Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIIIAD(SC)56; JT1996(9)SC632; 1996(7)SCALE751; (1997)2SCC203; [1996]Supp6SCR665
Property - adverse possession - Schedule to Article 65 of Limitation Act, 1963 and Section 11 of CPC, 1908 - appellant acquired title in property through will executed in his favour - suit filed by him for declaration of title and for possession dismissed - High Court observed that respondent had title on property through adverse possession - matter reached to Supreme Court - Court observed contention as to adverse possession with hostile title not pleaded earlier - suit filed within 12 years from date of death of owner of property - suit cannot be dismissed on ground of adverse possession - High Court incorrect in finding that respondents perfected their title by adverse possession -decision of High Court set aside by Supreme Court.JUDGEMENT1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order dated 03.07.1995 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwalior in S.A. No. 182/89.3. The admitted facts are that Mansaram had two sons by name, Babul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIIAD(SC)622; JT1996(9)SC443; 1996(7)SCALE624; (1996)6SCC322; [1996]Supp6SCR660; (1997)1UPLBEC488
ORDER1. This special leave petition is filed against the order of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court made on January 29, 1996 in W.P. No. 4882/95. No doubt, pursuant to the direction issued by this Court on the earlier occasion on November 25, 1994, the case of the petitioner was considered but he was not selected by the Punjab Public-Service Commission to Punjab Civil Services Executive Branch. Three contentions have been raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner firstly, that when this Court had directed to consider the case of the Petitioner vis-a-vis others, the Public Service Commission should have evaluated the respective merit and found whether the petitioner is more meritorious over those persons but that was not done. We find no force in the contention. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the Public Service Commission in the High Court in which it was pointed out that the relevant merit of the 12th respondent vis-a-vis the petitioner was considere...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2001)9SCC204
Kuldip Singh and; S. Saghir Ahmad, JJ.1. Special leave granted.2. The land owned by the appellants was acquired by Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) for a development scheme called “Rajamahal Vilas II Stage”. BDA passed a resolution dated 26-6-1984 whereunder it was decided that each of the appellants would be given a site measuring 40' × 60' free of cost. BDA did not implement the decision on the ground that the resolution was not approved by the State Government. The appellants challenged the decision of the State Government by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Karnataka High Court. A Division Bench of the High Court by the judgment dated 8-2-1991 dismissed the writ petition. These appeals are directed against the judgment of the High Court.3. We may briefly state the facts:Land bearing various survey numbers measuring 1134 acres and 12 guntas owned by the appellants and other landowners was acquired by BDA for the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIIIAD(SC)317; JT1996(9)SC432; 1996(7)SCALE625; (1996)10SCC629; [1996]Supp6SCR662
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides.3. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the 'Act') was published on April 14, 1977 acquiring an extent of 3 acres 34 gunthas, 1 acre 2 gunthas for extension of Agricultural Produce marketing Committee, Gadag in Dharwad District of Karnataka State. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) by his award dated January 23, 1982 determined the compensation at the rate of Re. 0.76 per sq. ft. On reference, the Civil Judge, Gadag in his award dated November 29, 1982 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 8.50 per sq. ft. On appeal under Section 54, in the impugned judgment dated October 7, 1992 and November 4, 1992 in MFA No. 837/87 and MFA No. 1962/87 respectively, the High Court of Karnataka reduced the compensation to Rs. 7/- per sq. ft. Thus, these appeals by special leave.4. The reference Court and the High Court relied on three sale instances of an extent of 38.4 sq. ft. and 87.35 sq. ft. wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIIAD(SC)118; 1996(2)ALD(Cri)714; 1997CriLJ226; JT1996(8)SC457; 1996(7)SCALE97; (1996)11SCC148
Faizan Uddin, J.1. This appeal by the State has been directed against the reversing judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal No. 660 of 1986 setting aside the conviction of the respondent recorded by the Session Judge, Kannada, Bangalore in Sessions Case No. 65 of 1985 for which the respondent was sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. It was directed by the learned Sessions Judge that the entire fine amount, if realised, shall be paid to Thara Kini, P.W 1, widow of the deceased N.B. Kini. 2. The deceased N.B. Kini was working as a Manager in Navabharath Printing Press at Mangalore. The deceased alongwith his wife, Thara PW 1 and son were living in a rented premises belonging to the respondent since about more than a decade from the date of occurrence. A part of the house was occupied by the respondent and his father while other part of the said house was in occupation of the deceased and his family there being a co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIIIAD(SC)60; JT1996(9)SC643; RLW1997(1)SC31; 1996(7)SCALE709; (1996)11SCC678; [1996]Supp6SCR669
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides.3. These appeals by special leave arise from the order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay made on July 18, 1996 in Civil Application Nos. 3588-89/91 in FA No. 1 & 2/90.4. The admitted position is that pursuant to a compromise entered into between the parties, pending the first appeal in the High Court, a compromise decree came to be made by the Division Bench on 12.4.1991. Clause (2) of the Compromise Decree reads as under:2.(a) The parties agree that Jolly Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Jolly Torsteel Pvt. Ltd., the respondents herein and the Original plaintiffs in Suit No. 446 of 1987 and Suit No. 447 of 1987, respectively, shall between them a deposit in the Trial Court, a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) in the aggregate on or before 31 st May, 1991 and a further sum of Rs. 10,40,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs and forty thousand only) on or before 29th June, 1991;(b) These amounts are to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIIAD(SC)29; 1996(2)ALD(Cri)725; 1996(4)Crimes77(SC); JT1996(8)SC473; 1996(7)SCALE103; (1996)11SCC179; [1996]Supp6SCR631
G.N. Ray, J.1. These appeals have been filed under Section 19 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as TADA) against convictions and sentences passed by the learned Judge. Designated Court, Nasik in Special Case No. 1 of 1993 by Judgment dated September 21, 1994. Five accused including the three appellants were tried for offences under Sections 143 364 368 385 302 read with Section 120B and Section 140 IPC and Section 3(2)(1) of TADA.2. The prosecution case in short is that on September 15, 1992, the , complainant Kantilal Katyare returned to his house at about 8.15 P.M. He was then informed by his wife that his grandson Vaibhav had gone with the accused No. 3 Girdhari who is the appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 319 of 1995 on a scooter to bring the price of casio piano since sold by vaibhav but Vaibhav had not returned. Suspecting something foul, Vaibhav's father had gone in search of Vaibhav. At about 9.30 P.M., Vaibhav's father Vijay infor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996(87)ELT334(SC); (1997)10SCC473
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy and K. Venkataswami, JJ.1. Under Notification No. 224 dated 23-6-1988, unwrought zinc is exempt from duty when it is manufactured from zinc dross, zinc ash or residues thereof 'on which the duty of excise leviable under the said Schedule, or the additional duty leviable under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as the case may be, has already been paid'.2. It appears that by an earlier Notification No. 19/88, dated 1-3-1988, goods falling within Chapter 26 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 were exempted from the whole of the duty. The learned Counsel for the respondent says that zinc ash falls within Chapter 26 and he appears to be right. 3. In this case, the respondent manufactured unwrought zinc from zinc ash which enjoyed exemption from duty by virtue of Notification No. 19/88. The question is whether the respondent is entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 224/88. In other words, can it be said in this case that the unwrought zinc manufact...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIIAD(SC)804; [1997(75)FLR427]; JT1996(9)SC296; 1997(4)KarLJ325; 1996(7)SCALE574; (1996)10SCC610; [1996]Supp6SCR610
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides. The admitted position is that the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Rules were framed under the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976. The appointing authority in respect of various posts governed under the provisions of the Act is regulated by Sections 82 and 84 of the Act. Section 82 reads as under:82 Appointment of Engineer, Health Officer etc. - (1) The Government shall appoint for every corporation such officers of the State Civil Services as it considers suitable to be the engineer, health officer, revenue officer, chief accounts officers and council secretary fur the efficient functioning of the corporation and such officers shall be subordinate to the Commissioner. The Government may also appoint one or more Deputy Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners who shall exercise such powers and discharge such functions as may be specified in the rules. They shall be subordinate to the Commissioner.(2) The Gover...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IXAD(SC)286; [1996(74)FLR2654]; JT1996(9)SC528; 1996(7)SCALE619; (1996)11SCC242; [1996]Supp6SCR614; 1997(1)SLJ114(SC)
ORDER1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. We have learned Counsel on both sides.4. These appeals by special leave arise from the orders of the Madhya Pradesh State Tribunal made on October 1, 1994 in O.A. No. 616/93 and batch.5. The admitted position is that the appellants as well as the respondents are governed by the provisions of M.P. Irrigation Engineering Services (Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 1968 issued by the Governor in exercise of the power under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. Rule 7 of the Rules prescribes the mode of recruitment either by direct recruitment or by promotion of substantive or officiating feeder cadre, i.e., sub-Engineers, or by transfer of person who held in a substantive capacity such post as may be specified by the State Government in that behalf. Eligibility criteria has been prescribed under Rule 15 and procedure for consideration under Rule 16 which read as under:15. Condition of eligibility for promotion:(1) Subject to the provisions of Su...
Tag this Judgment!