Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC1872; 86(1998)CLT738(SC); [1998(79)FLR396]; 1998(3)SCALE226; (1998)4SCC447; [1998]2SCR1108
Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. The appellant in Civil Appeals Nos. 3451-3455 of 1995, Gopabandhu Biswal, was in military service prior to November 1972. After his release from military service, he applied for the post of Assistant Commandant in the Orissa Military Police pursuant to an advertisement published by the Orissa Public Service Commission inviting applications from ex-military officers. He was selected and appointed as Assistant Commandant in the Orissa Military Police pursuant to the advertisement. The appellant qualified in the departmental examinations and was confirmed as Assistant Commandant with effect from 15-11-1975. Thereafter, according to the appellant, though he was eligible for consideration for promotion to the Indian Police Service cadre, he was not considered for promotion to the Indian Police Service (IPS) cadre because according to the respondents, only Deputy Superintendents of Police in the Orissa Police Force were eligible for promotion to the IPS cadre. The app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998IVAD(SC)185; AIR1998SC1959; JT1998(3)SC297; 1998(3)SCALE209; (1998)5SCC126; [1998]2SCR1065
M. Jagannadha Rao, J.1. Leave granted in S.L.P (C) No. 7766 of 1994.2. These Civil Appeals and Transferred Cases raise common questions and can be disposed of together. The Civil Appeals arise out of judgments of the High Court of Allahabad and Rajasthan High Court. The transferred cases arise from the Delhi High Court and from Railway Claims Tribunal (Lucknow Bench). Counsel have referred to the documents contained in T.C. No. 47 of 1997 (Eastern coalfield Ltd. v. Ashoka Silicate & Glass Works, Delhi) for convenience, apart from the pleadings and documents in the other paper books. T.C. No 47 of 1997, referred to above, is a case filed as C.W.P. No. 864 of 1985 in the Delhi High Court and transferred to this Court by virtue of orders in T.P. (C) No. 713. of 1995. On transfer it was numbered in this Court as T.C. No. 47 of 1997.3. The broad facts in all the cases are similar. The appellants/petitioners are all consignees of coal from the collieries. The issue relates to the right of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC2090; [1998(79)FLR534]; 1998(3)SCALE270; (1998)4SCC379; [1998]2SCR1128
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The appellant is an Ex-Serviceman. He was accepted as a Tehsildar candidate w.e.f. September 13, 1974 and allowed the benefit of military service for the purposes of seniority and was assigned the deemed date of May 27,1973. It appears that certain adverse remarks came to be recorded in his Annual Confidential Reports for the years 1978-79,1981-82, 1982-83 and 1984-85. The appellant questioned the adverse remarks and sought their expunction by filling a writ petition on the High Court in 1987. The High Court on 2nd May, 1990 directed the expunction of the adverse entries in the Annual Confidential Report of the appellant. The High Court also set aside the orders passed by the competent authorities against refusal to expunge the adverse entries. The respondents were directed to grant consequential relief to the appellant. As a consequence of the judgment of the High Court dated 2nd May. 1990, the appellant was promoted as a District Revenue Officer on September ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998IVAD(SC)154; AIR1998SC1850; 1998(1)ALD(Cri)861; 1998(2)ALT(Cri)21; 1998(2)BLJR989; 1998CriLJ2515; 1998(2)Crimes254(SC); JT1998(3)SC290; RLW1998(2)SC289; 1998(3)SCALE200
S.S. Mohammed Quadri, J. 1. On October 8, 1987, the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad Convicted the appellant, in S.C. No. 80 of 1986, for an offence punishable under Section 302, IPC for committing the murder of his wife, Smt. Shivratri Devi, by causing burn injuries and sentenced him to imprisonment for life after trying him for offences under Section 377 IPC, for committing sodomy with PW-2, and under Section 302, IPC for intentionally causing death of his wife on November 13, 1985. The conviction of the appellant was upheld by the Division bench of Patna High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 207 of 1987 (R) on August 5, 1988. Against that judgment of the High Court, he filed this appeal by special leave.2. The appellant was working as the officer-in-charge, Tisra P.S. in November, 1985 but was residing with his family in the quarters allotted to him at his former place of posting within the compound of Jharia, P.S. He had a servant, Narsingh Kumar (PW-2), aged about 16 yea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2629; 1999CriLJ2902; (1998)8SCC355
ORDER1. Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Only question that we have to consider in this appeal is what offence can be said to have been committed by the appellant on the basis of the facts found by the High Court. It has been held that while the appellant, deceased Bheem Singh and one Shah Megan were taking tea in the tea-club of the Air Force, 32 Wing (MT Section), an exchange of words took place between the appellant and the deceased on account of the demand made by the appellant for returning Rs 50,000 which he had advanced to the deceased. The appellant became angry and picked up the burning kerosene wick-stove and threw it on the deceased. Kerosene from the stove spilled over the clothes of the deceased and as the burning wicks came in contact with his clothes they caught fire. The deceased ultimately died as a result of the burns received by him.3. What was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant was that the appellant had no enmity with the dece...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998(3)SCALE666
ORDERContempt Petition (C) 158 of 19981. Contemnor Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6-10, 12, 13, 17-20, 23-26, 28, 30 and 31 are present in the Court. The personal appearance of these contemnors is exempt till further orders. 2. Some other respondents remain unserved. Let steps be taken by the Director of Estates to serve them in the ordinary way as also dasti. IA No. 46 & 46A3. It has been gathered that Bangalow No. 7, Raisina Road (Type VIII) for use and occupation of the President of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Department of Consumer Affairs has never been acceptable by the Supreme Court for one reason or the other. We, therefore, direct the Director of Estates to earmark another Bungalow of Type VIII for the President of the Commission. The factum recorded on 30th March, 1998 would stand added to thereby. 4. List on 12th May, 1998. IA No. 455. Mr. Altaf Ahmad, learned Additional Solicitor General says that without prejudice to the rights of the Government over the property i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1509; JT1998(6)SC82; (1998)5SCC509; [1998]6SCR82
ORDER1. The short question involved in this SLP is whether notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was made within the requisite period of one year from the date of publication of notification under Section 4. Notification under Section 4 was last published on 23-2-1988. There is no dispute between the parties that this is the starting point for limitation. Declaration under Section 6 was signed by the Secretary on 22-2-1989 but it was gazetted on 9-3-1989. Now the short question is what is the date of making of this declaration under Section 6. If 22-2-1989 is the date taken for that purpose, it would obviously be within one year from the publication of Section 4 notification. But if the date of making of the declaration of the notification is 9-3-1989 it is obviously beyond one year. There are two judgments of two-Judge Benches of this Court that have taken the view that mere signing of the notifications under Section 6 by the Secretary without gaze ting it wou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998IVAD(SC)220; AIR1998SC1855; JT1998(3)SC269; 1998(3)SCALE153; (1998)4SCC577; [1998]2SCR1016
A.S. Anand, J.1. Special leave granted.2. This judgment will dispose of the appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 13190 of 1997 and an 'order' made by a learned single Judge (Mr. Justice R.D. Vyas) of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Indore Bench) in Miscellaneous Appeal 143 of 1994 directing the appeal to 'be referred to' this Court for deciding it 'finally' since both matters arise out of the same order.3. Notice of some salient facts is necessary for disposal of the matter before us.4. Dispute between the parties relates to land bearing No. 8/1 and 8/2, M.G. Road, Indore. According to the appellant, the suit land belongs to various members of Hindu Undivided Family, who had entered into an agreement with it to sell that land. An agreement containing various stipulations is stated to have been executed between the parties. According to the appellant, it had paid certain amounts, out of the total sale price and had got registered a sale deed executed for 13 out of 28 portions of the s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC2330; 1998(3)ALLMR(SC)640; JT1998(3)SC468; 1998(3)SCALE165; (1998)5SCC310; [1998]2SCR1032
Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. Leave granted.2. World Tanker Carrier Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the ' WTCC' is the appellant in these appeals. WTCC is a foreign company registered in Monrovia, Liberia. It is the owner of a vessel m.t. 'New World'. The vessel is registered in Hong Kong. On 21st of December, 1994, New World was involved in a collision with a vessel m.v. 'YA Mawlaya' in international waters 200 nautical miles off the coast of Portugal. YA Mawlaya is a vessel registered in Cyprus. It is owned by M/S. Kara Mara Shipping Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Kara Mara'), a company registered in Cyprus. The said company is referred to variously in these proceedings as despondent owner/chartered of YA Mawlaya. On 20th October, 1994, Kara Mara sold the vessel YA Mawlaya to Vestman Shipping Company Ltd., a company registered in Cyprus. Kara Mara thereafter became bare boat charterers of YA Mawlaya. Prior to the sale of the said vessel, Kara Mara had entered into a mana...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998(1)ALD(Cri)855; 1998(2)ALT(Cri)58; 1998(2)Crimes245(SC); JT1998(3)SC443; 1998(3)SCALE178; (1998)6SCC50; [1998]2SCR1056
K.T. Thomas, J.1. This appeal by special leave is by the State of Uttar Pradesh challenging the acquittal order passed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in a murder case. The Sessions Court had convicted four accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian penal Code and sentenced all of them to imprisonment for life and it was on their appeal that the conviction was reversed. The four accused were arrayed in this appeal as respondents, but first respondent Harban Sahai passed away during the pendency of this appeal. So the case was considered only as against the remaining three respondents. They are: 2nd accused - Sarwan Sahai, 3rd accused- Virendra and 4th accused - Vimlesh.2. The genesis of the events which led to the occurrence in this case was the murder of Virendra's father (Shyam Manohar) in 1976. In that murder case PW 1 (Shashi Bhushan) and his uncle (Jagdish Prasad the deceased in this case) were challaned by the police as accused which ended in their c...
Tag this Judgment!