Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIIIAD(SC)1; AIR1997SC148; 1996(7)SCALE187; (1996)10SCC524; [1996]Supp5SCR393
A.D. Koshal and; S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, JJ.Order1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. These appeals by special leave arise from the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench made on 13-7-1993 made in TA No. 131 of 1990. The admitted position is that the Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act, 1966 (12 of 1966) (for short, “the Act”) was amended so as to extend the provisions thereof to Madurai, Coimbatore, Trichy and Salem. It was further amended, inter alia, so as to extend the provisions of the Act to the belt areas of Madras City. As regards the appointments to the post of ministerial staff therein, they are governed by the Tamil Nadu Ministerial Service Rules (for short, “the Rules”). Rule 3 of the Rules provides the method of appointments and promotions. Rule 3(hh)(ii) reads as under:“3. Method of Recruitment.— (hh) Besides promotion as provided in Rule 4, appointment to the posts of Superintendents and Assistants in the Office of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC2684; 1996(7)SCALE200; (1996)10SCC623; [1996]Supp5SCR400
1. Leave granted.2. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.3. This appeal by special leave arises from the order dated April 15, 1993 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad made in RP No. 5737/87. The appellant was appointed in 1951 as a Copyist in the Registration and Stamps Department in the erstwhile Government of Hyderabad. After formation of Andhra Pradesh he was allotted to Andhra Pradesh services. By proceedings dated March 16, 1976 he was suspended from service. Though he was initially convicted by the Magistrate, on appeal in Criminal Appeal No. 581 the High Court by judgment dated September 1, 1983 set aside the conviction and acquitted him of all the charges on merits. In the meanwhile, the appellant was dismissed from service on July 16, 1981. Consequently, he filed R.P. No. 840/85. The Tribunal set aside the order and directed the Government to consider his case according to rules. Since the appellant had not passed the departmental tests, he was not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)410; AIR1997SC364; 1996(2)ALD(Cri)518; 1996(2)ALT(Cri)677; 1996CriLJ4438; 1996(3)Crimes225(SC); JT1996(7)SC568; 1996(6)SCALE263; (1996)10SCC283
ORDERM.K. Mukherjee, J.1. These two appeals have been heard together as they stem from related incidents and this judgment will dispose of both of them. Facts leading to these appeals and relevant for their disposal are as under. 2. Teja Singh (since deceased) was a resident of village Manakpur under Fatehabad Police Station where he used to live with his family which included his brother Harnek Singh (P.W. 7) and his (P.W. 7's) son Hardev Singh (P.W. 8). In front of their house lived appellants Jaswant Singh and Bikar Singh, who are the sons of Inder Singh. About a year before the incidents with which we are concerned in these appeals, an unrelenting quarrel started between Harnek Singh on the one hand and Jaswant Singh and Bikar Singh on the other regarding the use of the public passage in between their houses which compelled the local police to initiate security proceedings under Section 107 Cr. PC against both the parties. 3. On October 27, 1986, Harnek Singh, Teja Singh and Hardev...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIIAD(SC)373; 1997(1)MPLJ275; 1996(6)SCALE505; (1996)6SCC62; [1996]Supp5SCR391
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The qualified notice issued to the respondents indicated that this Court proposed to grant leave against the impugned judgment and order of the High Court and on allowing the appeal, was expecting to remit the matter back to the file of the High Court for disposal of the matter on its merits. The respondents' learned Counsel has been confronted with the proposition that though the High Court could have dismissed the appeal in default in the absence of the appellants' counsel, it could not have adverted to the merits of the case. Here, the High Court has recorded that all relevant aspects of the matter have been taken into account in order to hold that there was no available ground for interference with the decision of the Trial Court. This was an exercise with which the High Court should have been well-advised not to indulge in at the stage or Order 41 Rule 17 CPC. The Explanation to Order 41 Rule 17(1) CPC says that nothing in this sub-rule shall be construed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)654; JT1996(7)SC514; (1996)114PLR725; 1996(6)SCALE289; (1996)11SCC164
Faizan Uddin, J.1. This is an appeal filed by the plaintiffs against the order dated July 22, 1988 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissing the plaintiffs appeal against the judgment dated September 25, 1987 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sangrur setting aside the judgment and preliminary decree dated May 25, 1984 passed by the Sub-Judge, 1st Class Malerkotla for possession by partition of the house in suit in favour of the plaintiffs and defendants-respondents No. 1 and 3 to 5 herein to the extent of 1/7th share each in the house in dispute.2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs/appellants brought a suit for separate possession by partition of the house in suit to the extent of their share against the defendants respondents by contending that the house in suit belonged to their father Ishwar Mal who died on 10.1.1960 leaving behind him his widow Dhan Devi, since deceased, three sons, namely, Anand Dev, plaintiff/appellant No. 1, Bhusha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)710; 1996(2)ARBLR488(SC); JT1996(7)SC555; 1996(6)SCALE276; (1996)5SCC714; [1996]Supp5SCR369
J.S. Verma, J.1. This appeal by way of special leave is by the defendants against whom a temporary injunction was granted by the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in an Original Suit by order dated 31st October, 1994, which has been affirmed on appeal by the Division Bench by its order dated 21.4.1995. The suit is a passing off action brought by the plaintiff-respondents to restrain the defendant appellants from manufacturing selling, advertising or in any way using the trade mark 'WHIRLPOOL' in any other trade mark deceptively or confusingly similar to the trade mark of 'WHIRLPOOL' in respect of their goods. The subject matter of this appeal is the manufacture, sale and advertisement of washing machines by the defendants-appellants using the mark 'WHIRLPOOL' as a part of the name by which they had recently commenced marketing the washing machines manufactured by them. In short, the claim of the plaintiff-respondents is based on prior user of the mark 'WHIRLPOOL' and a trans...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)568; 1996(2)ALD(Cri)707; 1997CriLJ211; 1996(3)Crimes286(SC); JT1996(8)SC203; 1996(6)SCALE396; (1996)6SCC122; [1996]Supp5SCR388
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The wife-respondent filed a written complaint before the police under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code which after investigation was put in Court for trial of the appellant as well as his alleged second wife, the second appellant. Charge was laid against him. In entering upon plea against the charge, the husband-appellant stated:True. I have not committed any crime. I have married after ten years of my wife deserted and went away. His plea was sought to be read as if he had admitted having married a second time. The learned Trial Magistrate recorded the prosecution evidence and came to the conclusion that there was no legal evidence to prove the factum of marriage on the basis of the tests laid down by this Court in Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. : 1965CriLJ544 ; Kanwal Ram and Ors. v. The Himachal Pradesh Administration : 1966CriLJ472 and Priya Bala Ghosh v. Suresh Chandra Ghosh : 1971CriLJ939 . He thus acquitted the app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIIAD(SC)148; [1996(74)FLR2728]; JT1996(8)SC130; 1996LabIC2744; (1997)ILLJ110SC; 1996(6)SCALE494; (1996)6SCC282; [1996]Supp5SCR361; 1996(3)SLJ127(SC)
Pattanaik, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 27th September, 1993 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 688 of 1993.3. Respondent No. 1 filed the writ petition challenging the selection made by the Punjab Public Service Commission for the post of Dental Officers inter alia on the ground that the selection has been made arbitrarily and is contrary to the positive terms of the advertisement indicating preference to be given for higher dental qualification. It was pleaded before the High Court that an advertisement had been issued in the newspaper on September 9, 1991 for 21 posts of Dental Officers out of which 12 posts were meant for general category, 5 for Scheduled Castes, 2 for Backward Class and 2 for Ex-Serviceman, It was stipulated in the advertisement that preferences would be given for higher dental qualification and the minimum qualification for the posts was B.D.S. Respondent No. 1 who had...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC382; (1997)1CALLT47(SC); JT1997(10)SC397; 1996(6)SCALE369; (1996)6SCC90; [1996]Supp5SCR355
1. The petitioners are challenging the order of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dated June 12, 1996 made in F.M.A. No. 376/92. The admitted position is that while the respondents were working as Sub-Inspectors in the Food Department of the Government of West Bengal, they were taken on deputation to the petitioner-Corporation. They were made to discharge the duties of the post of Assistants Grade-II. Admittedly, they had worked for more than 18 years in those posts. While absorbing them, question which arose was in which scale of pay they were to be fitted. In terms of paragraph 7 of the Corporation's circular bearing No. 9-1/87-EP (Pt. 1), dated 23.9.1988, the respondents were sought to be absorbed in Assistant Grade-Ill. The respondents challenged the fitment in the writ petitions. The learned single Judge, after consideration of the entire material recorded as under.From the pleadings adduced by the parties, it appears before this Court that because of continuous satisf...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC2829; 1996(88)ELT27(SC); JT1996(8)SC177; 1996(6)SCALE272; (1996)6SCC86; [1996]Supp5SCR347
1. In Adhyaksha Mathur Babu's Sakti Oushadhalaya Dacca (P) Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India : [1963]3SCR957 , the main question raised and argued in writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution was whether State Governments were entitled to tax three ayurvedic preparations, namely, Mritasanjibani, Mritasanjibani Sudha and Mritasanjibani Sura, under the Excise Acts in force in the respective States. A Constitution Bench of this Court came to the conclusion that the said medicinal preparations could not be taxed under the Excise Acts in force in the States and that they could be taxed only in accordance with the provisions of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act. This Court stated that it passed 'no order as to the claim for refund for that is a matter which the petitioners can take up with the State Governments concerned according to law'. The judgment was delivered on 7th September, 1962.2. The appellants were one of the many writ petitioners before the Court...
Tag this Judgment!