Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IVAD(SC)322; AIR1996SC1925; 1996(1)ALD(Cri)866; 1996CriLJ2518; JT1996(5)SC88; 1996(4)SCALE290; (1996)9SCC74; [1996]Supp2SCR573
ORDERSuhas C. Sen J.1. This case arises out of a notice issued to A.K. Sinha Casshyap, Superintendent of Police, Hailakandi to show cause why he should not be held guilty of Contempt of Court. The allegation against the contemner is that a shocking case of police brutality leading to the death of an undertrial prisoner was sought to be covered up by him by an untrue and misleading report sent to this Court followed by a false affidavit.2. The Secretary, Hailakandi Bar Association, forwarded to this Court a copy of the resolution passed by the Association at an emergent meeting held on 16th March, 1993 condemning the brutal assault leading to the death of an undertrial prisoner Nurul Haque.3. Having regard to the serious nature of the complaint,this Court by an order dated 20th August, 1993 decided to treat the copy of the resolution forwarded by the Secretary, Hailakandi Bar Association as Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The Director General of Police, Stat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)432; AIR1996SC2443; 1996(2)ARBLR273(SC); JT1996(6)SC592; 1996(5)SCALE343; (1996)9SCC492; [1996]Supp2SCR658; 1996(2)LC519(SC)
ORDER1. This special leave petition arises from the order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi made on 8.3.1996 in F.A.O. (OS) 44/96. The petitioner had entered into a contract on September 4, 1986 with the respondent with covenant contained therein as under :And whereas the contractor has also agreed to execute the work of seven towers with 100% external works with the said contract amount in the first instance and further work of the balance towers that would be entrusted to him within 4 months of the date of award of work at the same per sq. m. rates arrived at the above lump sum price for each tower and for the alternate specifications.And whereas the employer has accepted the offer of the contractor the said contract amount subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein and mutually agreed to by both the parties.Therein Clause 32 relates to settlement of dispute by arbitration which read as under :32-Settlement of Disputes by Arbitration :If any dispute, question...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC3281; 1996(2)ALD(Cri)15; 1996(2)Crimes181(SC); JT1996(5)SC128; 1996(4)SCALE307; (1996)8SCC540; [1996]Supp2SCR620
ORDERK. Venkataswami, J.1. Aggrieved by the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 24/81 dated 26.8.1988 on the file of Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), this appeal is filed by special leave.2. The appellant preferred a complaint under Section 73 of the Mines Act 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Regulation No. 100(1) of the Coal Mines Regulations 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulation'). The facts leading to the filing of this Appeal may be stated in brief to appreciate the contentions raised before us. The facts are as under :3. Kamptee Colliery originally was owned by the Oriental Coal Company Limited. At the instance of the agent of Oriental Coal Company Limited, the Director General of Mines safety granted permission on 2.1.1971 under Regulation 100(1) of the Regulations to split pillars in conjunction with hydraulic sand stowing in No. 1 seem in the area. Later on, the agent of the Oriental Coal Company Limited applied for certain modifications in conditio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VAD(SC)77; (1997)1GLR543; JT1996(5)SC114; 1996(4)SCALE340; (1996)4SCC579; 1996(2)LC148(SC)
K. Venkataswami, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Heard learned Counsel. Perused thewritten submissions. 3. These appeals - one by the State ofGujarat [S.L.P. (C) No. 27350/95] and theother by the Reliance Petroleum Limited[S.L.P. (C) No. 27230/95] arise out of thejudgment and order of the Gujarat HighCourt dated 5th September, 1995 in SpecialCivil Application No. 13525/94. 4. By the judgment under appeal theHigh Court has quashed (a) the notificationissued under Section 4(1) of the LandAcquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as'the Act') dated 15.2.1993, (b) thedeclaration issued under Section 6 of the Actdated 18.5.1994 and (c) the award passedon 12.12.94 insofar as they related to thelands of the writ petitioners and otherobjectors (totalling 89 in number) belongingto villages Padana and Meghpur. 5. At the instance of the appellant inCivil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.27230/95 (hereinafter called the 'appellantcompany') machinery under LandAcquisition Act was put into operation under...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IVAD(SC)548; JT1996(6)SC62; 1996(4)SCALE327; (1996)4SCC249; [1996]Supp2SCR587; 1996(2)LC287(SC); (1996)3UPLBEC1947
ORDERG.B. Pattanaik, J.1. Leave granted.2. In these three appeals directed against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court the common question of law is involved and as such are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. The short question that arises for consideration is, where a land is allotted and the allottee deposits some instalments but thereafter intimates the authority about his incapacity to pay up the balance instalments and requests for refund of the money paid, is the allotting authority entitled to forfeit the earnest money deposited by the allottee or could be only entitled to forfeit 10% of the total amount deposited by the allottee till the request is made as directed by the High Court?4. Haryana Urban Development Authority issued an advertisement inviting applications of allotment of residential plots at Karnal. The price of plots was different for different size. In accordance with the advertisement 10% of the total price was requir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IVAD(SC)627; 1996(2)ALD(Cri)351; 1996(2)ALT(Cri)43; 1996(2)BLJR1401; JT1996(6)SC480; 1996(4)SCALE344; (1996)9SCC1; [1996]Supp2SCR631
K. Venkataswami, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The appeal was allowed with costs by our Order dated 27.3.19% reserving the reasons to be given later. Now the reasons arc given.3. The short question that arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether the respondent is justified in pursuing the prosecution against the appellant under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 notwithstanding the fact that on an identical charge the appellant was exonerated in the departmental proceedings in the light of a report submitted by the Central Vigilance Commission and concurred by the Union Public Service Commission.4. Short facts arc as under:5. The appellant started his career in a college in the year 1955 and switched over to T1SCO in the year 1959 till he was selected and appointed as Inspector in the Income Tax Service in the year 1961. The appellant's wife was also a teacher in the Central School at Bokaro steel city. She was al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IVAD(SC)601; AIR1996SC2067; 1996(3)ALT34(SC); [1996(73)FLR1618]; JT1996(5)SC262; (1996)2MLJ118(SC); 1996(4)SCALE577; (1996)5SCC90; [1996]Supp2SCR595; 1996(2)SLJ40(SC);
ORDERJ.S. Verma, J.1. All these appeals are against the same judgment.2. The appellant - T. Lakshmi Narasimha Chari was selected for the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service and appointed as District Munsiff on 21.1.1974 by the Governor. He was confirmed as District Munsiff on 25.5.1979. He was then promoted temporarily to act as subordinate Judge on 20.2.1980. A preliminary enquiry was made into an allegation of misconduct, which had led to the appellant's arrest by the police on 26.9.1976, in which a prima facie case was made out against the appellant. Accordingly, a regular departmental enquiry was initiated on the charges of misconduct. The allegation against the appellant was that when he was posted as Munsiff Magistrate, Hyderabad (East), he had forced a woman, who was a litigant before him, to have an illicit relationship with him; and the appellant was arrested on the night of 26.9.1976 on the complaint of that woman when the police found him with her in a hotel. A criminal ca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC3288; JT1996(6)SC665; 1996(4)SCALE617; (1996)9SCC382; 1996(2)LC308(SC)
ORDERG.N. Ray, J1. Leave granted. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The defendant in two suits being O.S. No. 633 of 1984 and O.S. No. 47 of 1985 filed in the court of learned Munsif, Kozhikode, is the appellant in this appeal. The respondent instituted suit No. O.S. 47 of 1985 against the defendant appellant for a mandatory injunction restraining him from entering the suit premises by contending that the said defendant was given licence to run a hotel business in the suit premises for a prescribed period and such leave and licence having expired, defendant had been illegally carrying on the business of hotel in the suit premises belonging to the plaintiff. The other suit being O.S. No. 47 of 1985 was instituted against the defendant appellant for recovery of an amount of Rs. 4082/- being the balance licence fee and interest. The defendant appellant contested both the suits by contending that the defendant was not a licensee for running the plaintiffs hotel business but he was i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC2552; [1996(74)FLR2737]; JT1996(6)SC515; 1996LabIC2253; (1996)IILLJ763SC; 1996(5)SCALE297; (1996)5SCC365; [1996]Supp2SCR570; 1996(3)SLJ62(SC)
1. Leave granted.2. These appeals by special leave arise from the order of Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench made on October 10, 1994 and March 20, 1996 in O.A. No. 137/93 and Review Application No. 7/95 respectively. The orders disclose the alarming state of affairs regarding lack of integrity and sincerity in the selection process, which is expected to assess merit and recommend for appointment of competent and meritorious persons according to the list prepared by the competent Selection Board. Reverse is the result shown in the process of selection. Pursuant to the advertisement No. 6/92 for filling up of six posts of chargemen, 'B' Grade in mechanical & Electrical Division, the fake selection process appears to have been gone by and some persons came to be appointed including the petitioners. When the selection was questioned, the Tribunal had called for the record and on the perusal of the record, noted as under :The perusal of the Answer Book of the candidates with Ro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VAD(SC)195; AIR1996SC2436; 1996LabIC2062; (1997)ILLJ238SC; 1996(5)SCALE14; (1996)5SCC331; [1996]Supp2SCR559; 1996(3)SLJ65(SC)
1. Leave granted.2. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides.3. This appeal by special arises from the judgment and order passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 340/87 on July 18, 1992. The respondent while working as Assistant Conservator of Forests was compulsorily retired from service by proceedings dated August 1, 1983 which came to be challenged by the respondent in the above proceedings. The Tribunal allowed the application on three grounds : (1) the respondent was allowed to cross the efficiency bar; (ii) since he was promoted, after the adverse remarks were made, the records were wiped out; and (iii) the entire record and overall consideration thereof was not done and, therefore, the exercise of the power of compulsory retirement under Section 71(a) was not valid in law. The question is : whether the view taken by the Tribunal is correct in law? It is needless to reiterate that the settled legal position is that the Government is empowered and would be enti...
Tag this Judgment!