Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1568; [1999(81)FLR547]; JT1998(9)SC78; (1998)9SCC681
ORDER1. Respondent 1 was the Accounts Officer in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'Corporation'). He was compulsorily retired from service by order dated 22-2-1990 passed under Rule 56-C of the Financial Handbook by the Managing Director of the Corporation.2. Before the order of compulsory retirement was passed, the work and conduct of the respondent was assessed by the screening committee consisting of the Managing Director, the Joint Managing Director and the Chief Accounts Officer of the Corporation, who reported as under:'5. Shri P.N. Tandon, Audit Officer: He has completed the age of 50 years as on 30-5-1989. He shall complete the age of 55 and 58 years as on 30-5-1994 and 30-5-1997 respectively. The entries in his confidential record during the years 1979-80 to 1985-86 as well as in the year 1987-88 are the satisfactory /good/ average class, but the entries of the years 1986-87 and 1988-89 are not available. This entry has been made vide the order dated 30-9-1989 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC3882; JT1997(8)SC213; 1997(6)SCALE220; (1997)11SCC423; 1997(2)LC664(SC)
ORDER1. This group of civil appeals by grant of special leave, and Special Leave Petition which pertain to enhancement of compensation for the acquired land, is directed against the judgment and order dated 22nd February, 1995 passed by the High Court of Delhi. Since common facts and law are involved, all the appeals and special leave petition are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. A Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act') was issued on 27.01.1984 proposing to acquire land of the appellants as well as of others, situate in Village Palam, Delhi for the purpose of planned development of Delhi. This was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act. For the purposes of awarding compensation in respect of the acquired land, the Land Acquisition Officer (Collector) divided the land, which is the subject matter of acquisition, in three blocks, namely, 'A', 'B' and 'C'. By an award, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed compensation in respect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC3592; JT1997(8)SC201; 1997(6)SCALE210; (1997)8SCC360; [1997]Supp4SCR222
ORDERB.N. Kirpal, J.1. The common question which arises for consideration in these appeals on special leave being granted, is about the validity of the Bihar Forest Restoration and Improvement of Degraded Forest Land Taxation Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). The Patna High Court, on writ petitions having been filed by the respondents in these appeals, having upheld the challenge to the validity of the said Act, the State of Bihar has filed these appeals challenging the correctness of the High Court's decision.2. The facts which are essential for the decision of these appeals are similar and lie in a very narrow compass, therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each case. It will be sufficient to refer to the facts in the appeal pertaining to Indian Aluminium Company Ltd. The said company, like all the respondents, had been granted by the State of Bihar leases for different areas under the provisions of Mines and Minerals Regulation Act, 1957. These ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC3889; JT1997(8)SC257; (1998)IMLJ35(SC); 1997(6)SCALE255; (1997)8SCC186; [1997]Supp4SCR237; 1997(2)LC743(SC)
ORDERV.N. Khare, J.1. This group of Civil Appeals by special leave and Special leave Petitions is directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of Delhi High Court and the questions involved therein relate to quantum of compensation with regard to acquisition of the appellants land situated in village Gharoli, Delhi. Since common question of facts and law is involved, we propose to dispose of these appeals and special leave petitions by a common judgment, noticing the facts of the case as appearing in Civil Appeal No. 2981/95.2. Land measuring 2600.12 bighas situated in the revenue estate of village Gharoli which included the appellants land was notified for acquisition vide notification dated 17.11.1980 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the 'Act'). The purpose for acquisition shown was planned development of Delhi. This was followed by declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act on 29.9.81. The collector by an award dated 2.7.83 assessed the market va...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1998]92CompCas652(SC); JT1997(8)SC216; (1998)118PLR234; 1997(6)SCALE228; (1997)7SCC758; 1999(1)SLJ56(SC); 1997(2)LC751(SC)
1. Leave granted. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents Sri Milkha Singh since deceased was a senior accountant in the Gurdaspur Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. For alleged misconduct of the said employee in misappropriating the funds of the appellant Bank, Sri Milkha Singh was placed on suspension on 6.5.1974. A Criminal Case under Sections 409 467 468 477A and 120B IPC was registered against the said employee but he was discharged in the said case by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Gurdaspur on 26.11.1977. Sri Milkha Singh was allowed to join duties on 19.4.1978. Subsequently, a departmental proceeding was initiated against Sri Milkha Singh and a penalty for stopping promotion for two years was imposed on the said employee vide order dated 13.7.1984. The period from 6.5.1974 to 19.4.1978 was also regularised against leave vide order dated 6.2.1985.3. Sri Milkha Singh challenged the order of punishment and order regarding regularisation ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1997(6)ALT1(SC); JT1997(8)SC373; 1997(6)SCALE357; (1997)8SCC461; [1997]Supp4SCR207; 1998(1)LC67(SC); (1997)3UPLBEC2141
1. Respondent was appointed as Assistant Development Officer on 4th September, 1985. After completion of the period of Apprenticeship, he was placed on probation as Development Officer with effect from 4th December, 1985. While he was still a probationer, his services were terminated by order dated 22.5.1986 which was challenged in a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka.2. Relying upon the decision of this Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Anr. etc. : (1986)IILLJ171SC , a learned Single Judge of the High Court by judgment dated 12.8.1986 allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of termination. The judgment was upheld by the Division Bench in appeal. Now, the matter is in this Court.3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.4. Reliance placed by the High Court on the decision of this Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd., (supra) was wholly out of place as that decision related to a pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1571; (1999)ILLJ546SC; (1998)9SCC559
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the appeals were heard finally.3. The short question is whether the appellant was entitled to withdraw his voluntary retirement notice of three months submitted by him on 3-10-1989 which was to come into effect from 31-1-1990. It is true that this proposal was accepted by the authorities on 2-11-1989. But thereafter before 31-1-1990 was reached, the appellant wrote a letter to withdraw his voluntary retirement proposal. This letter is dated 11-12-1989. The said request permitting him to withdraw the voluntary retirement proposal was not accepted by the respondents by communication dated 26-12-1989. The appellant, therefore, went to the Tribunal but the Tribunal gave him no relief and took the view that the voluntary retirement had come into force on 31-1-1990 and the appellant had given up the charge of the post as per his memo relinquishing the charge and consequently, he was estopped from withdrawing his vol...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC990; 1998(2)ALD(Cri)44; 1998CriLJ1409; JT1998(4)SC486; 1999(I)OLR(SC)305; (1998)8SCC451
ORDER1. Leave granted. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. On a report lodged by the appellant with the Sadar Bazar Police Station, Delhi a case was registered against three persons. After police submitted charge-sheet (challan) against them they stood their trial for offences punishable under Sections 381 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial ultimately ended in their acquittal and aggrieved thereby the appellant filed a revision petition in the.Delhi High Court. At the time of hearing of the petition the High Court posed the question whether the appellant was required to obtain permission from the Public Prosecutor to file such a petition and relying upon the judgment of this Court in K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of A.P., : [1963]3SCR412 and some judgments of the High Courts, it answered the same in the affirmative and dismissed the revision petition without prejudice to the appellant's right to approach it afresh after obtaining the requisite permission. The above or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC2276; 1997(2)CTC663; 1997LC785(SC); JT1998(7)SC21; (1998)120PLR605; 1997(6)SCALE209; (1997)7SCC556; [1997]Supp4SCR204; 1997(2)LC747(SC)
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The respondent--State of Kerala and Anr. filed Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 316/96 against the judgment and decree of the learned Sub Court at Kollam in Arbitration Application No. 108/92. The appeal was barred by 565 days. The respondents filed an application seeking condonation of delay and by the order impugned herein, that delay was condoned. The impugned order reads thus:This is an application to condone the delay of 565 days in filing an appeal. The petition is seriously opposed by the respondent. But taking into consideration the averments contained in the affidavit filed in support of the petition to condone the delay, we are inclined to allow the petition. The petition stands allowed.3. It would be noticed from a perusal of the impugned order (supra) that the court has not recorded any satisfaction that the explanation for the delay was either reasonable or satisfactory, which is essential pre-requisite for condonation of delay.4. That apart, we find...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC3968; 1997LC787(SC); [1997]228ITR253(SC); JT1997(8)SC173; 1997(6)SCALE175; (1997)7SCC764; [1997]Supp4SCR189
ORDERSuhas C. Sen, J.1. The question in this case is whether the subsidy received by the assessee-Company from the Andhra Pradesh Government it taxable as revenue receipt or not. It appears from the notification issued by the Andhra Pradesh Government that certain facilities and incentives were to be given to all the new industrial undertakings which commenced production on or after 1.1.1969 with investment capital (excluding working capital) not exceeding Rs. 5 crores. The incentives were to be allowed for a period of five years from the date of commencement of production. Concession is also available for subsequent expansion of 50 per cent and above of existing capacities provided in each case, the expansion was located in a city or town or panchayat area other than that in which the existing unit is located. The incentives were :(a) Refund of sales tax on raw materials, machinery and finished goods, levied by the State Government subject to a maximum of 10% of the equity capital pai...
Tag this Judgment!