Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IXAD(SC)284; [1997(75)FLR347]; JT1996(9)SC641; 1996(7)SCALE718; (1996)11SCC563; [1996]Supp7SCR102
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. We have heard learned counsels for the parties.3. These appeals arise from the order of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal made on February 27, 1996 in OA No. 3034- 35/95. The recruitment for the post of teacher was completed prior to November 17, 1993 and teachers came to be appointed. When the same was challenged, the Tribunal found that they were in excess of the 50% of the quota reserved for the backward classes and weaker sections of the society. But the Tribunal declined to interfere with the order on the ground that the appellants belatedly approached the Tribunal on June 15, 1995 by which time all the appointments had come to be made and the teachers were working. The Tribunal has pointed out thus:The present Applications were filed on 15.6.1995. The Applicants question the appointments to the public offices made by the State Government. Any challenge to the appointments by the state Government should be made at the earliest. Any laches on the part o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : II(1996)ACC689; 1996VIIIAD(SC)54; 1997(1)ALT17(SC); 1996(7)SCALE724; (1997)3SCC191; [1996]Supp7SCR98
1. Leave granted.2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. This case has a chequered history of its own. For over three decades, the scheme was not allowed to be finalised, but ultimately by the judgment of this Court in Ram Krishna Verma and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. : [1992]2SCR378 , the scheme was finalised and published in the Gazette. Two unsuccessful attempts were made subsequently to reopen the issue and thwart the scheme but remained unsuccessful. This is a third occasion. This time a device was employed to carve out a route from two nationalised routes, viz., Bulandshaher to Delhi and Shahdara to Saharanpur. They are now sought to be interjected with temporary permits to be obtained on the carved out route Ghaziabad to Saharanpur. Thereby, they sought to entrench upon frozen field through back-door process of forcing the appellant to obtain all permits as per the scheme, lest the temporary permits should be given to them by the State Transport Authority or Regio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIIIAD(SC)539; [1997(75)FLR86]; JT1996(10)SC461; (1997)IILLJ640SC; 1996(8)SCALE319; (1997)2SCC534; [1996]Supp7SCR105
1. Leave granted.2. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides.3. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh made on January 9, 1996 in Writ Petition No. 56/96.4. The appellant was appointed as a post-graduate teacher on January 28, 1994. Initially he worked at Patiala but was transferred to Kinnaur. The Respondent-institution is a co-educational institution. The appellant's service was terminated in terms of his letter of appointment giving salary in lieu of notice on the ground of his improper conduct with a girl student. When he filed writ petition, the High Court, after consideration of the record, dismissed the same. When the petition had come up for admission and the counsel insisted upon an enquiry to be conducted against the alleged misconduct, by Order dated March 13, 1996, we directed the management to issue show cause notice to the petitioner, conduct an enquiry and submit the report within a specified time which was subsequentl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1998)8SCC586
ORDER1. The appellant Krishan Kumar @ Pamma was tried for and convicted of the offence under Section 302 IPC for causing the death of Rani, wife of Ramswarup, by setting her on fire. In appeal the High Court affirmed his conviction and aggrieved thereby he has filed this appeal after obtaining special leave.2. According to the prosecution case Rani was married to Ramswarup of Ferozepur five years prior to her death but within two years of the marriage, he deserted her. Since then she was living with her mother in Himmatpura Colony of Ambala Cantonment. While staying there, she developed an illicit relationship with the applicant. On 2-3-1985, she found the appellant in the company of another girl, and getting enraged thereby she abused him filthily.3. On the same night at or about 11.30 p.m., the appellant came to the house of the deceased with a bottle of kerosene and after sprinkling the oil on her body and setting her on fire, made good his escape. On hearing the shrieks of the dece...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1998)8SCC481
ORDER1. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent and having noticed the conduct of the appellant immediately after the mistake in the reporting was noticed, we think that this is a case in which a harsh view was not called for. Immediately after he realised that there had been a mistake he on his own tendered an apology by printing the same on the front page of the newspaper even before any notice was issued by the Court. Even before the Court he appeared and tendered an unqualified apology. The same was however not accepted on the ground that he had acted irresponsibly and the High Court felt the need to disgrace him. It further felt that allowing him to go unpunished would be bad for society. 2. We may point out that after the notice was issued by this Court on 9-5-1996, he once again filed an affidavit stating that it was a mistake on his pan and as soon as he realised it, he, on his own, printed an apology on the front page of his newspaper. He states t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1996)11SCC602
ORDER 1. The petitioner, a practising advocate filed a petition in the Bombay High Court alleging that prime properties held in trust for public purposes/communities by the State and/or the Municipal Corporation as trustees of the citizens of Bombay were being gifted away to influential builders and/or politicians on long lease at nominal rates permitting commercial exploitation. 2. The writ petition made references to certain specific plots etc. The High Court examined the transactions and ultimately reached the conclusion that the action of allotment was bona fide and rejected the petition. Hence, this petition by way of special leave. 3. When this petition was called on for hearing, both the counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent stated that they did not desire to question the correctness of the finding recorded by the High Court in relation to the plots at Bandra and Versova referred to in paras 2 and 3 of the judgment but their only concern was that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IXAD(SC)177; 1996(7)SCALE726; (1996)11SCC695; [1996]Supp7SCR95
ORDER1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. Heard learned Counsel on both sides.4. The respondent while in service as Extra-Departmental Agent was charge-sheeted, for misconduct of temporary absence from duty, under Rule 8 of the P & T Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct and Services) Rules, 1964 on June 6, 1985. By order dated March 31, 1986, the enquiry was cancelled and fresh enquiry was conducted. Later, on conclusion of the departmental enquiry proceedings, by order dated July 9, 1990, the respondent was removed from service. He filed an application in the Tribunal. By order dated May 28, 1992, the Tribunal remitted the matter for reconsideration on the nature of punishment. That order was unsuccessfully challenged in this Court and had become final. Subsequently, when the order of removal was passed again, it was challenged in the Tribunal. The Tribunal by order dated September 4, 1993 quashed the proceedings and directed reconsideration of the quantum of punishment on the basis of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIIAD(SC)625; (1996)136CTR(SC)421; [1996]222ITR583(SC); JT1996(8)SC603; 1996(7)SCALE368; (1996)11SCC530; [1996]Supp7SCR81
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. These appeals are preferred by the Revenue against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court answering the questions, referred at the instance of the assessee, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The questions involved in all these appeals are common, it would be sufficient if we take the case of one of the assessees, M/s. Shiv Prakash Janak Raj & Co.(P) Ltd. Four assessment years are relevant in this case, viz., Assessment Years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72. The two questions referred under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are:(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest for the assessment year 1971-72, had already accrued to the assessee on October 31, 1970, under the mercantile system of accountancy?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the subsequent relinquishment of interest by a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIIAD(SC)582; 1997(1)BLJR366; 1997(1)CTC112; II(1996)DMC611SC; JT1996(9)SC257; (1997)1MLJ115(SC); 1997(I)OLR(SC)97; 1996(7)SCALE377; (1996)6SCC371; [1996]Supp7SCR79
ORDERThough the respondent is served, no one appears for the Respondent.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant is the wife, against whom her husband had obtained an ex-parte decree of divorce. After obtaining the decree, the husband died. The wife on coming to know of the ex-parte decree, applied for setting aside the decree of divorce under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Trial Court dismissed the said application observing that since the divorce is a personal remedy, it cannot be pursued after the death of the husband. On appeal, the Trial Court's view was reversed. But the Appellate Court's view has in turn been reversed by the High Court.3. We are of the opinion that the wife should be and is competent to maintain the application under Order IX Rule 13. Even though the husband is dead, yet the decree obtained by him is effective in law and determines the status of the appellant. If the appellant says that it is an ex-parte decree and ought to be set aside, her appli...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2001)10SCC478
S.C. Agrawal and; G.T. Nanavati, JJ.1. Special leave granted.2. By order dated 11-6-1985 the Government of India introduced pensionary benefits for personnel of the Territorial Army. The question that falls for consideration in this appeal is whether in cases where the personnel had retired prior to 11-6-1985 the said benefit is to be granted with effect from the date of the said order, i.e., from 11-6-1985, or it has to be extended with effect from the date of retirement.3. The respondent was enrolled in the Rajput Regiment of the Indian Army on 3-5-1938. He was discharged after serving in the army for 7 years and 348 days. Thereafter, he joined the Territorial Army on 19-7-1950 and he retired therefrom as Subedar in 1972. He rendered about 22 years' service in the Territorial Army. At the time when he retired from the Territorial Army there was no provision regarding pension for personnel of the Territorial Army. The matter regarding grant of pension to personnel of the Territorial A...
Tag this Judgment!