Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998IAD(SC)344; AIR1998SC788; 1998CriLJ1106; [1999(82)FLR593]; JT1998(1)SC124; (1999)IILLJ694SC; 1998(1)SCALE136; (1998)2SCC383; [1998]1SCR143; 1998(1)LC406(SC)
ORDERS.P. Bharucha, J.1. The respondent has been served but has not put in an appearance.2. The appellant was convicted of an offence under Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000. In appeal, the Sessions Court upheld the conviction but set aside the sentence and directed that the appellant be released on probation under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on his entering a bond for good conduct in the sum of Rs. 5,000 and furnishing a surety for the like amount.3. By reason of the appellant's conviction, the respondent, in whose employ the appellant was, dismissed him from Government service. The dismissal was challenged by the appellant in a writ petition filed before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. By the order dated 25th March, 1985, which is under appeal, the writ petition was summarily dismissed.4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the convictio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC840; JT1998(8)SC516; (1998)9SCC327
ORDER1. Rule 7 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service (Judicial Recruitment) Rules, 1967, provided that no person should be recruited to that service who was more than 35 years of age on the first date of January preceding the year the examination for recruitment was conducted by the appellant-Commission. The first respondent was age-barred, but sought to rely upon an order dated 14-2-1985 in the following words: 'Sanction is accorded to the relaxation of upper age bar by two years, eight months and twenty-three days in favour of Shri Sudarshan Singh Jamwal, Librarian, High Court of Jammu and Kashmir. By order of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir. sd/- (Secretary to Govt.Law Department)'Meeting with resistance from the appellant, the first respondent moved the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in a writ petition. The writ petition was allowed on the basis that the State Government was competent to relax the age bar. 2. The said Rules had earlier provided for such relaxation in Rule 9-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998IIAD(SC)186; AIR1998SC966; 1998(46)BLJR1145; JT1998(1)SC523; (1998)IIMLJ94(SC); 1998(1)SCALE424; (1998)2SCC502; [1998]1SCR147; 1998(1)LC492(SC); (1998)2UPLBEC801
ORDERS. Saghir Ahmad, J.1. 'Magnificent promises are always to be suspected' is an adage which was forgotten by the appellant and his colleagues who not only believed such a promise but approached the Court for its enforcement in writ proceedings which have since reached this Court requiring us to decide whether the doctrine of 'Promissory Estoppel' can be invoked for the enforcement of a 'promise' made contrary to law.2. The appellant is a Demonstrator in the Pharmacy Department of S.N. Medical College, Agra where he was appointed on 11.01.73 and his services on that post were regularised on 28.6.76.3. The appellant and five of his other colleagues, working as Demonstrators in various Government Medical Colleges in U.P., filed a Writ Petition in the Allahabad High Court that the State Government as also the Director, Medical Education and Training, may be directed not to fill the posts of Lecturers in Pharmacy by direct recruitment and the same may be filled up, at least to the extent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998IIIAD(SC)10; AIR1998SC2812; JT1998(2)SC309; 1998(2)SCALE232; (1998)4SCC179; [1998]1SCR164
ORDERS. Saghir Ahmad, J.1. The appellants as also respondents 2 to 7 were permanent Junior Scale Stenographers in the Secretariat and other Government Departments. For promotion to the post of Senior Scale Stenographer, they were required to possess a speed of 80 words per minute in shorthand and 40 words per minute in typewriting. They could not attain that standard, but the spate of litigation filed by them against each other in quick succession, did really match their speed, whatever it be, in shorthand and typewriting. Without showing signs of fatigue and breathlessness, they started the litigation in 1984 and now in 1998 they seem to be, today, at the end of the litigative race.2. Promotion from Junior Scale Stenographers to the Senior Scale Stenographers are made in terms of the Rules knows as 'J & K Secretariat (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 1972' made by the State Government in exercise of its power under the Provision to Section 124 of the Constitution of Jammu & Kas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC2590; 1999(1)BLJR104; JT1998(4)SC289; (1999)ILLJ1070SC; (1998)3SCC137
ORDER1. This appeal is filed by one Yogendra Prasad Mandat who was appointed as a Forester in the Bihar State Forest Development Corporation in 1977. At the material time the appellant was posted at the Palamau Project of the Bihar State Forest Development Corporation. Up to about November 1981 the forest work was done by the Bihar State Forest Development Corporation on the basis of a lease granted to them by the State Government. In November 1981 the Bihar State Forest Development Corporation, which is an autonomous body decided to close down its project at Singhbhum and the departmental wing at Palamau. As a result of this decision the entire staff working at Singhbhum and a substantial staff working at Palamau became surplus.2. In order to absorb the staff so rendered surplus with the Bihar Stale Forest Development Corporation, meetings were held with the State Government Officers including the Chief Conservator of Forests. The minutes of the meeting dated 11-11-1981 record the dis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998VIAD(SC)126; AIR1998SC2959; 1998(60)ECC261; 1998(98)ELT298(SC); JT1998(4)SC316; (1998)3SCC161
ORDER1. M/s. Mahavir Aluminium Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') had imported one Extrusion Press along with accessories from U.K. in three consignments under bills of entry filed between 24-4-1988 and 17-5-1988. The said goods were classified under Heading 98.01 of the Customs Tariff. In respect of import under the Project Import Regulations 1986 customs duty was payable at the rate of 45% basic plus 45% auxiliary. The assessee paid the duty on that basis. Under Notification No. 40/78-Cus (as amended) there was a concession in the matter of customs duty payable on Extrusion Press falling under Chapter 84 of the Customs Tariffs and excise duty was payable at the rate of 35% basic. The claim of the assessee for the benefit of concessional rate of duty was rejected by the Assistant Collector as well as by the Collector of Customs (Appeal). The assessee filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998(1)ARBLR228(SC); [1999]96CompCas367(SC); JT1998(1)SC101; 1998(1)SCALE86; (1998)2SCC281; [1998]1SCR130
ORDERMrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. Leave granted.2. Application for impleadment allowed.3. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court dated 9th of October, 1996 in Arbitration Petition No. 22 of 1996 whereby the High Court has allowed the petition and passed a decree, under the provisions of the Foreign Awards (Recognition and Enforcement) Act, 1961, in terms of the foreign award dated 3rd of October, 1995, given by the second respondent-arbitrator at Odessa, Ukraine.4. In 1983 the 1st respondent-Black Sea Shipping Co. was a division of M/s. Sovefracht a wholly owned company of the then Government of the USSR. Under an agreement date 26.8.83 the 1st respondent appointed, inter alia, the appellants-M/s. Transocean Shipping Agency (P) Ltd. as their shipping agents for the 1st respondent's business of shipping and carriage of goods to and from various Indian ports. The engagement of the appellants by the 1st respondent was done under various agreements, the last of whic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998(102)ELT241(SC); (2000)10SCC478
1. These appeals by the Revenue are directed against the judgments of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). They raise a common question as to whether 'Abbalide' imported by the respondents is classifiable as 'an organic chemical' under Chapter 29 or a mixture of odoriferous substances falling under Heading 33.02 of Chapter 33 of the Tariff in the Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tariff).2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under:M/s. S.H. Kelkcr & Co. Ltd., the respondent in CA No. 276 of 1991, had imported a consignment of 'Abbalide' in the year 1986. It was assessed to customs duty after being classified as falling under Chapter 29 of the Tariff. After the samples were got tested by the Customs Authorities and after receiving the test report, it was found that the item was a mixture with a basis of odoriferous substance and a show-cause notice dated 2-3-1987 was issued requiring...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1998(1)SC39; 1998(1)SCALE75; [1998]1SCR91
ORDER1. We have heard the learned Attorney General and the learned Amicus Curiae. The learned Attorney General has pointed out that the ad-hoc Committee set up pursuant to this Court's order dated 13th September, 1996 in IA No. 18 in WP (C) 4677 of 1985 headed by Justice R K Shukla is no longer necessary after the Constitution of the Authority under Section 3(3) of the Environment Protection Act headed by Shri Bhure Lal but there may be some matters pertaining to environment which may be out side the scope of the authority of the Bhure Lal Committee and be required to be dealt with by the concerned Statutory Authority. It is submitted that a clarification to this effect may be made of our order dated January 7, 1998. We are satisfied that this clarification of our earlier order is necessary. Accordingly, our order of January 7, 1998 shall be read with the following modification/addition:'In case there are certain matters which are outside the scope of the authority of Bhure Lal Committ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1998(1)SC92; 1998(1)SCALE84; (1998)2SCC66; [1998]1SCR93; 1998(1)LC242(SC)
ORDER1. This present Public Interest Petition contains five areas which need to be investigated by a High Powered Committee:-1. Large scale theft of electricity by consumers of all categories (in particular, HV1 and HV2) with or without connivance of officials of the Electricity Board and ways and means to dater it (together with extent of responsibility in cases of theft where no connivance is proved.)2. An instrumentation system for metering supply of electricity with appropriate checks and balances through computerised software so that theft of the electricity is minimised and proper recordings are always available.3. Energy Auditing and, in particular, proper systems of Auditing and metering electricity which is generated and supplied throughout the stage irrespective of the sector of area to which it is supplied.4. Political and high level interference in the independent functioning of the Board and accountability.5. Loss of coal wagons purported to be in transit of the Uttar Prad...
Tag this Judgment!