Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000(9)SCC497
M.Jagannadha Rao and; M.B. Shah, JJ.1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 16-6-1993 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in OS A No. 213 of 1986, fixing the mesne profits @ Rs 1650 per month for the suit property let out by the Corporation of Madras to the respondent at Marina Beach, Chennai.2. It is an admitted fact that the appellant has let out the premises to the respondent for a period of 15 years from 5-3-1961 to 4-3-1976, on a monthly rent of Rs 1650. Thereafter, as the lease was to expire on 4-3-1976, the respondent requested the Corporation to extend the lease period for a period of 30 years and expressed his desire to pay higher rent. The Corporation, by its resolution dated 12-1-1976, agreed to extend the period of lease only for a period of 15 years on a monthly rent of Rs 4000. The respondent was informed by the Special Officer, Corporation of Madras, that the lease was extended for a period of 15 years on a monthly ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC3460; JT1999(7)SC226; 1999(6)SCALE18; (1999)7SCC683
ORDER1. Out order dated 14th October, 1998 shall be treated as a part of this order.2. Mr. N. Ravi Shankar, Secretary, Home Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh has filed an affidavit dated 8th of December, 1998 in this Court on 11th of December, 1998. Along with the affidavit, he has also filed summary of the Justice C.D. Parekh Commission Report. From the affidavit of Mr. Ravi Shankar it transpires that the Parekh Commission Report, which was submitted as early as in 1988, relating to the riots which took place in Meerut in September, 1982 was considered by State Cabinet and the following decisions were taken by it.i) Report of the Commission be tabled on the floor of the House in accordance with the provisions of Section 3(4) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952.ii) Report relating to the incident of 20-9-1982 was received by the State Government in November, 1988. Since then up till now no former Government considered it proper to take any decision. The Commission did not fin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)10SCC395
ORDER 1. The State has filed this appeal as the High Court has acquitted the respondent after setting aside the conviction recorded by the trial court under Section 18 of the NDPS Act. We have gone through the evidence of this case and we find that the police officer who had searched the respondent had not informed him about his right under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the State has fairly conceded that no witness has specifically stated that the respondent was informed about his right while his person was searched. In the absence of such evidence it has to be held that the respondent was not informed about his right to be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or a Magistrate. In view of this breach of the mandatory requirement of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the appeal is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
M.Jagannadha Rao and; M.B. Shah, JJ.1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 16-6-1993 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in OSA No. 213 of 1986, fixing the mesne profits @ Rs 1650 per month for the suit property let out by the Corporation of Madras to the respondent at Marina Beach, Chennai.2. It is an admitted fact that the appellant has let out the premises to the respondent for a period of 15 years from 5-3-1961 to 4-3-1976, on a monthly rent of Rs 1650. Thereafter, as the lease was to expire on 4-3-1976, the respondent requested the Corporation to extend the lease period for a period of 30 years and expressed his desire to pay higher rent. The Corporation, by its resolution dated 12-1-1976, agreed to extend the period of lease only for a period of 15 years on a monthly rent of Rs 4000. The respondent was informed by the Special Officer, Corporation of Madras, that the lease was extended for a period of 15 years on a monthly r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)10SCC380
G.T. Nanavati and; S.N. Phukan, JJ.1. The appellant has been convicted under the NDPS Act as he was found in possession of opium. The High Court has also confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant.2. The only point raised in this appeal is that the mandatory requirement of Section 50 of the Act was not complied with in this case and therefore the conviction of the appellant is illegal. In our opinion, there is no substance in this contention because 1 kg of opium was not found from the person of the appellant but it was found from a bag which was being carried by the appellant. Therefore, this cannot be said to be a case where on search of the person of the accused, a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance was found. In our opinion, the courts below have correctly held that the appellant is guilty of committing the said offence. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC609; JT1999(6)SC638; 1999(5)SCALE594; (1999)7SCC257; [1999]Supp2SCR585
ORDERM. Jagannadha Rao, J.1. In this judgment we shall deal with certain appeals relating to officers of the State of Punjab. We shall also deal with Interlocutory Applications Nos. 10-12/98 filed by the Railways and IAs 4-6 by the Union of India. We shall also deal with certain contempt applications and other Interlocutory applications.I. C.A. Nos. 316-317/992. The two appeals C.A.Nos. 316-317/99 have been preferred by the general candidates of Punjab against the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in CWPs 10756 of 1997 and 10759 of 1997 dated 8.10.1998. The High Court, in the judgment under appeal, followed Jagdish Lal and Ors. v. State of Punjab : AIR1997SC2366 in preference to the judgment in Ajit Singh Januja and Ors. , v. State of Punjab : (1996)IILLJ154SC , hereinafter called Ajit Singh No. 1. The officers here belong to the Punjab Education Department and the contest is for the post of Principals governed by the Punjab Education Service (School and Inspection Cadre) (Cl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC3460a; [1999]Supp2SCR654
ORDER1. Our order dated 14th October, 1998 shall be treated as a part of this order.2. Mr. N. Ravi Shankar, Secretary, Home Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh has filed an affidavit dated 8th of December, 1998 in this Court on 11th of December, 1998. Alongwith the affidavit, he has also filed summary of the Justice C.D. Parekh Commission Report. From the affidavit of Mr. Ravi Shankar it transpires that the Parekh Commission Report, which was submitted as early as in 1988, relating to the riots which took place in Meerut in September, 1982 was considered by State Cabinet and the following decisions were taken by it.(i) Report of the Commission be tabled on the floor of the House in accordance with the provisions of Section 3(4) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952.(ii) Report relating to the incident of 20.9.1982 was received by the State Government in November, 1988. Since then up till now no former Government considered it proper to take any decision. The Commission did not fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)10SCC190
S.P. Kurdukar and; U.C. Banerjee, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties at great length and perused the pleadings before the Administrative Tribunal as well as before this Court. It is expressly made clear that the dispute in this appeal is restricted to the cadre of Development Officer (DO).2. It is not disputed that there were three sources of recruitment to the cadre: (1) promotion, (2) direct, and (3) transfer. Under the rules quota is prescribed in this behalf. The appellants before us are the direct recruits. Respondents 3 to 50 herein are the departmental promotees. These departmental promotees, it appears, have filed OA before the Administrative Tribunal complaining that although they were senior to the direct recruits by virtue of their appointments in this cadre on officiation, they were pushed down against the direct recruits who are junior to them vis a vis the date of officiation. It is therefore prayed that seniority be granted to them on the basis of le...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1999(7)SC53; 1999(5)SCALE587; (1999)8SCC213; [1999]Supp2SCR562
M. Jagannadha Rao, J. 1. Leave granted in special leave petitions. 2. These three appeals arise out of the dispute between general candidates and reserved candidates in Haryana in regard to their seniority. The appellants are the reserved candidates. In Haryana, it is important to note that the Government had issued a Circular on 9.2.79 that on promotion at the roster point, the reserved candidates would not count their seniority. This was reiterated by an elaborate Circular dated 10.1.97 recently issued after Ajit Singh : (1996)IILLJ154SC (hereinafter called Ajit Singh No. 1) was decided by this Court on : (1996)IILLJ154SC Before us, the learned senior counsel for the State of Haryana, Sri Rajeev Dhawan submitted that the said Circulars correctly reflect the legal position. 3. Today, we have delivered judgment in IAs 1 to 3 filed by the State of Punjab in C.As.3792-94/89 (Ajit Singh's case). We shall describe it as Ajit Singh No. 2. We agree that the above Circulars correctly reflect ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : II(1999)ACC656; 2000ACJ5; AIR1999SC3502; 1999(6)ALT6(SC); 2000(1)BLJR8; 2000(1)CTC563; JT1999(7)SC292; 1999(3)KLT348(SC); (1999)IILLJ1112SC; 1999(6)SCALE31; (1999)8SCC254;
ORDER1. The neat question involved in these special leave petitions is whether, the amendment of Sections 4 and 4A of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, made by Act No. 30 of 1995 with effect from 15.9.1995, enhancing the amount of compensation and rate of interest, would be attracted to cases where the claims in respect of death or permanent disablement resulting from an accident caused during the course of employment, took place prior to 15.9.1995?2. Various High Courts in the country, while dealing with the claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act have uniformly taken the view that the relevant date for determining the rights and liabilities of the parties is the date of the accident.3. A four judge Bench of this Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivs Sabata and Anr. : (1976)ILLJ235SC speaking through Shinghal. J. has held that an employer becomes liable to pay compensation as soon as the personal injury is caused to the workmen by the accident which arose...
Tag this Judgment!