Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998VIAD(SC)600; AIR1998SC2769; 1998(2)ALD(Cri)553; 1999(1)BLJR57; 1998CriLJ4082; 1998(3)Crimes224(SC); (1999)1GLR587; JT1998(6)SC66; RLW1999(1)SC81; 1998(5)SCALE8; (1998)6
S.S.M. Quadri, J.1. Leave is granted.2. These three appeals are filed by the Manager, Pinjrapole against the common judgment of the High Court of Gujarat dated April 8, 1997. The short question that arises for consideration in these appeals is: whether the order of the High Court declining to grant interim custody of the animals to the appellants is contrary to Section 35 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.3. The facts giving rise to this question may be noticed here. While the sheep and goats [hereinafter referred to as 'animals'] were being transported, the Gujarat police seized them for the alleged violation of provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 (for short, the Act), Bombay Police Act and Rules 65 to 75 of the Gujarat Diseases of Animals Control Rules. 1963. It is a common ground that the offences alleged are non-cognizable. The learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanera, on their production before him, directed that the custody of the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998VIAD(SC)647; AIR1998SC2776; (1999)1CALLT11(SC); JT1998(6)SC169; (1999)IMLJ68(SC); RLW1999(1)SC103; 1998(5)SCALE4; (1998)7SCC367
ORDERRajendra Babu, J.1. The plaintiff in a suit is in appeal before us. He filed a suit on July 4, 1970 claiming half share in a house of which he is in joint possession and sought for partition. The defendants in the suit resisted the claim and contended that the plaintiff had no right, title or interest in the said house and the same belongs to him exclusively of which he is in possession as owner. The trial court found that the evidence tendered by the appellant is inconsistent, unnatural and does not inspire confidence. The case put forth by him is that the defendant had obtained from the office of the Sub-Registrar the original deed dated 3rd November, 1963. However, execution of the said deed had not been established and it was also not clear from the material on record that the consent of the defendant in respect thereof had been obtained. There was no evidence to show that the appellant had made any contribution either towards the purchase of the said site or in the constructi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998VIAD(SC)574; AIR1998SC3012; JT1998(6)SC181; 1998(5)SCALE12; (1999)1SCC141; [1998]Supp1SCR188
S. Rajendra Babu, J.1. This is a tenant's appeal arising out of certain proceedings initiated under the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The respondent-landlord filed a petition Under Section 14(l)(e) read with Section 25B of the Act seeking for the possession of the house by evicting the appellant as he required the same for his bona fide need and occupation. The appellant before us filed his written statement contending that the landlord has alternate accommodation at Subzi Mandi and he has deliberately shifted to the disputed premises with an ulterior motive to make out a case for the eviction of the respondent and this fact of availability of the said premises in subzi Mandi had not disclosed in the petition.2. In the course of the proceedings before the Rent Controller a finding was recorded by him as to the bona fide requirement of the respondent in the following terms:-'If the accommodation in occupation of the petitioner on the ground floor of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC3118; (1999)1CALLT1(SC); JT1998(6)SC174; (1999)IMLJ41(SC); 1998(5)SCALE17; (1998)7SCC327; [1998]Supp1SCR206
S. Rajendra Babu, J.1. These appeal arise out of dispute between two competing court auction purchasers on the basis that the rights derived by each of them is superior to the other emerging out of alleged hypothecation of such property. Respondent filed a suit in O.S. 12 of 1967 on the files of II subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli to restrain the appellant herein from interfering with respondents possession of the suit property. The appellant filed in the same courts a suit in O.S. 211 of 1967 for redemption of the suit land, and recovery of possession thereof. The undisputed facts leading to the two suits are as under : The suit land belonged to one Ganesan who executed a registered security bond on 18.12.1950 for a sum of Rs. 3,000 hypothecating the suit property and also executed a promissory note in favour of one Vairavan Chettiar and borrowed moneys. Vairavan Chettiar obtained a decree on the foot of the Security Bond and in execution thereof brought the suit property to sale. R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)10SCC606
ORDER1. In this application by M/s. Namah Shivay Enterprises, the prayer is that the slot allotted to them at present, i.e. 9.30 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. on every Monday must continue to be allotted for the extended episodes also, as Doordarshan agreed to have the extension of the serial for another 56 episodes more. This is seriously opposed by the original appellant Prime Channel, on the ground that they were asked to wait till the completion of the initially agreed 91 episodes. As for the intervenor, the contention is that, Monday being an auspicious day for Shiva worshippers, it would be more appropriate that the extended episodes are screened on Monday and not on Tuesday. On the other hand, it is represented on behalf of the original appellant that there are many other considerations for their serial to be screened on Monday itself.2. We do not think that it is for the Court to decide as to which day should be allolted to one serial or the other. We leave it to Doordarshan to fix up the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)10SCC565
ORDER1. In this writ petition filed by the Association of Private Engineering Colleges in Andhra Pradesh, the following prayers have been made: '(a) direct grant of NRI/foreign quota for private engineering colleges in the State of A.P. at 5% with the liberty to admit others within this quota in case NRI/foreign students are not available and the seats are vacant, until the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in Unnikrishnan case, Unnikrishnan, J.P. v. State of A.P., : [1993]1SCR594 is reviewed; (b) issue a writ of mandamus to the respondent as in prayer (a); and (c) pass such further or other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit on the facts and circumstances of the case.' 2. Upon notice being issued, counter has been filed by Shri A.K. Goyal, Secretary to Government, Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the orders made in Unnikrishnan case, Unnikrishnan P.J. v. State of A.P., : (1993)4SCC111 were modified by this Court o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)10SCC595
ORDER1. Special leave granted. 2. On the application of some citizens alleging pollution, the Green Bench of the Calcutta High Court passed an order on 16-5-1997. By the said order, a direction was given to Respondent 14 Municipal Authorities to remove all cows and calves which had been kept by the present petitioner, namely, Iskcon and the said order had been passed without even noticing Iskcon. On an application being filed for the recall of this order the High Court rejected the same by order dated 6-6-1997. Thereafter, Iskcon appears to have filed a writ petition seeking relief of injunction but that application was dismissed. We are not concerned with the said proceedings in the present petitions. Mr Ray appearing for the petitioners contends that without giving notice to Iskcon the Green Benoh could not have disposed of the public interest petition by order dated 16-5-1997 and, therefore, the said order is liable to be vacated. There is no dispute that no notice of the proceeding...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998VIAD(SC)545; AIR1998SC2779; JT1998(6)SC21; 1998LabIC3496; (1999)IMLJ27(SC); 1998(4)SCALE694; (1998)7SCC66; [1998]Supp1SCR156; 1999(1)SLJ246(SC)
S. Saghir Ahmad, J.1. Leave granted.2. S.L.P. (C) 10372 of 1997 has been filed by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'NBCC') against the judgment and order dated 13.9.96 of the Delhi High Court by which C.W.P. No. 1464 of 1992 in which the respondents' prayer for directions to NBCC to pay the Foreign Allowance @ 125% of the basic pay, as revised by the Fourth Pay Commission, w.e.f. 01.01.1986 while they were still in foreign service in a Foreign Country, was allowed, payment of Deputation (Duty) Allowance was also allowed by another order dated 25.07.97 passed in CM 8287/96 filed in the same Civil Writ. The other S.L.P. namely, S.L.P. (Civil) No. 20753 of 1997 arises out of C.W.P. No. 472 of 1994 filed by the respondents in that case for the same reliefs. This writ petition has also been allowed by the Delhi High court by judgment and order dated 25.07.97 in which the earlier judgments dated 13.09.96 and 25.07.97 have been followed. The questions involved in both the appeals are...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998VIAD(SC)357; AIR1998SC3043; 1998(2)ALD(Cri)529; 1998(4)ALLMR(SC)645; 1998(2)ALT(Cri)289; 1999(1)BLJR51; [1998]94CompCas812(SC); (1998)4CompLJ228(SC); 1998CriLJ4066; (1998)6SCC514
M.K. Mukherjee, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.02.1992 rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1373 of 1991. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are as under.2. On 04.01.1991, the respondent handed over a cheque for Rs. 30,000 to the appellant in liquidation of the loan he obtained from the latter. The cheque was presented in the bank for encashment on 05.01.1991 but was returned for want of sufficient funds in the account of the respondent. The appellant then sent a lawyer's notice to the respondent on 15.01.1991 calling upon him to pay the aforesaid amount. On receipt of the notice the respondent approached the appellant and requested for some time to pay the amount. In view of the assurance so given the appellant did not initiate any further proceeding but as the respondent did not keep his promise he presented the cheque in the bank once again on 04.05.1991. This time also the cheque was dis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998VIAD(SC)609; AIR1999SC145; JT1998(6)SC196; 1998LabIC3602; 1998(5)SCALE144b; (1998)6SCC627
ORDER1. This appeal against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal deserves to be dismissed as we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal is correct.2. The only question raised before the Tribunal was whether appellant nos. 2 & 3 were entitled to the benefit of one increment under Fundamental Rule 22C on their promotion from the post of Technical Assistant to the post of Office Superintendent Grade - II in 1988. The Tribunal held that appellant nos. 2 & 3 were governed by Rule 7 of the Civilians in Defence Service (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986 and not by the Fundamental Rule 22C. We are also of the opinion that the appellant nos. 2 & 3 being civilians in defence services the specific rule applied to them and not the general provision contained in FR 22-C. Moreover, the two cadres of Technical Assistant and Office Superintendent Grade - II stood merged with effect from 1.1.86 and the two pay-scales attached to their cadres also merged with effect from the same gate....
Tag this Judgment!