Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998(3)SCALE672
ORDER1. We have read the Review Petition and its annexures. For the purposes of the Review Petition we shall assume that the review petitioner had voted for the no-confidence motion. The criminal proceedings allege an agreement and bribe to vote against the no-confidence motion. Therefore, the protection of Article 105(2) is not available to the Review Petitioner.2. The review petition is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC554; 1998(62)ECC1; 1998LC257(SC); 1998(101)ELT5(SC); JT1998(5)SC629; (1998)5SCC361
ORDER1. The Revenue is in appeal against an order of CEGAT which holds thus:'In the facts and circumstances of the case and after going through the relevant authorisation and note-sheet order, we are of the view that the Collector simply authorised the Superintendent to file an appeal without applying her mind. She should have indicated whether order passed by the authorities below is legal or otherwise. In the absence of such averment as envisaged in Section 35B(2) of CESA and since the authorisation is neither legal nor proper, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. Ordered accordingly.'2. The provisions of Section 35B(2) clearly require as a prerequisite to the direction to any Central Excise Officer to file an appeal the formation of the opinion by the Collector that the order against which the appeal is to be filed is 'not legal or proper'. We asked the learned counsel to show us what the noting was that the Collector had made in this case. It is not before us. Learned couns...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998IVAD(SC)298; AIR1998SC2086; JT1998(3)SC636; (1998)120PLR243; 1998(3)SCALE367; (1998)5SCC207; [1998]3SCR112
K.T. Thomas, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellants are dealers in food-grains having their business places at two certain localities in Ferozepur District (Punjab). Appellants in one appeal are dealers at Guru Har Sahai and appellants in the other appeals are dealers at Talwandi. According to them, they have been doing business at the old market areas in those localities for over fifty years and the State Government have declared such places as 'market area' as per the provisions of Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act 1961 (For short 'the Markets Act'). Those areas attained much development with many facilities due to increased governmental activities.3. With the enactment of Punjab New Mandi Township (Development and Regulation) Act 1960 (for short 'Mandi Township Act') powers have been conferred on the State Government to create and declare new Market (Mandi) Townships. As per Section 3 of that Act, the State Government have power to sell, lease or otherwise transfer either by allotme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC543; (1999)ILLJ1211SC; (1998)5SCC454
1. Out of these two civil appeals before us, Civil Appeal No. 556 of 1998 arises out of the judgment and order dated 18-12-1995 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 2923 of 1995 filed by the appellant, whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. Whereas, Civil Appeal No. 557 of 1998 arises out of the judgment and order dated 31-1-1997 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Original Application No. 1647 of 1996 rejecting the application of the appellant on the ground that the appellant being still in army service, it has no jurisdiction to decide such an application.2. It appears that the Posts and Telegraphs Service Selection Board issued an advertisement inviting applications to fill in 1200 vacancies of clerks in the Posts & Telegraphs Department. The appellant herein, in response to the said advertisement, submitted an application to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1998(9)SC152; (1998)9SCC691
ORDER1. The appellants are Plaintiffs 4 to 7 in Civil Suit No. 134 of 1997 which was filed in the Court of the learned Senior Sub-Judge, Ludhiana. We need not trace the history of the ease. The High Court, while dealing with their case, opined thus; 'Case of Plaintiffs 4 to 7 is based upon the sale deed alleged to have been executed by Smt Sahib Devi in favour of one Sarwan Singh, predecessor-in-interest of these plaintiffs and suffering a decree by her in his favour. The writ petitioner has placed on record a death certificate issued by Chief Registrar (Birth and Death), Annexure P-10, wherein her date of death is recorded as 13-8-1963. Basis of the claim of these plaintiffs is the sale deed dated 24-11-1958 and the judgment and decree of the civil court dated 16-3-1964. This latter document, i.e., the judgment and decree dated 16-3-1964 becomes doubtful in view of death certificate Annexure P-10 dated 13-8-1963. Counsel for the respondent made an oblique reference to the pendency of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC2317; 1998(2)BLJR1113; [1998]92CompCas772(SC); 1998(2)CTC382; JT1998(3)SC341; (1998)IIIMLJ98(SC); (1998)120PLR608; RLW1998(2)SC318; 1998(3)SCALE377; (1998)5SCC354
ORDERRajendra Babu, J.1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal arises out of an order made by the High Court of Bombay affirming an order made by the Trial Judge in a summary suit filed under Order 37 of C.P.C. whereby the Trial Judge had issued summons for Judgment and made it absolute against the appellants and consequently passed a decree against them for a sum of Rs. 37,51,519.43 with interest and certain other incidental charges. A suit was brought by the respondents on the basis of bills of exchange in respect of which the appellants are the acceptOrs. M/s. Khanna Sales Corporation are the drawees of the bill who have Local Bill Discounting facility with the respondents. Under the said facility, M/s. Khanna Sales Corporation discounted the bills of exchange. The respondent bank made payments to M/s. Khanna Sales Corporation on the basis of the bills of exchange. Since the amounts under the Bills of Exchange were not paid and received by the respondent bank when they were presented within...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC2327; 1998(1)ALD(Cri)883; 1998(2)ALT(Cri)92; 1998(46)BLJR1118; 1998CriLJ3287; 1998(2)Crimes295(SC); JT1998(3)SC584; 1998(3)SCALE383; (1998)5SCC343; [1998]3SCR104
M.K. Mukherjee, J.1. Leave granted. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. On August 7, 1990 the District Drugs Inspector, Hisar (Haryana) visited the premise of M/s. Naresh Medical Agencies, (hereinafter referred to as the 'firm'), purchased two samples of sodium chloride injections (hereinafter referred to as the 'drugs') and sent portions of each of those samples to the Government Analyst for analysis. The Analyst submitted his reports on September 10 and 11, 1990 to the effect that both the samples were not of standard quality and were misbranded and adulterated within the meaning of Sections 17 and 17A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ('Act' for short). The Inspector, on receipt of those reports, delivered copies thereof to the firm on September 17, 1990 along with a letter asking it to disclose the names and addresses and other particulars of the persons from whom the drugs had been purchased. In compliance therewith the firm, by its letter dated October 1, 1990, intima...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998IVAD(SC)382; AIR1998SC1978; JT1998(3)SC604; (1998)119PLR547; 1998(3)SCALE351; (1998)5SCC157; [1998]3SCR119
M. Srinivasan, J.1. Leave granted.2. This proceeding had its origin in an application by 60 persons claiming to be worshippers of Gurudwara Dera Lang Shri Guru Granth Sahib situate within the revenue estate of village Sardargarh, Tehsil and District Bahatinda under Section 7(1) of the Sikh Gurudwara Act 1925 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Act'). Under the provisions of Sub-section (8) of Section 7 of the Act, the Governor of Punjab issued a Notification No. 1301- GP dated 7th August 1984 published in the Government gazette alongwith a list of rights, titles and interests in properties said to belong to the said Gurudwara. One Mahant Puran Dass filed a petition under Section 8 of the Act with the State Government which was forwarded under Section 14 (1) of the Act to the Sikh Gurudwaras Tribunal, Punjab at Chandigarh. Mahant Puran Dass claimed that the institution was not a Sikh Gurudwara but it was a Dera of Udasi Sadhus. The Tribunal impleaded the appellant herein as party res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC2247; JT1998(3)SC540; RLW1998(2)SC315; 1998(3)SCALE330; (1998)5SCC301; 1999(1)SLJ20(SC)
ORDERS.P. Kurdukar, J. 1. This appeal by Special Leave is filed by the appellants challenging the correctness of the judgment and order dated 13.3.1997 passed in O.A.No. 1045 of 1995 by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'CAT') Calcutta. 2. The respondents who are 20 in number filed O.A. No. 1045 of 1995 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Calcutta alleging inter alia that they have been working as labourers since 1988 till date continuously and uninterruptedly in the printing press of the Eastern Railway at Calcutta. They were engaged as labourers through a contractor viz., M/s. Bandel Handling Porters Cooperative Society Ltd. Several labourers were also engaged by different organizations/ labour contractors for doing the work on several development projects undertaken by the Eastern Railway on contract basis. The contracts were entered into between the said co-operative societies and the authorities of the Eastern Railway. The respondents have been performing thei...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC3362; [2000(84)FLR86]; JT1998(9)SC362; (2000)ILLJ409SC; (1999)1SCC241
ORDER1. The respondent was an Executive Engineer in the U.P. Jal Nigam. He was considered for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer along with certain other Executive Engineers but he was not promoted because on the date on which he was considered for promotion there existed an adverse entry for the year 1974-75 in his character roll, against which a representation, admittedly, was pending with the appellant. The representation was subsequently allowed on 10-8-1978 and by orderdated 10-4-1979 he was promoted to the post of Superintending Engineer. The respondent approached the High Court under Article 226 of theConstitution of India by means of a writ petition for a direction that this seniority may be restoredin terms of Regulation 23(6) of the U.P. Jal Nigam Service of Engineers (Public HealthBranch) Regulations, 1978. By order dated 9th October, 1991, the writ petition was allowed andthe direction was issued to the appellant to reckon the respondent's seniority in accorda...
Tag this Judgment!