Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1997(2)ALD(Cri)614; 1998CriLJ400; JT1997(7)SC406; 1997(5)SCALE451
Nanavati J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 555 of 1980 whereby it confirmed the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC recorded by the Sessions Judge, Bijapur in Sessions Case No. 29/80.2. The prosecution case was that on 3.12.1979, at about 8.30 or 9.00 a.m., while deceased Baburao and his son Sharanappa were proceeding from their house to their field carrying food for their father who was staying in the field and when they were passing through the field of Suleman, the appellants along with three others assaulted Baburao. Appellant No. 2 gave a blow with an axe on the neck of the deceased as a result of which he fell down and soon thereafter died. On seeing this assault on his father Sharanappa, who was then a child of about 5 years, ran away towards the village. P.W. 4 Bhimashankar, who was returning from his field to the village, saw this assault on the deceased who ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1998)5SCC762a
K. Venkataswami and; V.N. Khare, JJ.1. Respondent 1 retired from the service of the State of Punjab on 31-12-1982. Respondent 2 retired from the service of the State of Punjab on 31-10-1982. Their pensioner benefits were calculated as per the rules then existing.2. By a notification dated 9-7-1985, issued by the Government of Punjab, Department of Finance, it was decided that dearness allowance and ad hoc dearness allowance sanctioned up to Consumer Price Index Level 568 will be treated as dearness pay, for purposes of calculating pension, gratuity/DCRC and terminal gratuity in respect of the employees retiring on or after 31-3-1985.3. By another circular dated 24-11-1988 the employees were allowed to accumulate earned leave up to 360 days. The existing employees were given an option, either to be governed by the existing rules or by the new decision, which option was exercisable within a period of four months from the date of issue of the above-mentioned circular. It further provided ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1998(8)SC200; (1998)9SCC436
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. In Clause (c) of paragraph 18.10 of the statutes of ihc University of Allahabad, it is indicated that the seniority of the principals and teachers of the associated colleges shall be on the basis of the length of service accruing from the date of appointment in substantive capacity. Clause (d) of the said paragraph further indicates that service in each capacity, for an example as principal or as a teacher shall be counted from the date of taking charge pursuant to substantive appointment. In the instant case, letter of appointment of the respondent was issued on 24-2-1987 and it has not been held by the High Court that the respondent will be deemed to have been appointed from any date prior to the date of appointment, The seniority of the respondent therefore, is to take effect from the date of her appointment as approved by the Vice-Chancellor read with clause (d) of paragraph 18.10. Therefore, the order of the High Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1998)9SCC465
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The grievance of the appellants is that they have valid licences but the High Court has put a time period for utilising those licences. Therefore, the direction of the High Court that the old operators shall be permitted to continue their respective operations for a period of six months, by which period they shall replace their wooden barges by the steel barges of approved standard and in case such replacement is not done, the respondent-authorities shall be free to cancel license/refuse permission for operating wooden barges, does not appear to be proper in the facts of this case. So long as the appellants continue to hold the licences they are entitled to operate their barges. It is for the licensing authority to decide whether the licences will be cancelled or extended or revoked in accordance with law.3. It is clarified that not only the appellants but whosoever applies for a licence will be dealt with in accordance with law by the Licensing Authority. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1998(80)FLR832]; JT1998(7)SC238; (1999)ILLJ837SC; 1999(1)SCALE293; (1998)9SCC425
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether an employee to be eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer under Regulation 14 of the Service Regulation Act, the experience rendered in the parent department in the State Government Service before becoming permanently absorbed in the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board can be taken into consideration or not. Under Regulation 14, the post of Assistant Executive Engineer has to be filled by way of promotion and the person to become eligible to get such promotion must possess either BE degree in Electrical, Civil, Mechanical or Telecommunication of a University in India or any similar qualification recognised as equivalent to such degree or such employee holding LEE, LCE or LME Diploma has ten years' experience as Additional Assistant Engineer.3. It appears to us that it has not been indicated in the service regulation tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1997(2)ALD(Cri)422; [1998]92CompCas650(SC); 1998CriLJ661; 1997(7)JKJ344[SC]; JT1997(7)SC344; 1997(II)OLR(SC)309; (1998)118PLR737; 1997(5)SCALE421; (1997)11SCC24
M.K. Mukherjee J.1. Leave granted.2. On February 12, 1990 the appellant filed a complaint against the respondent No. 1 (respondent' for short) in the Court of The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam alleging commission of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('Act' for short). The sum and substance of the various allegations made in the complaint are as follows:On final settlement of accounts of the various commercial transactions that took place between the appellant and the respondent, an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- was found due to the former from the latter. In payment thereof the respondent issued a cheque in favour of the appellant which on presentation was dishonoured. The appellant then sent a notice to the respondent demanding the amount but it came back unserved with an endorsement that he was absent. Thereafter another similar notice was sent to and served upon the respondent but he did not pay the amount.3. While the case arising out of the appellant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC3288; JT1997(7)SC324; 1997(5)SCALE430; (1997)11SCC630; [1997]Supp3SCR396; 1997(2)LC556(SC); (1997)3UPLBEC1631
ORDERNanavati, J. 1. Leave granted.2. Heard learned Counsel for both the sides.3. The appellant was employed as a Daftari (class IV employee) in Nehru Intermediate College, which is a recognised and Government aided college. He continued to work on that post till he was promoted as a clerk on 11 -5-1990. In the said college, one Surya Narain Srivastava was working as an Assistant Teacher. He died on 11 -5-1987 while in service. On 29-2-1989 his widow made a request to the Principal of the college for appointing her son, respondent No. 4, to a non-teaching post on compassionate grounds. In December, 1989 and February, 1990 Distt. Inspector of Schools, respondent No. 2. also wrote to the Principal of the college to give suitable employment to respondent No. 4. On retirement of a Head Clerk on 30-6-1989 one clerk was promoted to that post and, therefore. one post of clerk became vacant. In April. 1990 the management decided to promote and appoint the appellant on that post as it belonged ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC3292; 1997(3)Crimes232(SC); JT1997(7)SC352; 1997(5)SCALE426; (1997)11SCC19
ORDERv.N. Khare J.1. By the present appeals the appellant, State of U.P., questions the correctness of the judgment dated 27.2.1990 rendered by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, acquitting the respondents herein by allowing the appeals preferred by the respondents and setting aside the convictions recorded against them by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri. Before we take up the arguments of learned Counsel for the appellants, it is necessary to set out the prosecution case.2. In short, the prosecution story is that on 22.2.1985 at about 2.30 p.m., in village Nagla Pati, Police Station Bhongaon, District Mainpuri, the deceased Kalicharan was returning from the court of SDM, Bhongaon, after attending the proceedings in his case. When Kalicharan reached near the house of Ganga Ram, the accused Malkhan s/o. Bhagwan Singh armed with country made pistol, Sher Singh son of Bhagwan Singh armed with rifle, Bhagwan Singh son of Dhanpat armed with country made pistol, Murari son of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC3420; JT1997(7)SC346; 1997(5)SCALE438; (1997)6SCC771; [1997]Supp3SCR386; 1997(2)LC561(SC)
ORDERM. Jagannadha Rao, J. 1. Special leave granted. We have heard the counsel on both sides on the merits of the appeal.2. The appellant was appointed as a Constable in the Police Department of the erstwhile State of PEPSU (Patiala and East Punjab States Union) which merged later on 1-11-1956 with the new State of Punjab. The Raj Pramukh of the State of PEPSU framed, under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the PEPSU Service Regulations, Volume 1 para 2.28 thereof defines 'inferior servant' as 'inferior Government servant' as included in the list in Appendix 1. The said Appendix includes, among others, Police Constables. Notification dated 20-7-1954 (F.D. 1 (2) Regn. 64) issued under the proviso to Article 309 by the Raj Pramukh says that the following note shall be added under Article 9.1 of PEPSU Services Regulations Volume 1 and the existing Note shall be numbered as Note (1.):Note 2 : The age for retirement of Class IV Government servants will be 60 years.As ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC3907; 1997(2)ALD(Cri)418; 1997CriLJ4641; 1997(3)Crimes173(SC); JT1997(7)SC319; 1997(5)SCALE435; (1997)11SCC579
ORDERNanavati J.1. The widows of the three victims, who were alleged to have been murdered by respondent Nos. 1 to 8 (Accused 1 to 8), have filed this appeal, by special leave of this Court, against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the High Court of Rajasthan (Jaipur Bench) in B.D Criminal Appeal No. 444 of 1987. The State has not thought it fit to file an appeal against the decision of the High Court.2. On account of a dispute regarding land there was enmity between the family of Anna Rawat of Village Masiniya in the District of Ajmer with the family of Accused No. l. It was the prosecution case that because of the enmity Accused Nos. 1 to 8 assaulted Anna Rawat, his brother Kana his sons Madhu, Arjun, Mohan and Sua and one Punna and Ratna while they were returning from their fields to the Village in the evening of 11.2.1986. They were assaulted while they were passing through the Nalla situated near the field of Ganpat Chita. Vishnu (A-2) and Ratan (A-5) were armed with ...
Tag this Judgment!