Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2001(89)FLR15]; JT2001(2)SC628; (2001)ILLJ154SC; (2001)10SCC611
ORDER1. The respondent No. 1 was an employee of the appellant-Corporation. By notice dated 1st September, 1985, respondent No. 1's services were terminated by giving him one month's notice.2. Industrial dispute was raised and the two questions which were adjudicated by the Tribunal were :(1) Whether termination of services of the respondent was valid?; and(2) What relief was he entitled to ?3. It was contended by the appellant before the Tribunal that respondent No. 1 was not workman within the meaning of that expression occurring in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The case of the appellant was that respondent No. 1 was in charge of one of the three shifts of the work in the mill.4. It was not in dispute that at the time of the termination of services of respondent No. 1 he was receiving Rs. 1185/-per month by way of salary. The Tribunal recorded the evidence as well as took into consideration documentary evidence which were produced by the parties. On the basis of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2001)10SCC729
V.N. Khare and; S.N. Variava, JJ.1. Jain Prakash Jain, the respondent herein and others, filed a suit for eviction against Dyali Ram and his son who were the tenants of the premises. The suit was decreed and order of eviction was affirmed by the High Court. In between time, the appellants herein filed a suit for partition claiming share in the premises in dispute. A preliminary decree was passed which was affirmed by the Supreme Court. However, the tenant Dyali Ram and his son Surinder Kumar handed over the possession of the premises to the appellant Manjit Kaur. Under such circumstances, the respondents put the decree in execution. In the said case, the appellants filed an objection as a third party justifying their possession being the co-sharer of the property. On that objection, an issue was framed by the executing court. The executing court answered the issue against the appellants by its order dated 9-12-1987. Against the said order, the respondents filed revision petition before...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2001]104CompCas281(SC); 2000(4)CTC499; 2000(7)SCALE256; (2000)8SCC528; [2000]Supp4SCR301; 2001(1)LC239(SC)
R. P. Sethi, J.1. The only point in controversy in the present appeal is as to whether the respondent-loaner is also entitled to interest at the rate of 13% on the amount to be refunded which was admittedly realised by the sale of his industrial unit, in excess of his liability in a loan transaction.2. Vide the impugned judgment in this appeal, the High Court has directed the refund of the excess amount, if any, after calculations along with interest at the rate of 13%, the rate on which the Corporation is stated to have charged the respondents on the amount of loan advanced to him.3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on his request the appellant-Corporation sanctioned on 18-12-1983 a term loan of Rs. 15 lacs against the total cost of the Project of the respondent for construction of a hotel unit. The appellant-Corporation had also sanctioned an additional loan of Rs. 5.50 lacs on 6-8-1986. The total sanctioned loan of Rs. 20.50 lacs was dispersed(sic) to the respond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2001(90)FLR728]; JT2001(5)SC318; (2001)10SCC169
ORDERC.A. No. 6453 of 19971. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 10489/94. The appellant who was a candidate for the post of Commercial Tax Officer applied to the Public Service Commission on the basis of the advertisement issued by the said Commission. He also appeared at the examination but as his results were not declared he made a request to the Public Service Commission to intimate him the marks he had secured in the said examination. Instead of intimating the marks to him, the Commission on the other hand issued a show cause notice to him indicating therein that since he had not been confirmed in the post in the Class-III on the 1st of April, 1991, he was therefore ineligible for being considered in terms of Rule 5 of the Bihar Finance Service (Appointment through Selection) Rules, 1990.2. The appellant filed a reply to the Public Service Commission annexing the order of the State Government confirming him with ef...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001(1)BLJR1; (2001)1MLJ130(SC); 2000(7)SCALE264; (2000)8SCC626; [2000]Supp4SCR307; 2001(1)LC90(SC)
S.N. Variava, J.1. Leave granted.2. This Appeal is against an Order dated 19th March, 1999 by which the Civil Revision filed by the Appellant herein has been dismissed.3. The facts necessary for the purpose of this Appeal are as follows:Appellant and Respondent are brothers. According to the Appellant their disputes, in respect of a property at Patna, were referred to Arbitration. The Arbitration/Umpire declared and Award dated 21st January, 1996. On 14th May, 1996 the Arbitrator/Umpire gave a registered Notice to both the parties that the Award had been made and that the same was filed in the Court. On 14th May, 1996 the Arbitrator/Umpire filed the Award in the Court of Sub Judge I Patna.4. On 11th June, 1996 the Respondent filed a Caveat in the Court of the Sub Judge. It is mentioned in the Caveat that the Respondent has received a Notice dated 14th May, 1996 that an Award has been declared on 21st January, 1996 and that the Award has been registered on 20th April, 1996 and that it h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2002)10SCC493
K.T. Thomas and; R.P. Sethi, JJ.1. Issue notice.2. Mr Suman Jyoti Khaitan, Advocate accepts notice for the contesting respondents.3. Leave granted.4. We heard Mr Harish Salve, learned Solicitor-General for India who argued for the appellant and Dr A.M. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel for the contesting respondents. We do not think it necessary to go deep into the merits of the case as the only question posed before us is whether the Division Bench of the High Court should have granted stay of operation of the judgment of the Single Judge which was impugned in the LPA. While declining to grant stay the Division Bench directed the respondents to give an undertaking that in case the LPA is allowed then the amount would be refunded to the appellant with such rate of interest as may be directed by the Division Bench. It would have been advisable to grant stay of the operation of the judgment rendered by the Single Judge as the Division Bench had decided to admit the appeal and dispose of it...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2002)10SCC263
K.T. Thomas and; R.P. Sethi, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant applied for anticipatory bail and the same was rejected by the High Court. However, the appellant was given the relief on condition that if he deposits the entire amount of Rs 1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh) with the trial court or pay the same to the complainant, he could apply for the bail after surrendering himself to the court. The case against him is that he forged a document which is styled as “Withdrawal Form”. The document was originally issued, according to the complainant, in a sum of Rs 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand) and the allegation is that the appellant had made it into Rs 1,00,000 and encashed the same. The photocopy of the document is produced which apparently shows that the figure has been written in words also. If that be so, prima facie it is for the complainant to show how the words remained on the document at the time when he executed the same. In the aforesaid circumstances this is a fit case ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the final order passed by the Revenue Authorities in a mutation proceeding which order stood affirmed by the High Court in dismissing the writ petition filed by the present appellant.3. The Assistant Collector, who was the original authority, granted mutation of the land in favour of the respondent by his order dated 26-7-1994 on the basis of a finding of the civil court as to the illegality of the lease which suit itself had been dismissed. Against the said order the present appellant preferred an appeal and the appeal having been dismissed, he moved the Revisional Authority. The Revisional Authority also dismissed the revision and as such he assailed the order unsuccessfully before the High Court in a writ petition.4. The sole question for consideration before us is whether the Assistant Collector was justified in ordering mutation in favour of the respondent without applying his independent mind to the materials on record rely...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2002)10SCC292
V.N. Khare and; N. Santosh Hegde, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. Heard counsel for the parties.3. These appeals are directed against the order and judgment dated 21-6-2000 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta. The respondent herein filed a suit against the appellant. The trial court on 17-12-1999 while rejecting the application of the appellant granted three weeks' time to file written statement but the written statement was not within time. On 7-3-2000, the appellant applied for extension of time to file the written statement by three weeks. However, the said application remained pending before the learned Single Judge. In the meantime, the appellant filed an appeal against the order dated 17-12-1999 before the Letters Patent Bench. The Letters Patent Bench while disposing of the appeal granted two weeks' time on 18-4-2000 to the appellant to file the written statement. This order was not complied with and as such the extension of time to file the written statement. This...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2002)10SCC477
A.P. Mishra and; Doraiswamy Raju, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants.2. We find on the facts and circumstances of the case that no contempt is made out.3. This Court while disposing of the petition observed:“In other words, we stay the operation of the judgment of the High Courts under appeal and the order in Writ Petition (C) No. 473 of 1988 for a period of six months to enable the appellants to frame the scheme as suggested above and to give effect to it, failing which the judgments under appeal and the order in WP (C) No. 473 of 1988 will stand confirmed.”4. In the present case the grievance of the applicant is that in spite of the observation of this Court the scheme has not been framed within the stipulated period nor has absorption taken place. But looking to the aforesaid quoted portion this Court clearly observed that in case they fail to frame such scheme the impugned High Court order will stand confirmed. Accordingly, the proper remedy for the applican...
Tag this Judgment!