state that there was an agreement between the parties that an award could be made under Section 11(2) of the Act pursuant to which the Land Acquisition Officer on June 4, 1991 made the award in terms of the agreement. The appellant challenged the correctness of the award by filing the writ petition which was dismissed by the High Court by the impugned order dated September 10, 1993. Thus these appeals by special leave.4. This Court by order dated February 28, 1994 issued notice confined to the questio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1998)8SCC711
ORDER1. Pursuant to this Court's order dated 20-2-1996, affidavits have been fifed by Mr Kamal Nath and other officers and members of the Special Cell. We have been taken through the affidavits. We are not satisfied with the same. We are prima facie of the view that the contempt proceedings be initiated against all these persons.2. Issue notice to Shri Kamal Nath and officers from Serial Nos. 3 to 12 mentioned at p. 4 of the office report dated 14-3-1996 returnable on 12-7-1996 to show cause why they be not held guilty for contempt of court and be punished suitably.3. Mr V.R. Reddy, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the contemners, states that the contemners as well as the other authorities of the Government of India shall take immediate steps to plant the green belt as directed by this Court from time to time. He may do so. He further states that he would file the progress report in this respect.4. We are in the process of hearing arguments regarding preservation of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC1705; 1996(2)SCALE851; (1996)8SCC649; [1996]3SCR433; 1996(1)LC848(SC)
Bharucha, J.1.The appeal aforementioned impugns the order of summary dismissal of a writ petition Filed by the appellant in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. Though the order only says 'dismissed', it was clearly passed by reason of the judgment of this Court in Dhan Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. : AIR1991SC1047 . The writ petition arises upon facts similar to those in the appeal and it seeks re-consideration of the aforementioned judgment.2. The facts that we state are of the appeal. The appellant was enrolled as a Sepoy in the Army on 30th January 1959. He served in the Army until some date in the year 1976, by which time he had been promoted to the post of Hawaldar. In 1978 the appellant joined the service of the State of Haryana (the first respondent) as a clerk.3. The Government of Punjab had framed the Punjab National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965, and they were adopted by the State of Haryana when it was formed. These Rules gave benefits to persons who had b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IIIAD(SC)105; AIR1996SC1308; JT1996(3)SC248; 1996(II)OLR(SC)1; 1996(2)SCALE771; (1996)3SCC145; [1996]3SCR474; 1996(1)LC844(SC)
ORDER1. The petitioner is an advocate and a member of the Bar Association of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. He filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana challenging the appointment of Shri M.R. Agnihotri, a former Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court as the President of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on completion of the term of Shri S.S. Sandhewalia, a former Chief Justice of the High Court, with effect from June 30, 1994. The challenge was made on the ground that the appointment of Shri M.R. Agnihotri was not in accordance with Section 16 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and in consonance with the principles applicable for making such an appointment. That writ petition (C.W.P. No. 7067 of 1994) was transferred to this Court for decision, in view of the importance of the question involved.2. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prescribes in Section 16 for the composition of the State Commission as under :Composition of the State C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : I(1996)ACC566; 1996ACJ673; AIR1996SC1605; (1996)3GLR5; JT1996(4)SC352; (1996)114PLR328; 1996(3)SCALE56; (1996)3SCC608; [1996]3SCR450
ORDER 1. Special leave granted. 2. The principal judgment that has been impugned in the 8 matters grouped together is the one dated 26.4.1993 in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamlaben Sultansinh Hakumsinh Jadav and Ors., in first appeal No. 61 of 1979 of the High Court of Gujarat 1993 (1) Guj L R 779. The full Bench, in that case, was called upon to decide the following questions referred by the Division Bench : (i) What would be the extent of liability of the insurer under Section 95(2) (of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939) in respect of death or bodily injury to the passengers carried for hire or reward in a truck (ii) Which clause amongst (a), (b) or (c) will apply (iii) Whether the judgment of the Division Bench in Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Husseinbhai Abdulbhai Sheikh and Ors. First Appeal No. 851 of 1977, decided on 26th July 1983, is correctly decided and is correctly followed in some other cases 3. The full Bench reframed the questions and at t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1998)8SCC682
ORDER1. Leave granted. 2. Respondent 1 S.S. Kothiyal was an Assistant Commandant in the Border Security Force since 1967 and on being considered for promotion as Deputy Commandant in 1970, he was not found fit and, therefore, was not promoted. He was again considered for that promotion in 1971 but was not promoted because he was not found fit. Later, in 1972, he was found fit for promotion as Deputy Commandant and was so promoted. In 1975, he was promoted further as Commandant. It was several years even thereafter in December 1978 that he filed a writ petition in the Rajasthan High Court challenging his non-promotion in the year 1970 to the post of Deputy Commandant claiming consequential benefits. That writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court who further directed the actual promotion of Respondent 1 to the post of Deputy Commandant w.e.f. 1970 instead of merely directing a fresh consideration of his case at that point of time. Further consequential benef...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IIIAD(SC)293; AIR1996SC1338; JT1996(3)SC405; 1996(3)SCALE53; (1996)3SCC685; [1996]3SCR466
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 2773/95 dated 22.6.95.3. At the time of arguments before us, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has confined his contention to the claim of the appellant that she belongs to 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe.4. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellant with a view to apply for admission to the Medical Course, approached the second respondent, the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee (for Short 'Committee') for the issue of a caste certificate to the effect that she belongs to 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe to enable her to apply for admission to the Medical Course under that category. In support of her claim, apart from appearing before the Committee and furnishing certain information, the appellant has filed 17 documents consisting of certificates issued by Executive Magistrate and School Certificate issued to her and Caste Certificate issued to her f...
Tag this Judgment!