Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2000(5)SC171; (2000)IILLJ253SC; (2001)9SCC687; (2000)2UPLBEC1599
B.N. Kirpal and; S. Rajendra Babu, JJ.1. Special leave granted, limited to the question of granting of interest.2. The appellant retired from service on 31-8-1997. From the response filed by the respondent, it is clear that most of the payments of the retiral benefits to her were made a long after she retired on 31-8-1997. The details of the payments so made are as under:Sl. No. Particulars Amount paid Date(i) GPF 90% &nbs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000(2)SCALE290
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the detenu and the learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu. We have gone through the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State indicating how the representation of the detenu dated 15.4.1999 has been dealt with till its rejection by the competent authority. On going through the same, we find no substance in the argument of the learned Counsel appearing for the detenu that there has been delay in the disposal of the representation of the detenu whereby right of the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution has been infringed. In this view of the matter we see no illegality with the order of detention so as to be interfered with by this Court. The special leave petition is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000(71)ECC23; 2006(204)ELT521(SC); JT2000(8)SC151
ORDERDr. A.S. Anand, C.J.I.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Leave granted.3. The short controversy in this appeal is with regard to the condition of pre-de- posit for hearing the appeal by the appellate authority.4. The order made by the appellate authority, to make a deposit of Rs. 30 lacs as against the total demand of Rs. 73,25,171/- within sixty days of receipt of that order as a pre-condition for hearing the appeal, was upheld by the learned Single Judge as also by the Division Bench of the High Court. We are not inclined to interfere with that direction, which appears to be quite reasonable.5. At this stage, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that though the Special Leave Petition was pending in this Court, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal (bearing A.No.370/99) in default on 24th March, 1999 because the pre-deposit had not been made as directed. Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned Solicitor General appearing for the respondents, fairly submits that in case ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC3416; 2001(1)ALD(Cri)203; 2000CriLJ2777; JT2000(3)SC395; (2000)9SCC151
1. Mr. Sakesh Kumar, advocate enters appearance for respondent No. 2 - State.2. Leave granted.3. Appellate stood convicted Under Section 16(1)(A) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act read with Section 7(1) thereof and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. The conviction was confirmed in appeal and the High Court did not interfere.4. Learned Counsel for the appellant made a plea for affording the benefit which has been given to the accused in the decision of this Court, namely, N. Sukumaran Nair v. Food Inspector Mavehkara, AIR 1995 SCW 3229. The said plea is made on the premise that the offence in this case took place in the year 1983 and the food article-ground-nut oil on analysis was found not to contain any foreign substance or anything injurious to health and that it was found adulterated solely on the ground that its constituents fell below the standard very marginally. To convince us of the said contention learned Coun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC3512b; 2000CriLJ3526; 2000(69)ECC637; 2000(120)ELT595(SC); JT2000(5)SC170; (2000)9SCC382
1. Leave granted.2. The Union of India is in appeal against the order of the learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, granting bail to the respondent in case under Sections 8/18, Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act. Pursuant to the notice issued, the respondent has entered appearance. A letter was circulated praying for adjournment to file a counter-affidavit. But we see no justification for a counter-affidavit being filed in a case in hand, since on the face of the impugned order of the High Court granting bail cannot be sustained as the High Court has not looked into the provisions of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act.3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on examining the record of this case, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court was totally in error in granting bail without even focussing its attention to the mandatory provision of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs &...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000CriLJ2970; 2000(2)SCALE290B
ORDER1. The petitioner, brother of a detenu, under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 filed a petition for Habeas Corpus before the High Court of Madras challenging the legality of the order of detention as well as the continued detention of the detenu. Several grounds had been urged in support of the challenge and the Division Bench of the High Court on consideration of the same rejected all the contentions raised and dismissed the brother for Habeas Corpus. The brother of the detenu, therefore, approached this Court. In this Court essentially three grounds have been urged that the detenu being a non-English knowing person the Tamil version of the relevant documents have not been given and as such he was denied of the opportunity of making an effective representation which constitutes an infraction of Article 22(5) of the Constitution. It is also urged that the relevant material has not been considered by the detaining authority and the opinion of the Advisory Board has not b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2000(85)FLR749]; JT2000(4)SC553; (2000)IILLJ255SC; (2000)2UPLBEC1610
ORDERG.B. Pattanaik, J.1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. The defendants are the appellants against the impugned judgment of the High Court in Second Appeal. The plaintiff -respondents filed the suit challenging the order of termination on the ground that the order of termination had not been passed by the competent authority. The learned trial Judge decreed the suit obviously because the order had been communicated not by the competent authority but by one Mr. Onkar Singh. On an appeal being filed the lower appellate court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Judge. The plaintiff-respondents carried the matter in appeal to the High Court.4. The High Court re-considered the matter and came to the conclusion that it is Onkar Singh who passed the order and not the General Manager and, therefore, the lower appellate court was not justified in interfering with the judgment and decree of the trial Judge. The second appeal thus having been allowed and the judgment and decree of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2000(7)SC302; (2000)3UPLBEC2300
ORDERS.B. Majmudar, J.1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties finally in this appeal by their consent.4. The Respondent who was the President/Chairman of Municipal Council, Tanakpur, District Champavat, U.P. , was ordered to be removed from his office after serving him notice as required by Sub-section (2) of Section 48 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 (for short 'the Act'). The said removal order was challenged by the Respondent before the High Court. The High Court has quashed the said removal order on two grounds - (1) that the said order is not a reasoned order ; and (2) that personal hearing was not given to the respondent before passing the said order. Having obtained special leave to appeal the appellants have moved this Court for consideration of the order of the High Court.5. A mere look at Section 48(2-A) of the Act-shows that after issuing show cause notice to the concerned alleged delinquent and after considering the explanati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC801; (2001)1CALLT41(SC); 2000(1)CTC594; JT2000(1)SC481; (2000)IIMLJ72(SC); 1999(4)SCALE477a; (2000)2SCC617; [2000]1SCR505
G T. Nanavati. J.1. Both these appeals arise out of the judgment of Kerala High Court in Writ Appeal No. 462 of 1999. Cambatta Aviation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Cambatta') had filed that appeal against the decision of a learned single Judge of that High Court in O.P.No. 25560 of 1998 whereby its said petition was dismissed. Cambatta had challenged the action of the Cochin International Airport Ltd. (for brevity sake referred to as the 'CIAL') of awarding contract for ground handling service at the new Cochin Airport at Nedumbassery to Air India Ltd. The learned single Judge held that the impugned action of CIAL was neither arbitrary nor Illegal. On appeal Division bench of that Court held that the said action was violative of principles of natural justice, arbitrary and illegal.2. CIAL is a public sector undertaking. Some other public sector undertakings and the State of Kerala are its shareholders. It has been established for setting up and maintaining a new International Air...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)3CALLT30(SC); JT2000(1)SC410; 2000(1)SCALE325; (2000)2SCC657; [2000]1SCR429; (2000)2UPLBEC1525
M. Jagannadha Rao, J.1. This writ petition is filed by the Parents' Association of Ten Years Students, Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Port Blair) (hereinafter called Ten Years Category) and one P. Pratapan, Port Blair. The respondents are the Union of India, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and the Secretary, Minister of Human Resources and Development (respondents 1(a) and 1(b), the Lt. Governor (respondent 3) and the Secretary (Education) (Respondent 4) of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Port Blair.2. The petitioners filed the above Writ Petition (under Order 1, Rule 8, C.P.C.), seeking to set aside the proceedings of the Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs dated 14.2.84, 4.9.91, 30.5.96 as being violative of Articles 14, 15, 16, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. Directions were sought for framing Consolidated Regulations under Article 240(1)(a) of the Constitution of India in relation to allotment of seats for higher educational cours...
Tag this Judgment!