Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1526; [1999(81)FLR37]; JT1998(7)SC614; (1998)9SCC355
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Respondent 1 in his application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, challenged the selection process for appointment to the post of Extra Departmental Branch Postmaster, Mannarmala Post Office.3. The Superintendent of Post Offices invited applications through the Employment Exchange for the post of Extra Departmental Branch Postmaster on 4-9-1991. The appellant-Employment Officer, Parinthalmanna, sent from the Live Register maintained by the Employment Exchange, in the order of registration date, the names of 9 candidates. The last candidate whose name was so sent had registered on 31-12-1986. The nine candidates were called for interview and Respondent 3 was selected for the post. Respondent 1 who had registered with the said Employment Exchange on 16-5-1988 challenged the selection on the ground that the cutoff date of 31-12-1986 which was applied by the Employment Exchange for forwarding the names of candidates was arbitrary and henc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC104; JT1998(4)SC285; (1998)3SCC179
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. These appeals relate to admission to the MBBS course for the 1997-98 session in the various medical colleges in the State of Maharashtra. Admission to medical colleges in the said State is made on regional basis. The admission is governed by the rules issued by the State Government which provided for preparation of the merit list on the basis of the marks obtained in Physics, Chemistry and Biology in the Board examination. In the private medical colleges there were merit seats as well as payment seats. On the basis of their position in the merit list the appellants were offered merit seats in seven private medical colleges out of which five were recognised colleges and two were non-recognised colleges. The appellants did not choose to avail of the said offer of merit seats. They opted for payment seats in Padmashree Dr D.Y. Patil College, Vidyasagar, Respondent 2 herein. Subsequently, some vacancies occurred against merit seats in the said college and the appel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998IAD(SC)435; AIR1998SC801; JT1998(1)SC289; 1998(1)SCALE256; (1998)2SCC536; [1998]1SCR411; [1998]109STC134(SC)
ORDERJudgment pronounced by V.N. Khare, J.1. This Civil Appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 26th June, 1992 passed by the High Court of Kerala.2. According to the appellant, it purchases areca nuts locally and after processing them dispatches the same to agents in the North Indian States for sale on consignment who effect sales according to the market trends and render accounts, sales statements to the appellant. Drafts or cheques for sale proceeds less expenses and commission are also sent simultaneously and the appellant has been paying sales tax for each month by working out the purchase value involved in the sales effected by the agents monthly. It is also stated that at the close of each financial year sometimes certain stocks of goods remain with the agents and the appellant pays sales tax on the purchase value of such stock in subsequent year as and when the stock is sold and the accounts of sales in respect thereof are received from the agents as the stock acquires th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC2059; 1998(4)ALLMR(SC)358; JT1998(1)SC333; 1998(1)SCALE297; (1998)2SCC601; [1998]1SCR431
ORDER1. An additional affidavit of Undertaking has been filed in Court today by Mr. P Natarajan on behalf of the Industry, respondent No. 6.2. We have heard learned counsel for respondent No. 6, the learned Amices Curiae as also the learned counsel appearing for Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board.3. From a perusal of the affidavit filed by the Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board on 12-1-1998, it transpires that certain directions were issued by the Board in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 33A of the water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, as amended in 1988 to respondent No. 6. These directions were inter alia aimed at ensuring proper storage of effluent in lagoons and for ensuring proper storage of effluent in lagoons and for proper treatment and disposal of the treated effluent. As many as 11 directions, as detailed in the affidavit, were given. Para 5 of the said affidavit discloses that the Industry (respondent No. 6) has not complied ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC2553
ORDER1. Shri B.L. Das, Mining Officer, to whom notice was issued to show cause why proceeding to punish him for contempt of Court, on 13th January, 1998, be not initiated is present in Court alongwith his Counsel Mr. Raju Ramachandran, senior Advocate. Reply has not been filed till date. Mr. Raju Ramachandran submits that there has been some confusion in the matter of filing the reply because of the date given by the Registry of this Court in the formal notice issued to Shri B.L Das. Though we are of the opinion that since Shri BL Das was present in Court when notice was given in him and, therefore, there was no scope for any confusion, but in the interest of Justice, we accede to the request of Mr. Raju Ramachandran and grant one week further time to Shri Das to file his reply. 2. We request Mr. H. N. Salve, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. U. U. Lalit to assist the Court in the contempt proceedings against Shri Das. The contempt proceedings shall be listed separately with a se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998IIIAD(SC)301; AIR1998SC2679; 1999(1)ALT(Cri)31; 1998CriLJ4030; (1998)9SCC380
ORDER1. In this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, prayer has been made to modify a condition for bail imposed in this Court's order dated 7-11-1996, so as to permit the petitioners to go abroad, as and when they choose. While granting bail to the petitioners, this Court had imposed certain conditions; foremost of which was that the petitioners (appellants) will not leave the country. Bare-facedly, this condition was absolute as viewed in that manner a year back. Besides modification in the said condition, it has been pleaded that there are compulsions for the petitioners to go abroad inasmuch as their work in propagation of Hindu religion was suffering and they need to take medical advice and treatment too abroad. 2. Insofar as the absolute condition of the petitioners not leaving the country is concerned, learned Attorney General has candidly stated that the condition may be modified and it be left to the Court to grant the petitioners permission to leave the country on such conditions...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC795; JT1998(1)SC295; 1998(1)SCALE264; (1998)3SCC694; [1998]1SCR419; (1998)2UPLBEC1164
ORDERJudgement Pronounced by K. Venkataswami, J.1. The appellants feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Eranakulam Bench dated 28.2.1993 in O.A. No. 21/91 have filed this appeal by special leave. After going through the pleadings and judgment, we find that the issue raised before the Tribunal was no longer res integra but by wrong appreciation and application of law laid down by this Court, the Tribunal has handed down the judgment under challenge obliging the appellants to approach this Court.2. Respondents 1 and 2 were the contestants along with the respondents 3-11 and several others for the promotional post of Assistant purchase officer from the post of Purchase Assistant - B. The promotion was based on a written test followed by an interview and assessment of the confidential reports as prescribed in the office Memorandum dated 9.7.1987. The marks prescribed for written test, interview and confidential report were 50, 30 and 20 respectively. It ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC2585; [1998(79)FLR156]; JT1998(2)SC665; 1998(1)SCALE302; 1998(1)LC703(SC); (1998)2UPLBEC1132
ORDER1. With I.As. 3 to 6:2. In this group of matters, the employees working in the subsidiaries of National Textile Corporation have made a grievance about not being given the pay scales as per I.D. Act. pattern though their colleagues who are not covered by the said pattern and are covered by the Central D.A. pattern have been given such pay scales and revision from time to time. Their aforesaid grievance also centers round the non-implementation of the Office Memorandum, dated 19.7.1995 which is annexed at page 36 of the SLP. A conjoined reading of this O.M. shows that their claim for such hike in pay scale has been accepted in principle. However, difficulty arises in view of the recitals in paragraph 13 of the said O.M. which reads as under:'13. For sick PSEs registered with the BIFR, pay revision and grant of other benefits will be allowed only if it is decided to revive the Unit. The revival package should include the enhanced liability on this account. The benefit of pay revisio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998IAD(SC)431; AIR1998SC2265; JT1998(1)SC259; 1998(1)SCALE241; (1998)2SCC407; 1998(1)LC489(SC); (1998)1UPLBEC503
ORDERJudgement Pronounced by K. Venkataswami, J.1. Special leave granted.2. Heard counsel on both sides.3. The respondent was working as Police Constable in Kanyakumari District, Tamil Nadu. He was proceeded departmentally for the following charges:-'(i) Highly reprehensible conduct in having demanded and extracted gold jewels weighing 31 grams from one T. Pitchandi Asari, Thangam Jewellers, Alexandria Press Road, Nagercoil, under coercion on 28.5.1983 with other members of crime detective party.(ii) In having not issued with any receipt to the said T. Pitchandi Asari, or in not having seized the said jewels under proper mahazar; and(iii) In not having showed the jewels in any of the crime investigated by the Crime Detective Party.II. Highly reprehensible conduct as a member of Crime Detective Party; (i) In not having shown the arrest of one Hentry Victor and Shahul Hameed concerned in CCS. No. 257/83 under Section 457/380 IPC which was registered on 12.5.1983 on the complaint of T. De...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)10SCC529
1. These appeals stand placed before us in order to resolve an apparent conflict between the judgments of this Court in Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi, : 1983CriLJ159 and U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Modi Distillery, both having been rendered by two-Judge Benches. The necessity to resolve the conflict is to discern the vicarious liability, if any, of officers of a Company, being prosecuted under Special Acts where the Company is the offender.2. Before us is a complaint in which the Company and its Directors have been arraigned as accused and one of them has approached us for quashing of proceedings, having unsuccessfully tried for such relief before the High Court in jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC. It has been urged that at the very outset it be identified as to who out of the arraigned persons is to face the prosecution.3. Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which covers the topic 'Offences by Companies' reads as follows:'141. Offences by comp...
Tag this Judgment!