Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC3511B; JT2000(4)SC239
1. Leave Granted2. It is unnecessary to go in great detail in this matter. The High Court based its order on a notice which, as it has itself found, was neither signed nor dated nor bore the requisite seal. The rules required that the notice must be issued as provided in the CPC. Clearly, that was not done. No notice of such a kind can at all be considered valid. On the ground, therefore, that the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition, we are of the view that he was in error.3. It appears that there were other conclusions reached by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal that were also under challenge in the petition filed by the appellant. To that extent, the writ petition (Writ Petition No. AS-2239 of 1983) shall stand restored to the file of the High Court at Bombay to be heard and disposed of on merits.4. Order on the appeal accordingly.5. No order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000ACJ1434; JT2000(4)SC235; (2000)ILLJ1395SC; (2000)9SCC227; (2000)3UPLBEC1966
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Respondent No. 2 has been served by publication, but has not put in appearance. Service on Respondent No. 1 has been dispensed with at the request of the appellant.3. Respondent No. 1-Shiv Singh is the driver of truck No. HYL-765 owned by Respondent No. 2 which was insured with the appellant. Respondent No. 1 after having fallen down from the insured vehicle, approached the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner for damages on account of the injury sustained by him in his right leg and other injuries on the body. The Commissioner by his order dated 30.4.1996 allowed the claim and held the insurance company liable to pay the compensation. The Commissioner also held that the insurance company was liable to pay interest as also penalty over and above the principal amount of compensation. The appeal filed thereafter by the insurance company under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana was dismissed on 26.8.1997. It is in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2000(4)SC240
ORDERG.T. Nanavati, J.1. Leave granted.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the notice under Section 8(3) of the Urban Land and (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 was validly served upon the respondent who is the holder of the land. The competent authority has recorded a finding that notice dated 15.03.77 was served upon the holder on 27.03.77. The appellate authority held that the notice was not properly served as it was not sent by registered post but served through a Process Server. The High Court has also taken the same view. The requirement of sending notice by registered post would arise when notice is tried to be served through post. In this case the notice was served upon the wife of the holder by a Process Server. Whether that amounted to valid service of notice or not was not considered by the competent authority before recording the finding that it was served. As this aspect was not considered by the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1999)2GLR812; JT2000(8)SC486; (1999)ILLJ735SC; (2000)10SCC611; (2000)3UPLBEC2426
ORDERK.T. Thomas, J.1. In similar circumstances delay had been condoned vide order dated September 17, 1999 in Civil Appeal No. 5370 of 1999 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 6798 of 1999 Union of India v. Nathu Singh and Ors. In the circumstances of this case, we are inclined to condone the delay, particularly, because it is in the public interest as public money is involved.2. Leave granted.3. We heard Mr. K.C. Kaushik, learned Counsel for the appellant. In view of the decision of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 4405 of 1997 in which the land value has been fixed at Rs. 16,750/- per bigha for lands covered by the same notification, there is no reason not to adopt the same value as for the land involved in this appeal also. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and reduce the land value to the above extent. The impugned order stands modified accordingly.4. No order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC3486; [2000(85)FLR702]; JT2000(4)SC231; (2000)9SCC748
1. Leave granted.2. The notice on the special leave petition stated that the matter might be disposed of at this stage by modifying the Order of stay granted by the High Court so that it operates only for the period of term of the Sarpanch.3. Service is complete but the first respondent does not appear.4. The Order of the High Court which is under challenge, insofar as it grants stay, states:After considering the matter, we are prima facie of the opinion that the Order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal removing the petitioner from the office of the Sarpanch as well as the Order passed by the appellate authority are arbitrary and legally unsustainable.Hence the writ petition is admitted.Operation of the Orders Annexure P-3 and P-4 shall remain stayed till the decision of the writ petition. The net result of the stay shall be that the petitioner shall stand restored to the position in which she was prior to the issuance of the Order of removal.5. The obvious intention of the Orde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2000(4)SC409
ORDERG.B. Pattanaik, J.1. Leave granted.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has directed payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- to the widow of deceased Debu Pramanik in lieu of compensation granted by the Human Rights Commission.4. When the matter came up before this Court, a limited notice was issued on the question of compensation.5. Learned Counsel for the appellant forcefully contends that the quantum of compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- is too meagre even to have a sustenance for the widow and the other family members and at least the compensation should be enhanced to the tune of Rs. 1.5 lac.6. The counsel for the State of West Bengal on the other hand contends that the Human Rights Commission of the State has considered the matter from all angles including the profession which was being pursued by the deceased before his custodial death and therefore the compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- is adequat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC2479; JT2000(4)SC228; (2000)9SCC373
1. Leave granted. 2. The High Court of Bombay having dismissed the writ petition filed and having levied a cost of Rs. 1 lac on the first petitioner, the petitioner is in appeal by way of special leave petition. 3. When the matter came up before this Court, a limited notice was issued with regard to the cost of Rs. 1 lac imposed on the first petitioner. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the High Court has never considered the case of the appellant but in view of the limited notice issued, we are not in a position to accept the said contention of the appellant. The only question which requires consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances and the findings arrived at, the High Court was justified in awarding the cost and if so to what extent. On the findings arrived at by the High Court, there cannot be any doubt that Court was justified in awarding the costs. But in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that cost of Rs. 1 la...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)9SCC141
S.B. Majmudar and; D.P. Mohapatra, JJ.1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. By consent of learned counsel for the parties this appeal is being disposed of finally.4. The appellants are the State of Rajasthan and another officer being Mining Engineer dealing with the question of granting mining leases under the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (for short “the Rules”). The contesting respondents who are appearing through their counsel and were writ petitioners before the High Court claim to be public-spirited citizens of Village Kankani who filed writ petition before the High Court on the ground that the State authorities had illegally granted mining lease to Respondent 5 (sic 3) and that lease should be treated to be null and void. They also stated that the State should be restrained by way of a permanent injunction from granting any mining lease for Khasra No. 587, which is the subject-matter of the lease granted to Respondent 5. The other khasra numbers of co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : I(2000)ACC290; AIR2000SC725; 2000(1)CTC502; JT2000(1)SC290; (2000)125PLR558; RLW2000(2)SC276; 2000(1)SCALE211; (2000)2SCC69; [2000]1SCR357; 2000(1)LC486(SC)
G.B. Pattanaik, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal Writ Petition No. 362 of 1998. The High Court has held that when a luxury bus carries passengers, excess In number than allowed by the permit, there Is a contravention of terms and conditions of the permit, yet however such contravention does not authorise a police officer to detain and seize the vehicle in exercise of powers under Section 207(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act and, therefore such detention and seizure must be held to be unauthorised and Illegal. The said conclusion and the compensation to the tune of Rs. 10.000/- having been awarded, the State of Maharashtra is in appeal against the same.3. The association of the owners of the luxury buses in the districts of Nanded and Parbhani, moved the High Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, alleging that the police authorities illegally se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2000(4)SC234; (2000)9SCC759
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. Leave granted.2. The notice on the special leave petition stated that the matter might be disposed of at this stage by an order restoring the appeal to the file of the High Court to be heard and disposed of on merits, condoning the delay in filing it.3. The delay was of about 170 days. The explanation relates to the illness of the mother of the appellants and the expenses incurred thereon. The High Court took the view that the delay had not been satisfactorily explained. It added that even on merits it did not find any ground to interfere. Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that all the grounds in the special leave petition were directed to the merits and there was no averment in regard to the refusal to condone the delay.4. We do not think that, in the circumstances that can be a reason to decline to pass the order that seems to us appropriate. We think that the appropriate course that the High Court should have passed and which we propose to do, was to ...
Tag this Judgment!