Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC760; JT1997(10)SC243; (2000)ILLJ1093SC; 1997(7)SCALE757; (1998)2SCC563; 1998(1)LC147(SC)
Nanavati, J.1. Leave granted. Heard the learned counsel.2. The Orissa Electrical Engineers' Service Association filed Original Application No. 576(C) of 1996 in the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, apprehending that some of the Electrical Engineers who are its members and Orissa State Government employees on deputation to the Orissa State Electricity Board (OSEB) are likely to be permanently transferred to the GRID Corporation of Orissa Ltd. or Orissa Hydro Power Corporation Ltd. on OSEB being abolished, under the Orissa Electricity Reform Act. In view of the provision of the Act and the decision of the State Government to privatise procurement and distribution of electric energy the appellant further apprehended that the services of such members may be ultimately transferred to private companies and that will lead to losing their status as civil servants and varying their service conditions adversely. The appellant, therefore, wanted Sections 23, 24 and 25 of the Act and the Scheme Rul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC2956; JT1998(9)SC204; (1999)9SCC61
ORDERSLP (C) No. 4968/97:1. In the impugned order dated 3-1-1997, the High Court has observed that M.K. Tripathi, the 1st respondent herein, would be permitted to contest the proceedings for allotment or release, as the case may be, and after a final order of allotment or release has been passed, he would be entitled to file a revision under Section 18 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. It is the admitted position that a revision in that eventuality would not lie. It has been urged that the said direction be read as if the High Court was permitting the said respondent to move in a writ petition in the event of the final order of allotment or release going against him. As suggested, it is so clarified. With these observations, SLP (C) No. 4968/97 preferred by Smt. Narayani Devi would stand disposed of.SLP (C) No. 8481/97: 2. This cross-petition is dismissed on merit....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1998)8SCC592
ORDER1. We have heard Shri V.R. Reddy, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India on the applications. We have also heard Ms Indira Jaising, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Bar Council of India and Shri Kapil Sibal and Shri Soli J. Sorabjee, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents. A copy of the resolution dated 13-12-1997 of the Bar Council of India has also been placed before us.2. Having regard to the directions given by this Court under the order dated 2-12-1997 and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances that have been placed before us, we consider it appropriate to give the following further directions:The Committee that was constituted by the Bar Council of India under the resolution dated 9-8-1997/10-8-1997 shall be reconstituted as under:1. Shri V.R. Reddy, ASG Chairman 2. Shri R.K.P. Shankardass, Member 3. Shri Raj Birbal, Member 3. The said Committee, as reconstituted, shall take all decisions regarding the form on the bas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC3213; [1999(81)FLR711]; JT1998(9)SC123; 1998(1)SCALE544; (1998)9SCC398
ORDER1. Leave granted in both the matters.2. The facts in both the appeals are similar. For the sake of convenience we are referring to the facts in C.A. arising from SLP(C)No. 16621/97.3. Husband of the respondent, who was a driver with the appellant Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, died in harness on 27.10.1992. On 11th January, 1994 the respondent submitted an application for appointment as an Attender on compassionate grounds. Under Circular dated 13th July, 1988 issued by the Corporation, a provision is made for considering spouse/children of employees who have died in harness for recruitment on compassionate grounds. The circular prescribes minimum qualifications for the candidates seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. In Clause 1 of the circular it is further provided that the spouse or one child of an employee who has died in harness can be considered for appointment if (i) none of the children or spouse of the employee who has so died, is already employ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998(100)ELT7(SC); (1998)8SCC718
ORDER1. Leave granted. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. It is not disputed that a three-Judge Bench in the case of CCE v. Wood Craft Products Ltd., : 1995ECR417(SC) has settled the issue involved in this case and following the law laid down therein, the judgment of the High Court under appeal cannot be sustained. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court dated 25-5-1991. 4. The respondents had withdrawn the amount of Rs 5,02,621 pursuant to the judgment of the High Court and despite directions given by this Court, bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the Registrar has not been filed by the respondents. It is obvious that the respondents have had the benefit of retaining that amount, to which amount they were not legally entitled for all these years. It, therefore, appears appropriate to us to direct the respondents to refund the said amount with 12 per cent interest per annum from the date of withdrawal of the said amount by them from t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC634; [1998]92CompCas1(SC); 1997(3)CTC746; JT1997(10)SC334; (1998)IIMLJ79(SC); 1997(7)SCALE767; (1998)2SCC70; [1997]Supp6SCR683
M. Jagannadha Rao, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka dated 14.8.1997 in Writ Appeal No. 2876 of 1997. The Writ Appeal was filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 9.4.1997 dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant against the orders of the Debt Recovery Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal rejecting the application of the appellant filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC.3. The appellant was the 5th defendant in the suit filed by the 3rd respondent, namely, the Corporation - Bank which has its zonal office at Bangalore. The suit was filed in the year 1985 by the said Bank against defendants 1 to 4 belonging to Tadikonda family residing at Guntur in Andhra Pradesh and against the appellant I.T.C. Limited. The relief claimed in the suit was for a sum of Rs. 52,59,639.66. The defendants 1 to 4 above mentioned are respondents 4 to 7 in this appeal. The first respondent is the Debt Recove...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC723; JT1997(10)SC298; 1998(1)KLT201(SC); 1997(7)SCALE804; (1998)1SCC616; [1997]Supp6SCR698; [1998]108STC583(SC)
Kirpal, J.1. Special leave granted in SLP (Civil) Nos. 9649-50 of 1997.2. The only question which arises for consideration in this batch of cases is whether the cess payable under the provisions of the Rubber Act, 1947 will form part of the purchase turnover of the respondents under the Kerala General Sales Tax, 1963.3. M/s. M.R.F. Ltd., Ceat Tyers of India Ltd., Bata India Ltd., Good Year India Ltd. Etc., hereinafter referred to as the dealers, are the respondents in these cases. They purchased rubber in Kerala. This rubber was purchased either from the producer or from the dealers. The rubber so purchased was either used in the manufacture within the State of Kerala or was sent out of the State for use elsewhere.4. Under the provisions of Section 5 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Sales Tax Act') the tax on rubber is a single point tax. According to the said section read with the schedule thereto the tax is livable on the last producer of rub...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC602; 1998(1)ALLMR(SC)517; (1998)2GLR1364; JT1997(10)SC311; 1998(1)KLT481(SC); (1998)IIMLJ66(SC); RLW1999(2)SC254; 1997(7)SCALE786; (1998)2SCC1; [1997]Supp6SCR717;
Kirpal, J.1. 'Lex injusta non est lex', unjust, laws are not laws, is what is being contended by the landlords in their challenge in these appeals, and the connected writ petitions, to the validity of the relevant provisions of the Bombay Rent, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bombay Rent Act') in so far as it provides that landlords cannot charge rent in excess of the standard rent.2. The appellants are landlords or their representative of different premises in Bombay which have been given on rent to various tenants. They had filed in the High Court of Bombay writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Section 5(10)(B), Section 11(1) and Section 12(3) of the Bombay Rent Act, inter alia, on the ground that the said provisions pertaining to standard rent were ultra vires Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution and consequently void. The main challenge to the said provisions was on the ground that the restriction on the rig...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC659; [1999(81)FLR6]; JT1997(10)SC351; 1998LabIC890; 1997(7)SCALE776; (1998)2SCC554; [1997]Supp6SCR654; 1998(1)LC150(SC)
D.P. Wadhwa, J.1. This appeal by the State of Madhya Pradesh is directed against the judgment dated June 30, 1989 of the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') holding that father of a Government servant who himself has retired as a Government servant can be wholly dependant on his son and son thus entitled to reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on the treatment of his father under the relevant M.P. Civil Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1958 (for short 'Medical Rules'). This, according to Tribunal, would be so even where a separate Rule is applicable for medical treatment to a retired Government servant.2. There are two respondents before us. 1st respondent is the lather and the 2nd respondent is his son. The 1st respondent retired from Government service of the State and at the relevant time was drawing pension of Rs. 176 with Rs. 238 as additional relief totalling Rs. 414 per month. He was living with his son, the 2nd respondent, who was also a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1999)1SCC304; 1998(1)LC214(SC); (1998)1UPLBEC268
D.P. Wadhwa, J.1. The appellant who belongs to State Civil Service of the State of Maharashtra, it appears, could not get complete relief from the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'), (New Bombay Bench), New Bombay for his claim to be promoted to the Indian Administrative Service under the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955 (for short 'the Regulations') from the year 1986. Instead the Tribunal granted him relief to be promoted to Indian Administrative Service under the aforesaid Regulation for the year 1987.2. Selection Committee for Maharashtra constituted under Regulation 3 of the Regulations met on December 13, 1984 and prepared a Select List under Regulation 5 for filling up of 8 vacancies during the period of 12 months from the date of the meeting. The name of the appellant was included at Serial No. 11 of the Select List. The Select List so prepared is to be forwarded to the Union Public Service Commission (for short '...
Tag this Judgment!