Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)755; [1996(74)FLR2241]; JT1996(7)SC468; 1996LabIC2739; 1996(6)SCALE247; (1996)10SCC657; [1996]Supp4SCR563; 1996(3)SLJ99(SC); (1997)1UPLBEC255
ORDER1. Leave granted2. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides.3. This appeal by special leave arises against the order of the A.P.Admn. Tribunal, Hyderabad dated 10.11.1995 made in O.A. No. 1499/94. The admitted facts are that to fill up the post of Chairman, the Chairman of the Municipality called for names from the employment exchange. When the names were sent preceding the selection, the Chairman was a competent authority to make selection without any counter verification of the process of selecting the candidates, pursuant to the Government Memorandum No. 372, Municipal Administration dated February 18, 1992. The Government, on becoming aware of the mal-practice being committed in the method of recruitment of the candidates and that undue favoritism was being shown, have issued G.O. No. 413, MA dated March 10, 1992 under which though the Committee headed by the Chairman of the Municipality was competent to select the candidates, it was required to be counter-verified by a com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)652; AIR1997SC381; JT1996(7)SC661; (1997)115PLR712; 1996(6)SCALE375; (1997)1SCC531; [1996]Supp4SCR571
1. Leave granted.2. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides.3. The admitted facts are that the lands in dispute belonged to Punjab and on his demise, his widow Parwatabai had succeeded to his estate in 1941. Consequently, she became the owner of a limited estate. It is the appellant's case that Parwatabai had executed a registered gift deed in favour of her husband in 1941 and ever since they are in possession and enjoyment of the lands. Admittedly, the respondents are daughter of Parwatabai. It is their case that on the demise of their mother, they became the owners of the property and were in possession of the property till 1976 when they were dispossessed and as a consequence the suit was filed for possession based on title. Though it was specifically not pleaded on title, admittedly on fact situation suit was filed under Article 65 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, the 'Act'). The trial Court negatived the respondents' claim and dismissed the suit. On appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)783; JT1997(10)SC472; 1989LabIC2089; (1994)IIILLJ268SC; 1996(6)SCALE295; (1996)10SCC297; [1996]Supp4SCR566
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides.3. The appellant was appointed on temporary basis as Assistant Master on December 9, 1955 in the Directorate of Industries, Government of U.P. and was posted at Kanpur. After working for four years he was selected by Bihar Public Service Commission by direct recruitment and was appointed in the Government Polytechnic under the Department of Science and Technology on January 6, 1959 and he resigned from the U.P. Service w.e.f. January 7, 1959. He was appointed, thereafter, in the services of the Government of Bihar. He retired w.e.f. December 1, 1982 while working in the workshop as Superintendent of the Government Polytechnic at Patna. A dispute arose as regards his entitlement for pension and proportionate distribution of pension between the State of U.P. and the Government of Bihar. He wrote a letter to the Chief Justice of Patna High Court on November 28,1993 on the basis of a judgment rendered by that Court on Aug...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)467; AIR1996SC2604; JT1996(7)SC156; 1996(5)SCALE758; (1996)10SCC24; [1996]Supp4SCR547
ORDERS.B. Majmudar, J.1. City of Nagpur Corporation has brought in challenge the order passed by the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench in Writ Petition No. 1224 of 1980 by obtaining special leave to appeal against the said judgment. Respondents herein had moved the said writ petition challenging the impugned notification dated 10th December 1979 issued by the State of Maharashtra sanctioning the octroi rates proposed by the appellant-Corporation under Section 115 read with Section 114(1)(e) of the city of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') on the ground that as the State of Maharashtra had not framed any rules fixing the maximum rates of octroi tax under Section 114 Sub-section (3) of the said Act, the impugned notification was of no legal effect. The aforesaid challenge to the impugned notification was upheld by the High Court and that is how the appellant-Corporation is in appeal before us.Background facts2. A few relevant background facts leadi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC370; [1998]91CompCas117(SC); (1997)3GLR2525; JT1996(7)SC681; 1996(5)SCALE741; (1996)9SCC650; [1996]Supp4SCR443; 1996(2)LC621(SC)
ORDERM.K. Mukherjee, J.1. The constitutional validity of the High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetisation) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Demonetisation Act') and the legality of certain orders passed thereunder are under challenge in these petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The Act replaced an Ordinance, bearing a similar title, which was promulgated by the President and had come into force on January 16, 1978. To appreciate the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners it will be necessary, at this stage to refer not only to the relevant provisions of the Demonetisation Act but also of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 ('RBI Act' for short), which empowers Reserve Bank of India ('Bank' for short') to issue bank notes and imposes an obligation upon it to exchange those notes.2. The Bank has been constituted under the RBI Act to regulate the issue of bank, notes and the keeping of reserves with a view to securing monetary stability in India and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)102; AIR1996SC2645; (1990)3CompLJ362(SC); JT1996(7)SC123; 1996(5)SCALE713; (1996)5SCC438; [1996]Supp4SCR512
ORDERJ.S. Verma, J.1. The dispute relates to the building sanction of House No. 2, Sholapur Bazar Road, Pune, which falls within the area of Pune Cantonment governed by the Cantonments Act, 1924 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The respondent No. 1 was granted a building sanction under Section 181 of the Act on 2.7.1981 effective from 6.7.1981. The building was intended to be used for commercial/residential purposes; it was to be an RCC framed structure and to consist of ground and five upper stories (i.e. stilt + six upper stories); the nature of soil was 'hard rock'; the construction work was to be commenced within one year of the sanction i.e. before 6.7.1982; and was to be completed within 12 months from the date of commencement of the work. The building bye-laws existing at the time of the sanction did not contain any restrictions with regard to the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) or number of floors or height of the building. By a letter dated 3.7.1982, barely three days before e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIIAD(SC)161; JT1996(8)SC2; 1996(6)SCALE317; (1996)10SCC269; [1996]Supp4SCR544
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Delay condoned.3. Though the respondent has been served, none appears for the respondent. The respondent filed writ petition questioning the competence of the Government to levy cess on mining lease. Learned single Judge by his judgment dated October 1, 1986 allowed the writ petition. The Government amended the District Boards Act, 1955 by Amendment Act 8 of 1989 empowering the State to levy land revenue or royalty/seignior agefee. The respondent again filed Writ Petition No. 1 of 1987 questioning the legislative competence following the judgment of this Court in India Cement Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu : [1991]188ITR690(SC) . By judgment and order dated December 21,1989, the High Court held that the amendment was ultra vires the power of the State Legislature. Again the legislature amended the Act empowering the levy and collection of the cess on the same grounds, while appeal was filed in this Court. The respondent filed another writ petition which was allowe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC2652; 1996(5)SCALE666; (1996)5SCC8; [1996]Supp4SCR436
ORDER1. In Unnikrishnan, J.P. and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. : [1993]1SCR594 , a Constitution Bench of this Court had evolved a scheme governing admission to private medical engineering and certain other colleges, keeping in view the positive features of the relevant Central and State enactments. The idea behind the scheme has been set out in Paragraph 205 of the judgment. In Paragraph 206, it was stated that the scheme evolved therein 'is in the nature of guidelines which the appropriate governments and recognising and affiliating authorities shall impose and implement in addition to such other conditions and stipulations as they may think appropriate as conditions for grant of permission, grant of recognition or grant of affiliation, as the case may be'. Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Paragraph 6 of the Scheme, in particular, dealt with the fees to be charged by the professional colleges. It would be appropriate if we extract the said clauses:(6)(a) Every State Government ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)708; AIR1996SC2814; 1997(1)ALT29(SC); JT1996(7)SC499; 1996(6)SCALE184; (1996)5SCC589; [1996]Supp4SCR540
ORDER1. This special leave petition arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras made on 12.6.1996 in LPA No. 72/91. The petitioner had filed O.S. No. 6/77 on September 10, 1980 before the Second Additional Sub-Judge at Pondicherry for specific performance of the Agreement of sale dated October 18, 1976 to convey the property in possession as tenants under the agreement. It is their case that a sum of Rs. 31,000 was sale consideration and a sum of Rs. 4,000 and odd was paid as part consideration. The balance consideration was Rs. 28,500. He was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but the respondents were avoiding to execute the sale deed. Though the trial Court found that respondents 1 and 2 committed breach of the agreement of sale but denied to them specific performance of the agreement on the ground that respondent No. 3 was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of prior agreement with the petitioner. The petitioner fil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)339; [1996(74)FLR2210]; JT1996(7)SC247; 1996(5)SCALE856; (1997)1SCC532; [1996]Supp4SCR496; (1997)1UPLBEC578
G.B. Pattanaik, J.1. Leave granted.2. Though this appeal is directed against the order of the Administrative Tribunal, Bombay dated 24.3.1994, wherein the legality of the Government order transferring the appellant from one place to the other within Bombay and the consequential direction to vacate the quarter is under challenge, on going through the materials on record this Court on being satisfied that a straight forward police officer was being harassed by his superior officers at the behest of the proprietor of a hotel and bar issued notice to the Senior Inspectors Shri Tike and Shri Raghuvanshi, as well as to the Deputy Commissioner of Police Shri K. Ramachandran to file their show cause as to why appropriate strictures should not be made against them. The Court had also issued notice to the State of Maharashtra to indicate why government action of imposing penalty and punishment on the appellant should not be considered to be illegal.3. The appellant's case in nutshell is that as ...
Tag this Judgment!