Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VAD(SC)221; AIR1996SC2214; JT1996(5)SC555; 1996(5)SCALE1; (1996)4SCC686; [1996]Supp3SCR29
ORDERB.L. Hansaria, J.1. Theft of electricity has become so chronic a disease that there can be no doubt that all efforts must be made to curb the same; not only to make the State Electricity Board viable, but also to ensure regular supply of electricity to the lawful consumers at reasonable tariff.2. The facet of theft of electricity with which these appeals are concerned relates to the mischief of consumers to tamper with the meters, first to slow it down and then to make the same defective. The basic idea behind this is that the general terms and conditions governing the agreement between Electricity Boards and the consumers require that in such a case reading of the meter shall be based on the average reading of previous three months, in which the meter ran correctly and reading was duly recorded. Section 26 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, hereinafter the 1910 Act, is on the subject of 'Meters' and Sub-section (1) of this section requires that the amount of energy supplied to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VAD(SC)189; AIR1997SC58a; [1996(73)FLR1721]; (1996)IILLJ662SC; 1996(4)SCALE638; (1996)9SCC454; [1996]Supp3SCR1; 1996(2)SLJ48(SC)
ORDERM.M. Punchhi, J.1. This appeal by special leave is against a limine dismissal of a writ petition preferred by the appellant before the Delhi High Court.2. The appellant before us is M/s. Rajasthan Prem Krishan Goods Transport Co. (in short hereafter to be referred as 'the goods transport Company')-The concerned party with it is the 3rd respondent '- M/s. Rajasthan Prem Krishan Transport Co. - (in short hereafter referred to as the Transport Company). The appellant is aggrieved against the action and orders of the authorities established under Employees provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act') in treating the appellant and (he 3rd respondent as one and the same entity, holding the ostensible separate existence of these two as artificial and non-existent.3. Significantly, both these companies are partnership concerns. According to the appellant, 'the Goods Transport Co.' was constituted on 16.4.1976, composing of 10 partners. Beforehand, the third ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996ACJ1178; 1996VAD(SC)105; AIR1996SC2054; [1998]94CompCas278(SC); 1996(2)CTC228; (1997)2GLR1382; JT1996(6)SC32; (1997)1MLJ5(SC); 1996(II)OLR(SC)148; (1996)114PLR87; RLW19
ORDERM.M. Punchhi, J.1. In this appeal by special leave, the question of importance arising therein is whether the alleged breach of carrying humans in a goods' vehicle more than the number permitted in terms of the insurance policy, is so fundamental a breach so as to afford ground to the insurer to eschew liability altogether? Ancillary to the question is the poser: whether the terms of the policy of insurance need be construed strictly or be read down to advance the main purpose of the contract as viewed by this Court in Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandravudan and Ors. :2. The appellant herein was the registered owner of a 'Tata' Truck bearing No. KA-13/438, duly insured with the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. the respondent herein, vide Policy dated 24.8.1990 covered for period uptil 23.8.1991. The policy was comprehensive in nature, covering risk to the limit of Rs. 2,09,000. During the subsistence of the policy, the vehicle of the appellant met with an accident on 5.8.1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC2133; JT1996(5)SC285; 1996(4)SCALE608; (1996)5SCC71; [1996]Supp3SCR5
ORDERM.M. Punchhi, J.1. Rival applicant for substitution, Gurdev Dass, claiming to be Chela of Uttam Dass deceased appellant, is also permitted to be brought on record, supportive of the appeal, without deciding the rival claims of Gurdev Dass vis-a-vis Kesar Dass, who is already brought on record claiming himself to be Chela of Uttam Dass, deceased appellant, vide order dated 25.1.1993.2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, dated January 11, 1984 passed in First Appeal from Order bearing No. 189 of 1973.3. An institution, as held to be charitable, is located within the revenue estate of village Kanganpur, Tahsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur, Punjab, which was within the erstwhile Malerkotla State, ruled by Muslim Nawabs. The State got merged in the State of Patiala and East Punjab States Union (PEPSU) on the latter's formation as a part B State under the Constitution. Later the St...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2001)9SCC235
Kuldip Singh and; Faizan Uddin, JJ.1. The brick kilns operating in the Taj Trapezium are one of the major sources of air pollution. This Court by the order dated 4-4-1996 directed National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), Nagpur to send an inspection team to visit the brick kilns in Taj Trapezium to find out the extent of pollution generated by the brick kilns and to report whether to safeguard Taj Mahal and other significant monuments from pollution — it would be environmentally viable to permit the brick kilns to operate in the Taj Trapezium. NEERI has placed on record its inspection report dated 24-4-1996. The report has primarily dealt with the present status of brick kilns, emission characterisation and ambient air monitoring in and around representative brick kilns, brick-making process, metrology and prediction of ground-level concentrations of air pollutants, impact on Taj Mahal and other monuments, human health and vegetation and various other aspect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC1540; 85(1998)CLT696(SC); JT1996(6)SC360; 1996(5)SCALE288; (1996)9SCC471; [1996]Supp2SCR846
1. Leave granted.2. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant. Though notice was sent to the respondent on April 14, 1992 till date neither acknowledgement nor unserved envelope has been received. Under these circumstances, the notice must be deemed to have been served on the respondent.3. The only question is: whether Sharutikira and Bheden are within the notified market area of the appellant? It is not in dispute that pursuant to the notification issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of Orissa Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1956, the Orissa Act 3 of 1963(for short the 'Act') the State Government declared the notified market area with annexures thereto. Under annexure 'A' to the notification it was stated that the area falling within a radius of 8 Kms. from the plots specified in Schedule B are within the notified area. In schedule B it was mentioned that the area comprising in Attabira and Bheden Police Station in the District of Sambalpur are within the notified area. It...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VAD(SC)403; JT1996(6)SC217; 1996(5)SCALE63; (1996)5SCC498; [1996]Supp2SCR646
O R D E R Delay condoned. Counsel for the petitioner admits that a notification under Section 10 [5] of the Urban Ceiling Act was published pursuant to which the excess vacant land was surrendered and taken possession of by the Government. Consequently, the land stands vested in the State free rom all the encumbrances. In what manner the lands require to be utilised has been regulated under the provisions of the act. It is not a condition, under the Act, that payment of compensation be made before utilisation of the land of which the petitioner was erswhile owner. Under these circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the High Court in Special Civil Appeal No.4093/93 on May 15, 1995. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VAD(SC)68; AIR1996SC2021; 1996(4)SCALE497; (1996)9SCC314; 1996(2)LC180(SC)
ORDERS.P. Kurdukar, J.1. These two appeals can be disposed of by this common order since they arise out of a judgment and order dated May 19, 1995 in Original Petition No. 345 of 1993 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short 'National Commission').2. Civil Appeal No. 7199 of 1995 is filed by Ghaziabad Development Authority through its Vice Chairman whereas Civil Appeal No. 7439 of 1995 is filed by Sanchar Vihar Sehkari Avas Samiti Ltd., Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'Complainant').3. The complainant is the society company, comprising of about 200 persons as its members. They have been allotted the plots under the scheme called G.D.A.'s Govind Puram Plots/Housing, Code : 537, 538 and 539. It is averred in the petition by the complainant that the Ghaziabad Development Authority has violated the terms and conditions inasmuch as failed to put them in possession of the plots within the stipulated period as prescribed in Rule 15 of the b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1996(6)SC361; 1996(5)SCALE293; (1996)10SCC420; [1996]Supp2SCR856; 1996(3)SLJ82(SC); (1996)4UPLBEC2839
ORDERK. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides.3. The appellant appointed to a substantive post in State Police Service was promoted as a Superintendent of Police in senior time scale on May 11, 1976. He was brought on select list for the year 1977. He was given seniority in the All India Police Service from promote quota w.e.f. April 30, 1978. Since he was brought on the select list on the said date under Rule 3(3)(b) of the IPS (Regulation of Seniority) Rues, 1954 (for short, the 'Rules'), the appellant claimed the year of allotment, i.e., 1972 under IPS (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954, which was rejected by the Tribunal in the impugned order dated August 18, 1995 in OA No. 557/90.4. Notice was issued confining to the question as to what would be the consequence of failure to convene a meeting for selection of the candidates and preparation of the annual seniority list.5. It is stated in the counter affidavit that on Nov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VAD(SC)94; AIR1996SC2040; JT1996(5)SC181; 1996(4)SCALE566; (1996)8SCC599; [1996]Supp2SCR697; 1996(2)LC414(SC)
ORDERA.M. Ahmadi, CJ.1. The petitioner, an environmentalist actuated by public interest, has filed this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and constitutional validity of an order issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh, Department of Forest, No. F. 14/154/91/10/2 dated March 28, 1995, permitting collection of tendu leaves from Sanctuaries and National Parks by villagers living around the boundaries thereof with the avowed object of maintenance of their traditional rights. The petitioner contends that this act of the State Government is ultra-vires the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, as well as the petitioner's fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and is even otherwise inconsistent with the Directive Principle contained in Article 48A and the Fundamental Duty cast on every citizen under Clause (g) of Article 51A of the Constitution of India. The petitioner further contends that the said ord...
Tag this Judgment!