Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2180; (1999)3CompLJ170(SC); 1999(2)CTC539; 1999(3)SCALE564; (1999)4SCC382; [1999]3SCR512
ORDER1. We see no reason why the High Courts in such matters filed by the defendants in suits instituted by the banks before the Debt Recovery Tribunal should more or less as a matter of course grant stay of proceedings before the Tribunals. The very purpose of setting up the Tribunals will be lost by granting stay merely because there is challenge to the notification constituting the Tribunal. In the present case, the High Court has rightly come to the conclusion that as the proceedings were initiated in the State of Madhya Pradesh, the Allahabad High Court had no jurisdiction.2. The special leave petition is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1739; 88(1999)CLT343(SC); [1999(82)FLR982]; JT1999(4)SC10; 1999(3)SCALE582; (1999)4SCC618; [1999]3SCR457; 1999(2)LC1185(SC); (1999)3UPLBEC1729
S.N. Phukan, J. 1. Respondent No. 4 filed a writ petition before the High Court regarding her seniority vis-a-vis the seniority of the present appellant. The writ petition was allowed by judgment dated 01.03:1995 passed in O.J.C. No. 867 of 1990. Thereafter review petition No. 76/95 was filed which was dismissed by order dated 02.02.1996. One civil appeal has been filed before this Court against the above two orders. Another separate writ petition was filed by the appellant before the High Court which was registered as O.J.C. No. 1874 of 1996. By order dated 02.05.96 the said writ petition was dismissed. Against the said order of dismissal the another appeal has been filed. Both the appeals are being disposed of by this judgment.2. To appreciate the contentions of the parties we may briefly state the facts of the case.3. The appellant and respondent No. 4 joined the post of lecturer in economics in the college namely Kamla Nehru Women's College, Bhubaneswar on the same day i.e. 27.07.1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2102; 1999(4)ALT1(SC); 1999(2)ARBLR695(SC); JT1999(3)SC514; 1999(3)SCALE587; (1999)5SCC651; [1999]3SCR490; 1999(2)LC997(SC)
M. Jagannadha Rao, J. 1. Leave granted.2. These three Civil Appeals are directed against the Judgment of the Bombay High Court in A. Nos. 175-177 of 1998 dated 2.4.98 in Arbitration Petitions 281-283 of 1997. By virtue of this judgment dated 2.4,98, the decision of the learned Single Judge in Arbitration Petitions 281-283 of 1997 dated 12.1.1998 was confirmed. The learned Single Judge had, by his decision, dismissed the objections filed by the appellant under Sections 5 and 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called the 'Act') to the awards and confirmed the three Awards passed by the Arbitrator on 13.11.1997. The learned Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court had appointed a retired Judge of that Court on 13.6.1997 as sole arbitrator and the said arbitrator had passed the three awards on 13.11.1997.3. The facts are as follows: There were three main agreements dated 9.3.94, 9.3.94 and 29.6.1994 under which the appellant agreed to sell Flat Nos. 101-102, 201-20...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1860; 1999(2)ALD(Cri)600; 1999CriLJ2569; 1999(3)Crimes120(SC); JT1999(3)SC504; 1999(3)SCALE600; (1999)5SCC1; [1999]3SCR426; 1999(2)LC1149(SC)
Umesh C. Banerjee, J. 1. Leave granted.2. This appeal by the grant of special leave is directed against the order of confirmation of death sentence by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. Since the appeal pertains to confirmation of death sentence by the High Court and the submission in support of the appeal is restricted to the question of sentence, it would be convenient to note at this juncture that it is only in the rarest of rare cases that this punishment is to be inflicted and it is on this score that Mr. Muralidhar, the amicus curiae appointed in the matter with his usual ability strongly contended that the punishment awarded by the Sessions Judge and as confirmed by the High Court, runs counter to the basic concept of law and justice of the situation. As a part of the submission, Mr. Muralidhar placed strong reliance on Sections 235(2) and 354(3) of the CrPC. But before consideration of the submissions on legal issue as above, it would be conveni...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998(4)SCALE17
ORDER1. On the basis of the news item published in 'Hindustan Times' and the 'Times of India' on 28.5.1998, it appears to us that a grave situation has arisen in the AIIMS as a result of which medical facilities are denied to hundreds of patients. We, therefore, take suo-moto notice of the said news item and issue notice to M.C.D., Delhi Vidyut Board and the N.C.T. of Delhi through the Chief Secretary, returnable on 4.6.1998. Issue notice also to N.D.M.C. It need not appear before this Court if it is not supplying electricity power to AIIMS. A copy of the news item be taken on record and to be as detailed as a petition. A copy of the petition may be supplied to Mr. Ranjit Kumar, adv. who is requested by us to appear as Amicus-Curiae in the matter. The Registry to take steps to see that notices to all the parties are served by tomorrow....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000(1)CTC43; JT1999(9)SC211; (1999)5SCC188; (2000)1UPLBEC67
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The appellant herein filed an application before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, challenging the gradation list. For want of material, the Tribunal rejected the said application, keeping open all the contentions raised in the said application. Subsequently, the appellant filed another application before the Tribunal. When the application came up for hearing, the Tribunal dismissed the same on the ground that it was barred by the principles of res judicata. Thereafter, the appellant took the matter to the High Court. The High Court affirmed the judgment of the Tribunal. It is against these orders that the appellant is in appeal before us.3. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the records, we find that when on an earlier occasion the appellant approached the Tribunal, the Tribunal rejected the application of the appellant by observing as follows For want of any material, it is not possible for us to consider the application bef...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1999)9SCC173
G.B. Pattanaik and; Umesh C. Banerjee, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the High Court was justified in granting relief of payment of back wages to the respondent for the period he has not actually served. There is no dispute that the respondent's case was omitted from consideration on the ground that his chest was short by 2 cm and as such he did not have the necessary physical standard, but, similar departmental candidates were considered and got the relief. The respondent's case was, therefore, appropriately considered by the appropriate authority and by letter dated 21-12-1995, it was conveyed that the respondent would be entitled to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Clerk/Typist) from 3-8-1992 the date on which panel of 1992 was released, with the further direction that his seniority would be protected on a notional basis, but he would not be entitled to any pay and allowances of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Clerk/Typist) for the ba...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1999(3)SCALE169
ORDERL.A. No. 30 in SLP (C) No. 21000/19931. Mr. R.K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Shri Prabhjot Singh Sabharwal seeks time for filing counter in the Su motu Contempt Notice issued to his client and also requests permission to file a Scheme which, according to him, would sort out most of the problems. In the counter proposed to be filed by Shri Prabhjot Singh Sabbarwal, a list of the properties owned by him or his group in which he or any of them is a Director shall be filed in this Court.2. Shri Prabhjot Singh Sabharwal will be present in this Court on the next date of hearing, namely 10.5.99. Even if he is in custody on 10.5.99 pursuant to order of other Courts, the police will produce him in this Court on 10.5.99. Shri Prabhjot Singh Sabharwal shall file an undertaking in this Court that he will be present in this Court on every hearing of this case, till his presence is dispensed with.3. In case he has been detained by the police in pursuance to any warrant i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1999)9SCC193
B.N. Kirpal and; S. Rajendra Babu, JJ.1. Special leave granted.2. The appellant herein had filed an appeal against the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal disputing its liability to pay the sum awarded. The main contention of the appellant herein was that the licensed capacity of the bus which was insured and which met with the accident was only to have 22 passengers but in fact it was carrying nearly 48 passengers and, therefore, the Insurance Company was absolved of its liability.3. The High Court dismissed the appeal by a cryptic order stating that no case had been made out for interfering in the well-reasoned award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. In our opinion, the High Court ought to have discussed the merits of the contentions raised by the Insurance Company especially when it was dealing with the first appeal against the order of the Tribunal.4. We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restore FAO No. 1646 of 1998...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1999(1)ALD(Cri)916; 1999(3)Crimes74(SC); JT1999(3)SC554; 1999(4)SCALE44; (1999)4SCC486; [1999]2SCR1217
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. This appeal filed by the accused is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 1/86 which was confirmed by the Delhi High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 149/8. Both the Courts found him guilty of the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him thereunder.2. The lure of a job proved fatal for Ajaib Singh the deceased. The appellant Arvind @ Pappu and the deceased Ajaib Singh being co-villagers were known to each other. In the year 1978 there had been some friction between the two families and on the basis of a report lodged by father of the appellant a criminal case was initiated against the deceased and his brother.3. The deceased was employed in a factory at Sahibabad where another co-villager Kamlesh Kumar PW 8 used to work. On 31st March 1985 the appellant had paid a visit to the house of Kamlesh Kumar where Ajaib Singh was also putting up. The appellant persuaded the...
Tag this Judgment!