Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2541; JT1999(5)SC217; 1999(4)SCALE349; (1999)6SCC457; [1999]3SCR1275; 2000(1)SLJ344(SC); 2000(1)LC194(SC); (1999)3UPLBEC1682
ORDER1. These two special leave petitions have been preferred against the judgments of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Karnataka Bench) in O.A. No. 1221 of 1994 and O.A. No. 1904 of 1995 dated 25.2.1997. The Transferred Case relates to Writ Petition No. 8320 of 1997 (Madras High Court) wherein the judgment of the Full Bench of the Central Administrative tribunal (Madras Bench) in OA No. 960 of 1994 dated 3.6.1997 and the consequential order dated 3.6.1997 are in question. The Karnataka Bench allowed that OAs following the decision of the Ernakulam Bench in OA No. 1046 of 1994 and 1069 of 1994 dated 9.12.1996. It has held that the 50% quota for promotion to the post of Junior Time Scale (for short 'JTS') in the Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service (hereinafter called the 'IBPS') has to be filled not by selection but by 'seniority'. On the other hand the Jaipur Bench in OA No. 344 of 1995 dated 31.7.1996 has held that the promotion to the post of JTS is to be made by 'selection'....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1999(10)SC306; 1999(5)SCALE420
ORDERI.A. Nos. 276, 277, 278 & 282-283:1. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, in view of our earlier order dated 26-2-1999, no further relief is required to be granted in these I.As. Whatever benefit is available to the applicants pursuant to the aforesaid order will obviously be available to them. We are informed by learned Counsel, Mr. Kashyap that the grievance of the applicants is already pending scrutiny before the Chopra Committee. The grievance of the applicants will obviously be examined on its own merits. I.As. are accordingly disposed of.I.A. No. 284:2. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, in our view, before any further orders are passed in this I.A. it will be necessary to have first hand information regarding the position on spot in Pushpa Market, as learned Counsel for the applicant-squatters on instructions has vehemently stated before us that despite explosion and the Lt. Governor's order which had resulted in uprooting a number of squatters in that a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2947; 1999(3)CTC91; 2000(69)ECC7; 1999(112)ELT373(SC); JT1999(5)SC172; 1999(4)SCALE318; (1999)7SCC359; [1999]3SCR1238; 1999(2)LC1472(SC)
ORDERB.N. Kirpal, J. 1. The common question involved in these appeals is whether the appellant - Board of Trustees of the Port Trust constituted under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 (for short 'the MPT Act') have a general lien for their dues over the present or future consignments imported by the importers at the Bombay Port when the said dues are in respect of the past imports made by the said importers.2. The respondents in these appeals are importers who had imported various consignments of woollen rags from time to time. After the arrival of these consignments at the Bombay Port a dispute arose between the respondents and the custom authorities as to whether the imported goods were woollen rags or woollen garments. After considerable period of time the imported goods were confiscated by the custom authorities but the importers secured orders to get the goods released on payment of fine. During this period the imported goods remained at the docks till the order of confiscation was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2542; 1999(2)ALD(Cri)415; 1999(2)ALT(Cri)362; 1999CriLJ3960; 1999(3)Crimes198(SC); (2001)GLR474; JT1999(5)SC213; RLW1999(2)SC308; 1999(4)SCALE346; (1999)6SCC210; 2
ORDER1. The petitioner is challenging in this petition the order of detention passed against him by the District Magistrate, Ahmedabad under Section 3(2) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Essential Commodities Act, 1980.2. The facts leading to the passing of the detention order, briefly stated, are as follows. On 4.7.1998, the Officers of the Food and Civil Supplies Controller's Office raided the sugar candy factory of the petitioner. He was found in possession of 1140 litres of white colour kerosene and 515 litres of blue colored kerosene. The white colour kerosene was suspected to be blue colored kerosene later on turned into white. The officers suspected that the entire quantity of kerosene was a part of the blue colored kerosene meant for distribution amongst weaker section of the society at subsidised rates through the Public Distribution System. Analysis of samples of that kerosene done by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Ahmedabad confirmed their suspicion....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC3060; 1999(4)ALT29(SC); 1999(3)CTC5; JT1999(5)SC385; 1999(4)SCALE471; (1999)6SCC396; [1999]3SCR1231
ORDERv.N. Khare, J.1. The appellants herein are the tenants (hereinafter referred to as 'the tenant'). It appears that on 6th October, 1982 the tenant entered into an agreement with erstwhile owner of the building, namely, the Church of South India Trust Association for purchase of the premises in dispute. It is stated that the appellants paid a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs towards the part payment of consideration amount under the said agreement. It further appears that subsequently certain disputes arose with regard to the mode of payment of the balance amount and as a result of which on 12th April, 1984 the Church repudiated the agreement. On 29th August, 1986 the tenant filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement referred to above. While the aforesaid suit was pending, the Church on 12.11.86 executed a sale deed in respect of premises in dispute in favour of first respondent, namely, V.P. Venuguduswami. After purchasing the aforesaid premises the purchaser who became the landlord ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2594; 1999(2)ALD(Cri)373; 1999(2)ALT(Cri)366; 1999CriLJ4057; 1999(3)Crimes201(SC); II(1999)DMC145SC; JT1999(5)SC362; 1999(4)SCALE477; (1999)9SCC24
ORDERNanavati, J.1. For the unnatural death of Debjani (Deyyani) five persons, namely, Chandranath Bani, Chandan Banik, Ashim Banik, Jayanti Banik and Sumitra Banik, who were her father-in-law, husband, brother-in-law and sisters-in-law respectively, were tried in the Court of Additional District Judge, Alipore, in S.T. No. 4(5) of 1983. The case of the 6th accused, being a juvenile, was separated. The trial Court convicted all the five accused under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and also under Section 201 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. The husband and the father-in-law were sentenced to death and the rest of them were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life for the offence of murder. All the five convicted accused appealed to the High Court and there was also a reference to the High Court for confirmation of the death sentence imposed upon the husband and the father-in-law. The High Court not only confirmed the conviction of the husband and the father-in-law but also ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2517; 1999(4)ALLMR(SC)294; [1999]97CompCas874(SC); JT1999(5)SC164; 1999(4)SCALE308; (1999)6SCC215; [1999]3SCR1222; 1999(2)LC1196(SC)
ORDERB.N. Kirpal, J.1. Special leave granted.2. The appellant in this appeal had dealings in sale and purchase of shares with one Yogesh Mehta - respondent No. 3 [hereinafter referred to as 'the share broker'] who was a member of Bombay Stock Exchange until he was declared a defaulter by the said Exchange.3. According to the appellant as on 10th May, 1995 a sum of Rs. 21,81,635.50 P. was due and payable by the share broker but the payment was not made. Thereupon the appellant filed an arbitration petition against the said share broker before the Bombay High Court. In the said proceedings an application was filed for appointing a court receiver. The court did not grant to the appellant any relief in respect of the membership card of the share broker whereupon an appeal was filed and it was contended that a court receiver should be appointed in respect of the said membership card. This appeal was disposed of after a statement on behalf of the Stock Exchange was recorded to the effect tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1999)155CTR(SC)519
B. N. KIRPAL, J. :Special leave granted.2. The appellant in this appeal had dealings in sale and purchase of shares with one Yogesh Mehta-respondent No. 3 [hereinafter referred to as 'the share broker who was a member of Bombay Stock Exchange until he was declared a defaulter by the said exchange.According to the appellant as on 10th May, 1995, a sum of Rs. 21,81,635.50 was due and payable by the share broker but the payment was not made. Thereupon the appellant filed an arbitration petition against the said share broker before the Bombay High Court. In the said proceedings an application was filed for appointing a Court receiver. The Court did not grant to the appellant any relief in respect of the membership card of the share broker whereupon an appeal was filed and it was contended that a Court receiver should be appointed in respect of the said membership card. This appeal was disposed of after a statement on behalf of the stock exchange was recorded to the effect that it 'shall no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC3630; (2000)10SCC324
1.Appellant Kalu Ram had taken the risk of keeping two wives at the same time and later realised that it was costly for him and one of the wives (Vimla) had died of burn injuries. Appellant was charge-sheeted for murder of Vimla and the trial Court as well as the High Court found him guilty of the said offence and convicted and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. Hence this appeal by special leave.2. The first wife of the appellant is Baby who was put up in his own house situated at different place. Subsequently he came across deceased-Vimla who herself was a widow having a daughter by name Pooja (P.W. 6) from her first marriage. Then appellant married Vimla and they were living together in a house different from the housewhere first wife Baby was residing.3. It all happened without any premeditation, when appellant ablaze Vimla on the evening of 23-3-93. According to the prosecution version, he asked Vimla to spare her ornaments presumably for raising some more money for buying li...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2000(1)SC124; (1999)8SCC529
ORDER1. Respondent 1 had filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the appellant herein to have ingress and egress from the door in the suit property. The said property was originally owned by two brothers, namely, Prag Dass and Durga Prasad. In 1918 there was a partition of the said property between these two brothers.2. After the partition, Prag Dass sold his share in the house to Ram Dulari. On the other hand, the share of Durga Prasad was inherited by the appellant herein. It appears that in a court auction the share of Ram Dulari in the house in question was sold and the same was purchased by Respondent 1. In connection with this, a sale deed was also executed in favour of the said Respondent.3. In the suit filed by Respondent 1, it was contended that there was a door which was shown at a point marked as 'X' which opened in the gallery. It was the case of the plaintiffs that as per the sale deed, this gallery belonged to them and, therefore, the defendants should be re...
Tag this Judgment!