Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)10SCC239
The Text below is only a summarized version of the order pronouncedRevisional jurisdiction should not have been exercised in quashing the charges framed under Sections 420 448 34 of the IPC and was irrelevant as to whether the seller were bhumidars or not, but whether they had the right, title or interest to sell the land. The appeal is allowed and the order of the trial court is restored....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)10SCC196
ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant who was a Constable has been dismissed from service by the departmental authority without holding any inquiry and exercising power under Article 311(2), second proviso, clause (b) of the Constitution of India. Having failed in his attempt to get the order of the departmental authority annulled in appeal, the appellant approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”) mainly contending that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, dispensation of an inquiry is not justified. The Tribunal having dismissed his application, the appellant approached the High Court by way of a writ petition and the High Court having dismissed his writ petition, the appellant is in appeal before this Court. 3. Mr Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that though the employer has the power to dispense with an inquiry under Article 311(2), second proviso, clause (b) of the Constitution...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC221; (2000)2CALLT25(SC); 89(2000)CLT293(SC); JT1999(8)SC554; 1999(6)SCALE698; (1999)9SCC514; [1999]Supp4SCR230
ORDER1. In this batch of civil appeals the principal question that arises for consideration is as to whether the Arbitrator has got jurisdiction to award interest for the pre-reference period in cases which arose prior to commencement of the Interest Act, 1978. The Interest Act, 1978 came into force w.e.f. 19.8.1981. Before enforcement of this, the Interest Act, 1839 was holding the field. Under the impugned judgment, the High Court has awarded interest for the pre-reference period and this is how the State of Orissa has filed all these appeals.2. Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta, learned Advocate appearing in support of these appeals urged that the question of payment of interest for the pre-reference period is no more resin integral as the said question has been answered in the negative by this Court in catena of judgments. However, Mr. Anil Diwan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, urged that in view of judgment of this Court in State of Orissa v. G.C. Roy : [1991]3SCR417 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)10SCC313
S.P. Kurdukar and; R.P. Sethi, JJ.1. Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal is at the behest of the plaintiff. On 29-4-1995, an ex parte decree was passed. The said decree came to be confirmed by the lower appellate court. The High Court however interfered with the judgment and decree passed by the courts below and allowed the second appeal filed by the defendant and remitted the matter back to the trial court for disposal in accordance with law.2. On a perusal of the judgment of the High Court, we find that the High Court has not complied with the requirement of Section 100, in particular, sub-section (4) of the Civil Procedure Code. Without formulating a substantial question of law, the High Court has proceeded to consider the evidence and other material on record and accordingly allowed the second appeal. In our opinion, the course adopted by the High Court while allowing the second appeal is totally unsustainable in view of Section 100 of the Civil Proced...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1999(3)KLT791(SC); 2000(II)OLR(SC)102; (2000)2SCC356
ORDER1. Special leave granted.2. The trial Court had decreed the suit for recovery which had been filed by the respondent. On appeal, the lower appellate Court reversed the said decision whereupon a second appeal was filed by the respondent herein before the High Court. The High Court by the impugned judgment allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. Hence this appeal by special leave.3. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel. Shri Paikeday for the appellant that in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC, the High Court was required to frame a substantial question of law which was not done in the instant case. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel. Shri K. Sukumaran for the respondent that there was a State amendment made in Section 100 in Kerala wherein a new Clause (d) was inserted to the effect that the finding of the lower appellate Court on any question of fact material to right decision of the case on the merits being in conflic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC164; 2000CriLJ384; JT1999(8)SC481; 1999(3)KLT894(SC); 1999(6)SCALE689; (1999)8SCC638; [1999]Supp4SCR239
M.B. Shah, J. 1. Leave granted.2. These appeals by special leave are filed by the State of U.P. against the judgment and order dated 28 November, 1997 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2747-48 of 1980 whereby the High Court accepted the plea bargain and maintained the conviction of the respondent under Section 304 part I, I.P.C, but altered the sentence to the period of imprisonment already undergone (without stating actual period of imprisonment undergone by the respondent) plus a fine of Rs. 5000 in default of payment R.I. for six months. The respondent along with two others was charged under Section 302 read with Sections 307 and 34 I.P.C. for committing the murder of one Shyamadeo in Sessions Case No. 233 of 1980. The Sessions Judge, Ballia by his judgment and order dated 28.11.1980 convicted the respondent under Section 304 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo eight years R.I. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent preferred an appeal befo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC6; 2000(1)ALD(Cri)477; 2000CriLJ165; 1999(4)Crimes320(SC); JT1999(8)SC487; 1999(3)KLT907(SC); RLW2000(1)SC45; 1999(6)SCALE693; (1999)8SCC660
ORDERThomas, J.1. Leave granted.2. Two persons stood as sureties for bailing out a foreign national who was arraigned before a criminal court at Bangalore. But that foreigner, when released from jail, slipped out of India with the result that the two sureties are now in jeopardy. The criminal court proceeded against them for failure to produce the accused, in court. The magistrate imposed a penalty of Rupees twenty five thousand on each of the sureties. They have been thenceforth approaching all the tiers of judicial hierarchy, one after the other, for escaping from the penalty and through that route they have reached this Court now.3. The accused, for whom the appellants became sureties, is one Mohan Dharmaraja. He was under indictment for the offences mentioned in Section 466 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code besides a few other offences under the Registration of Foreigners Act and The Passports Act, 1967. He was arrested on 26.11.1995 and remained in jail for nearly thirteen months u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000(121)ELT13(SC); JT1999(10)SC511; (2000)2SCC182
ORDER1. There appears to us to be an apparent conflict between the view taken earlier in Collector of Central Excise v. Usha Martin Industries - : 1997ECR257(SC) , and the view taken in Motiram Tolaram v. U.O.i. - : 1999ECR48(SC) - paragraph 12. Both are judgments of Benches of three learned judges. This matter must, therefore, be heard by a Constitution Bench.Place before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate directions....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC219; (2000)2CALLT8(SC); JT1999(8)SC502; 1999(6)SCALE663; (1999)8SCC455; 2000(2)SLJ415(SC); (2000)1UPLBEC156
ORDERS.P. Kurdukar, J.1. This Civil Appeal by Special Leave is filed by the Appellant who was the applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in Original Application No. 263 of 1994. The Central Administrative Tribunal (for short CAT) by its judgment and order dated March 17, 1997 dismissed the original application filed by the Appellant holding that the same is devoid of any merits. It is this order which is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.2. The dispute in this appeal relates to filling up of the vacancy of Office Superintendent Grade II in the Guntupalli Workshop (Andhra Pradesh) Railways. The notification dated 28.11.1990 was issued for filling up the said vacancy. The roster points to be filled were 13 to 18. It is common ground that 14th point in the roster was reserved for SC and 17th point for ST. After following the procedure for selection, a provisional list of empanelled candidates for the said posts was prepared and issued vide notificatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000LC764(SC); (2001)9SCC198
S.P. Bharucha and; V.N. Khare, JJ.1. The appellants claimed the benefit of an exemption notification in respect of refractory blocks of special shape imported by them. The said notification gave such exemption to refractory bricks and there was a trade notice issued by the Bombay Customs House for the information and guidance of importers, clearance agents and all others concerned that refractory blocks of special shape were covered by the expression “bricks of special shape” appearing in the said notification. The Tribunal, however, declined to take the trade notice into account on the ground that it could not enlarge the scope of the said notification.2. This Court has consistently held that the authorities are bound by the trade notices that they issue and cannot argue to the contrary. (See Ranadey Micronutrients v. CCE1.) It was, therefore, not open to the Revenue to contend that the said notification did not exempt refractory blocks.3. Learned counsel for the Revenue s...
Tag this Judgment!