Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)10SCC527
S.C. Agrawal and; G.T. Nanavati, JJ.1. Issue notice. Shri R.C. Mishra, the learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.2. Special leave granted.3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.4. This appeal arises out of proceedings initiated under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the implementation of the direction given by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in its order dated 4-9-1995. It appears that the appeal filed by the appellant against the said order is pending before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the National Commission”) but no order was passed staying the operation of the order dated 4-9-1995. In the circumstances the State Commission by its order dated 16-12-1996 has imposed a sentence of simple imprisonment of one month and a fine of Rs 2000 u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)10SCC436
ORDER 1. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has refused to entertain a petition filed by the appellant-Corporation on the limited ground that more appropriate remedy is before the Civil Court since an elaborate investigation into facts is necessary for a proper adjudication. We are unable to uphold the view taken by the National Commission in the present case. 2. The substantial defence taken by the insurer appears to be based on the terms of the insurance policy and the period of its validity. It is difficult for us to appreciate why the controversy in the present case was considered to be so complicated that the National Commission did not consider it appropriate to entertain the matter and adjudicate it on merits. There is no plea taken of want of jurisdiction in the National Commission. This being so, the impugned order of the National Commission has to be set aside. 3. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the National Commission dated 15-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC2071; 85(1998)CLT1(SC); JT1997(4)SC588; 1997(3)SCALE544; (1997)4SCC560; [1997]3SCR456
K. Ramaswamy and D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.1. The report of the Registry indicates that the service is complete. However, the respondents are not appearing either in person or through counsel.2. Leave granted.3. The question limited to the notice is : whether the respondent would be entitled to payment of salary under the Grant-in-Aid Scheme from the date of initial appointment till he improved his qualification or from the date of his acquiring the qualification? The admitted position is that respondent No. 1 came to be appointed as a lecturer in 1976. The Government issued clarification on January 5, 1987 that unqualified lectures having minimum second class, i.e., 48% or above and below 54% of marks in P.G. examination and appointed on or after 1.8.1977 in recognised non-Government Colleges would be eligible to receive grant-in-aid. The Resolution dated September 13, 1983 issued by the Government prescribes the qualification for recruitment of Lecturers of affiliated Colleges which indicates ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1997(4)SC636; 1997(3)SCALE495; (1997)9SCC236; [1997]3SCR463
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides.3. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, made on 31.5.1996 in CWP No. 19006/95.4. The admitted position is that the appellant was appointed as a Constable initially on 19.11.1981 in Hissar range. She secured rank No. 2 out of 218 candidates as an all rounder, while Asha Rani, respondent No. 6, had secured rank No. 85 in the same range. When 'C list was prepared in September 1985, both of them were promoted as Head Constables on October 3, 1985 and the confirmation also came to be made on January 31, 1988. In an Intermediate School Course conducted by the authorities, the appellant was deputed in September 1989 while 6th respondent was deputed in March 1990. The appellant was brought in 'D' List on November 4, 1989 while 6th respondent was brought in 'D' List on April 4, 1990. The appellant was promoted as Assistant Sub-Inspector on November 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1997]89CompCas462(SC); (1997)6SCC417
ORDER1. The petitioners in these petitions for special leave to appeal against the judgment of the Delhi High Court dated March 20, 1997, in Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 57 and 56 of 1997, are banking companies governed by the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). On September 30, 1996, the Central Government, in exercise of its power under Section 45(2) of the Act, made orders of moratorium in respect of the petitioner-banks.2. The writ petitions filed by the petitioners in the Delhi High Court to challenge the said orders were dismissed by the learned single judge and Letters Patent Appeals filed against the said judgment of the learned single judge have been dismissed by the impugned judgment.3. The learned judges of the Division Bench of the High Court have held that having regard to the purpose of a moratorium the petitioners could not claim a right to be heard at a stage prior to the passing of an order under Section 45(2) but have held that the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC2021a
ORDERSuhas C. Sen, J.1. O.P. Lodha and others (hereinafter described as 'the firm') carry on business under the trade name M/s. Prakash Trading Corporation. Its place of business is at No. 161/1, M.G. Road, Calcutta. The business of the firm is to sell goods on its own behalf and also on behalf of 24 other principals on commission agency basis. The Commercial Tax Officer, Colootola Charge assessed the firm to sales tax under Section 6B of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 on total turnover of the firm comprising of sales made by the firm on its own behalf as well as on behalf of 24 principals for whom the firm acted as commission agent. The firm preferred an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes who agreed with the Commercial Tax Officer. The West Bengal Commercial Taxes Tribunal on further appeal, also took the same view.2. On further appeal, the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessment of the firm by including in its turnover ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC2021; JT1997(4)SC434; 1997(3)SCALE369; (1997)5SCC93; [1997]3SCR439
Suhas C. Sen, J.1. O.P. Lodha and others (hereinafter described as 'the firm') carry on business under the trade name M/s. Prakash Trading Corporation. Its place of business is at No. 161/1, M.G. Road, Calcutta. The business of the firm is to sell goods on its own behalf and also on behalf of 24 other principals on commission agency basis. The Commercial Tax Officer, Colootola Charge assessed the firm to sales tax under Section 6-B of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act. 1941 on total turnover of the firm comprising of sales made by the firm on its own behalf as well as on behalf of 24 principals for whom the firm acted as commission agent. The firm preferred an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes who agreed with the Commercial Tax Officer. The West Bengal Commercial Taxes Tribunal on further appeal, also took the same view.2. On further appeal, the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessment of the firm by including in its turnover sale...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC3071; JT1997(4)SC572; (1997)IILLJ797SC; 1997(3)SCALE509; (1997)4SCC388; [1997]3SCR467; (1997)2UPLBEC1133
K. Ramaswamy and D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.1. Leave Granted. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides.2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad, made on August 14, 1996 in SA No. 153/96.3. The first respondent came to be appointed as an ad hoc teacher on July 1, 1986 against a short term vacancy caused by promotion of the incumbent on an hoc basis to the next higher post. His appointment came to be terminated on May 30, 1988 w.e.f. June 30, 1988. The respondent challenged the order of termination in a writ petition. Pending writ petition, an interim order of stay though vacated by the learned single Judge, the same was granted by the Division Bench.4. The learned Single Judge on merits dismissed the writ petition. On appeal, the Division Bench in the impugned order has held that since, pending writ petition, the services of the first respondent came to be regularised, he would be entitled to continue in service. However, on c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC3658; JT1997(4)SC595; (1997)IILLJ620SC; 1997(3)SCALE536; (1997)4SCC384; [1997]3SCR465
ORDERK. Ramaswamy and D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.1. Delay condoned.2. This Special Leave Petition arises from the judgment of the single Judge of the, Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur Bench, made on 28.10.1996 in W.P. No. 4472/96.3. A Charge-sheet has been given to the petitioner on the allegation that he sanctioned loan for non-existing fictitious persons and got disbursement of demand drafts mentioned in the chargesheet within two days, i.e. December 10, 1990 and December 11, 1990 in favour of M/s. Sudarshan Trading Co. of Bhopal for Rs. 2,80,000/- . On the basis thereof, the respondents imputed that the petitioner committed the misconduct. An enquiry had been initiated and is now being proceeded against him. He filed an application for permission to engage the services of an advocate. The permission was refused. In the writ petition, the petitioner contended that the chargesheet was filed against him in the criminal court for the self-same offence. In view of the fact that the matter is pen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC2159; JT1997(4)SC592; 1997(3)SCALE540; (1997)5SCC183; [1997]3SCR453
K. Ramaswamy and D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.1. Leave granted. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides.2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, made on January 22, 1996 in L.A.A. No. 414/86.3. Notification under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1960 was published on March 26, 1976, acquiring 17 acres of land in Tampanoor which is part of the Trivandrum city, for construction of the Kerala Road Transport Corporation Depot. One acre is equivalent to 2.47 cents. Possession was taken on August 6, 1976. The award was made on the said date and the sum of Rs. 8,250 per cent was determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. On reference, under Section 18, the Civil Court by award and decree dated July 21, 1986 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 25,000 per cent. On appeal, the learned Judges made two categories of land. The first category consisted of 9.54 acres abutting the road, and another 7.60 acres interior to the lands co...
Tag this Judgment!