Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)10SCC200
The Text below is only a summarized version of the order pronouncedDirector of Collegiate Education and Anr. v. Sri Jagadguru Panchacharya Viswa Dharema Vidya Peetha and Ors.The issue to be determined was whether the High court was right in giving direction to pay reimbursement from government to employee reinstated in service of respondent No:3 when such a contention was not raised before the Tribunal. Allowing the appeal the apex Court observed that the High Court erred in issuing such direction as the question of liability of government to pay the back wages and other benefits was not in issue either before Tribunal or the High Court and therefore set aside the directions issued to the government ....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)10SCC199
The Text below is only a summarized version of the order pronouncedIn this case, the appellant filed a writ petition which was dismissed by the High Court as having no merits but the Court ordered payment of dues to the respondent with interest @ 12% p.m.The Court held that there is no merit in the appeal and hence no reason to interfere with High Court decision but altered the order that the rate of interest shall be 12% p.a. instead of 12% p.m....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)10SCC437
B.N. Kirpal and; S. Rajendra Babu, JJ.1. Special leave granted.2. Without going into the merits of the case because that may prejudice the writ petition which has been filed in the High Court by the respondent, we are clearly of the opinion that by way of an interim order the High Court could not have directed compassionate appointment to be given to the respondent either on casual or temporary or any other basis. Serious complications would arise if such interim order was complied with and ultimately it was found that the writ petition had no merit. While allowing this appeal and setting aside the judgment of the High Court, in our opinion it would be in order if the High Court hears the main writ petition itself and disposes of the same at an early date.3. Rs 5000 shall be paid by way of legal expenses by the appellants to the counsel for the respondent....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)10SCC264
B.N. Kirpal and; S. Rajendra Babu, JJ.( 1 ) Special leave granted.( 2 ) The respondent had filed in 1989 an eviction petition inter alia on the ground that the property had to be reconstructed. It was also alleged that the tenant had made certain alterations.( 3 ) The trial court dismissed the said petition and the respondent filed a revision before the High Court. On 14-7-1998, a Single Judge of the High court set aside the order of the trial court and ordered eviction of the appellant herein under Section 21 (1) (f) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act. It appears that an application for review was filed in which it was stated that counsel for the appellant herein was not present at the time when the High court allowed the revision petition and the order under review which had stated that the counsel for the parties had been heard was erroneous. The high Court dismissed the application for review in limine. Hence these appeals by special leave.( 4 ) We have heard the learned counsel for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
S.P. Kurdukar and; R.P. Sethi, JJ.1. Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment dated 23-10-1998.2. It is common premise that while admitting the appeal the High Court has framed the substantial questions of law which arise in the said second appeal and those questions of law are found at p. 65 of the compilation. Despite such questions of law having been framed, the High Court has not adverted to them in its impugned judgment. The High Court has proceeded to reappreciate the evidence and dispose of the second appeal: the High Court has partly allowed the second appeal and remanded the matter back to the trial court for disposal in accordance with law and as per the directions contained in its judgment. In our opinion the approach of the High Court is not correct and contrary to Section 100 CPC. The High Court must consider these two substantial questions of law which were framed at the time of admission of second appeal and must record its f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)10SCC399
M.Jagannadha Rao and; A.P. Misra, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. Heard counsel on both sides. The question relates to the promotion of the appellant to the post of Sub-Divisional Officer against the ten per cent quota allocated for those who have passed AMIE Examination.3. The admitted facts are that the appellant was appointed as a Junior Engineer on 16-6-1973 in the Haryana Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch) on regular basis. He appeared in AMIE(B) Examination in November 1979 and was declared successful on 3-3-1980. The Departmental Promotion Committee met in September 1980 to consider the cases of eligible candidates for promotion and took the view that the appellant was not eligible for promotion and that consequently, the case of the appellant could not be considered for promotion. The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court and the same was dismissed without giving any reason.4. In this appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the clarification dated ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)2SCC364
M.Jagannadha Rao and; A.P. Misra, JJ.1. The point that arises in these matters is whether it is permissible for the authorities to fix lesser number of qualifying marks for reserved candidates in the matter of “promotion”. It was held by the majority in Indra Sawhney case1 (SCC p. 748, para 831) and also by Sawant, J. (at pp. 565 & 566, at para 549) that for the purposes of “promotion” of the reserved candidates, it was not permissible to fix lesser qualifying marks though such a procedure could be adopted for “direct recruitment”. The abovesaid passages were referred to and relied upon by a two-Judge Bench in S. Vinod Kumar v. Union of India2 to say that the provision in the OM dated 21-1-1977 which permitted lesser qualifying marks for promotion of reserved candidates, was not valid.2. However, in Superintending Engineer, Public Health, U.T. Chandigarh v. Kuldeep Singh3 a three-Judge Bench of this Court was of the view that lesser qualifying ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)10SCC336
K.T. Thomas and; M.B. Shah, JJ.1. We are coming across a number of judgments rendered by Justice Girdharmalviya of the Allahabad High Court offering an opportunity to make a plea bargain in criminal appeals filed challenging the conviction and sentence passed under Section 304 or 307 of the Indian Penal Code and such other serious offences. Learned Judge seems to be taking his own earlier judgment dated 15-10-1996 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 3407 as a binding precedent for him to follow. Prima facie we are of the view that the invitation to all those appellants who stand convicted of serious offences to have the plea bargain with the High Court with the bait that the sentence would be slashed down to even a very short period already undergone, will open a gate leading to a serious miscarriage of justice. We feel that it is time to arrest further actions of such miscarriage of justice and therefore we resort to the step of suspending the operation of the aforesaid judgment (dated 15-1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC3710; [2000]99CompCas297(SC); 1999(3)CTC618; JT1999(8)SC142; 1999(6)SCALE486; (1999)8SCC436; [1999]Supp3SCR554; 2000(1)LC336(SC)
ORDERS. Saghir Ahmad, J.1. Leave granted in both the Special Leave Petitions. 2. Hindustan Construction Company Limited (for short, 'HCCL') was awarded a contract for the construction of Icha Dam across the river Kharkai in village Kuju by the State of Bihar (for short, 'the defendants'). The contract was awarded in the sum of Rs. 39,71,31,019 on 25.4.1989. The period of contract was 42 months and the work was to be completed by 24th of October, 1992. In terms of the agreement, HCCL was required to furnish, and it did furnish, a Bank Guarantee for 10 per cent of the contract price as 'Performance Guarantee' in the sum of Rupees Three Crores Ninety Seven Lakhs Thirteen Thousand One Hundred and Two only. Another Bank Guarantee which was required to be furnished by HCCL, and which it did furnish, was the Guarantee against 'Mobilisation Advance' which was to be provided by the defendants from time to time to the HCCL during the course of the contract. HCCL has already furnished fifty 'Mobi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC3700; 1999(2)ALT(Cri)424; 1999CriLJ4587; JT1999(8)SC132; 1999(6)SCALE381; (1999)9SCC323; [1999]Supp3SCR540
ORDERD.P. Wadhwa, J.1. There are two sets of review petitions. They are against judgment of this Court dated May 11, 1999 in Death Reference Case No. 1 of 1998 and Criminal Appeal Nos. 321-325 of 1998. One set has been Filed by the convicts Nalini (A-1), Murughan (A-3), Santhan (A-2) and Arivu (A-18), Death sentence awarded to them by the Designated Court has been confirmed by this Court. Petitioners in their review petitions are not challenging their conviction. The review is only on question of sentence. There were, however, 26 accused who faced trial and they were all sentenced to death under the provisions of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act (TADA) and Indian Penal Code (IPC) and also sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment on various other charges. Sentence of death awarded to them by the Designated Court was submitted to this Court for confirmation. The convicts also filed appeals against their conviction and sentence. After hearing elaborate arguments and examining...
Tag this Judgment!