Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1937; [1999(82)FLR359]; JT1999(3)SC368; (1999)IILLJ978SC; 1999(3)SCALE113; (1999)4SCC720; [1999]2SCR989; 1999(2)LC871(SC)
ORDERIn pursuance of Board of Management Resolution No. 15 dated 21.2.87 the Vice Chancellor is pleased to revise the existing Pay Scales of University employees in accordance with Rajasthan Civil Services(Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 1987 published in Rajasthan Raj-Patra, Spl. Bulletin, Part-IV Sub-div. I dated 2.2.87. These revised pay scales would be applicable to the employees from 1.9.86. The revised pay scales would not applicable to the employees getting U.G.C. pay scales...We extract Annexure-A to the writ petition:Finance 9Gr.2) Department Notification: No. Fl(68) FD(Gr.2)/86 Jaipur dt.2.2.87 Sub: Rajasthan Service Rules:.These rules may be called the Rajasthan Service (Amendment) Rules, .1987. They shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from 1.9.86. In the said rules-7(24). Pay - means the amount drawn monthly by a Government servant as - (i) the pay other than special pay or pay granted in view of his personal qualifications, which has been sanctioned for a post he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1963; JT1999(4)SC462; 1999(3)SCALE686; (1999)4SCC443
ORDERNanavati, J.1. In this appeal, the appellant, who was a tenant of Shevantibai, is questioning the order passed by the Bombay High Court dismissing his Writ Petition, where in he had questioned the legality of the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal confirming the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Karvir Division, Kolhapur in TNC Appeal No. 192/79.2. As landlady - Shevantibai was a widow, the deemed date of statutory purchase by the appellant - tenant was postponed. It is not in dispute that his right to purchase the land was for that reason governed by the provisions of Section 32F of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act, 1947. Shevantibai died on 8.12.65. the appellant thereafter on 15.6.68 gave an intimation to the heirs of Shevantibai that he was interested in purchasing the land Under Section 32F of the Act. On 9.7.68, the legal representatives of Shevantibai applied Under Section 32F of the Act for a declaration that as the tenant had not compl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2122; [1999(82)FLR490]; JT1999(5)SC187; (1999)IILLJ508SC; 1999(3)SCALE105; (1999)4SCC751; [1999]2SCR998
S.S. Mohammed Quadri, J. 1. In this appeal the order of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras in O.A.No. 2605 dated 11-1-1995, is under challenge. The third respondent in the said O.A. is the appellant.2. To appreciate the question arising in this appeal, we shall briefly state the facts of the case.3. Under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1959 [Act No. 23 of 1959] (for short 'the Act) various district Market Committees came into being. The appellant was appointed as Junior Assistant in the Market Committee, Madurai on July 22, 1976. By an order issued on November 17, 1981 the Government of Tamil Nadu declared that all the persons working in various district Market Committees were Government servants or would be treated as Government servants with effect from that date. In 1982-83, there were 17 vacancies of Supervisors in Thanjavur Market Committee. After calling for options from the eligible staff of district Market Committees, the Director of Agricultural Marke...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1951b; 1999(2)LC976(SC)
Bharucha, J.1. The appellant was a Judge of the Allahabad High Court. He filed his income tax return for the Assessment Year 1978-79 on the basis that the salary that he received as a Judge was not liable to tax under the Income Tax Act. The contention having been rejected both by the I.T.O. and in appeal, a special leave petition was filed. Leave to appeal was granted and on 19th April, 1983 the following four questions were referred by two learned Judges to a Constitution Bench :1. Whether the salary of a Judge of the High Court of a State payable under Clause (1) of Article 221 of the Constitution and the salary of a Judge of the Supreme Court payable under Clause (1) of Article 125 is taxable by a law made by Parliament under Entry 82 of List 1 of the Seventh Schedule.2. Whether the expression 'Rupees' in Part D of the Second Schedule which stipulates the sums payable to the Judges of the Supreme Court and the Judges of the High Court implies the purchasing power equivalent to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1994; [1999(82)FLR497]; JT1999(3)SC385; 1999(2)KLT293(SC); (1999)IILLJ514SC; 1999(3)SCALE96; (1999)4SCC759; [1999]2SCR1060; 1999(2)LC1101(SC)
M. Jagannadha Rao, J.1. Leave granted.2.This appeal is preferred by the State Bank of India, Bombay, its Deputy Managing Director (Appellate Authority), Bombay and the Chief General Manager (Disciplinary Authority), Madras against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in W.A. No. 490 of 1998. By that judgment, the Division Bench confirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge in O.P. No. 10222 of 1991 dated 7.1.1998.3. The brief facts of the case are as follows :4. The respondent joined service in the Bank of Cochin (the Bank has since been amalgamated with the State Bank of India w.e.f. 27.4.85) on 1.11.1996 and was promoted as an officer and then as Manager of the Madras Branch of the Bank of Cochin. The disciplinary action initiated against him related to 1977-1981 when he was working as Manager at Madras. On 25.8.81, he was transferred to Calcutta. He received letters of commendation dated 10.3.83 and 16.4.84 and his Branch at Calcutta stood at No.l in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1983; JT1999(3)SC353; (1999)3MLJ85(SC); 1999(3)SCALE129; (1999)4SCC663; [1999]2SCR1010
A.P. Misra, J. 1. These two appeals raise a common question hence are being disposed of by means of this common judgment. The question raised is, whether Aryapuram Thattimal Padugai, consisting of two distinct areas, viz. Mela Thattimal Padugai and Kizha Thattimal Padugai was known at the relevant time, is a minor inam coming within the purview of The Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to 'as the Act 30 of 1963') or it would fall under the Madras Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act XXVI of 1963 (hereinafter referred to 'as the Act No. 26 of 1963'). The State Government initially issued notification treating it to be under Act No. 26 of 1963, later withdrew and notified it under Act No. 30 of 1963. The appellants' contention is that the State Government rightly issued it to be under Act No. 30 of 1963 and it is held to be valid also by the Settlement Officer, S.R. II, Thanjavur.2. The short facts are that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2181; 1999(1)ALD(Cri)874; 89(2000)CLT130(SC); 1999CriLJ3496; 1999(2)CTC263; JT1999(3)SC408; 1999(3)SCALE103; (1999)5SCC238; [1999]2SCR1005; 1999(2)LC831(SC)
M.B. Shah, J.1. Leave granted.2. These appeals are filed against the judgment and order dated 5th September, 1997 and 10th November, 1997 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Criminal Revision No 436 of 1994 and Miscellaneous Case No. 521 of 1997 whereby Revision Petition against the conviction order and the application for correction, alteration and for compounding offence filed by the appellants were rejected.3. The appellants were convicted and sentenced under Section 307, 326, 325, 324 & 323 read with Section 34. I.P.C. and sentenced to 5 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 200 in default of payment of which to undergo R.I. for one month. That Order was challenged before the High Court by filing Criminal Revision No. 436 of 1994. After considering the entire evidence on record, the Court held that from the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by the injured, and also from the manner in which the car struck against the injured, it was difficult to come to a conclusion that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1666; 1999(2)ALLMR(SC)566; JT1999(4)SC443; (1999)123PLR55; RLW1999(2)SC292; 1999(3)SCALE109; (1999)4SCC403; 1999(2)LC785(SC)
ORDERSrinivasan, J.1. Though this litigation had a chequered career, the scope of the dispute between the parties is very limited.. The respondent who was the plaintiff in Short-Cause Suit No. 3120/81 on the file of the City Civil Court at Bombay prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the appellant herein from interfering with or disturbing his possession and occupation of the suit property situated in Malad (East) Bombay. A perusal of the plaint shows that the entire case of the respondent rested only on his exclusive possession for several decades and not on any claim of title. Though the respondent was not quite clear as to the origin of his possession, his continuous and exclusive possession from May 1964 under a registered lease deed was the basis of his claim. In the written statement filed by the appellant, while denying claim of the respondent, there was no specific plea that the appellant had title to the property and that the suit was not maintainable at the instance o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1801; JT1999(3)SC331; 1999(3)SCALE149; (1999)4SCC727; [1999]2SCR1033
M. Jagannadha Rao, J. 1. Leave granted.2. These two appeals have been filed by the Punjab Communications Ltd (hereinafter called the 'PCL'), a public-sector undertaking of the State of Punjab against the judgment dated 27.2.1998 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in CWP No. 124 of 1998 and against the order in the review application dated 19.3.1998 in RA 138 of 1998. The Transfer Petition (C) No. 680 of 1998 is filed by Sri D.P. Srivastava for transfer of a public interest writ petition No. 4112 M/B of 1997 from the Allahabad High Court to this Court as some points are common to the appeals and the writ petition.3. Though the main judgment in the writ petition has been rendered by the High Court on 27.2.1998, the events which have taken place during the pendency of these appeals have changed the complexion of the case and, according to the respondent-Union of India, jhe writ petition has practically become infructuous and no relief can be grilled. We shall narrate the facts which ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2161; 1999(2)ALT(Cri)285; 1999CriLJ3491; 1999(3)Crimes27(SC); JT1999(3)SC394; 1999(2)KLT301(SC); 1999(3)SCALE83; (1999)4SCC621; [1999]2SCR978; 1999(2)LC938(SC)
N. Santosh Hegde, J. 1. In a pending Sessions case, on behalf of the accused persons, applications were made to summon the case diary of a case registered as Cr. No. 81/91 for confronting a witness with his previous statement as found in the said case diary and to recall the said PW-5. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the said applications which came to be challenged in criminal petitions filed before the High Court of Kerala by the State as well as the brother of the deceased. These petitions came to be dismissed by an Order of the High Court dated 17th August, 1993. Both the Sessions Court and the High Court held that there is no bar in law to summon the case diary of a case even other than the one which is being tried, for the purpose of contradicting the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. In this appeal by special leave, the State of Kerala has raised the following questions of law:(a) Whether the Statement of a witness recorded Under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. in one particular ...
Tag this Judgment!