Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001(3)ALLMR(SC)785; [2001(88)FLR729]; JT2001(1)SC298; (2001)ILLJ556SC; 2000(8)SCALE358; [2000]Supp5SCR695
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. Decision of the Karnataka High Court is challenged in these appeals. The first respondent the amalgamated Electricity Company Ltd., was engaged in supply of electricity in Belgaum city. In the year 1971, there arose some labour dispute. According to the workmen the Company declared a lock out, whereas the Management of the first respondent-Company contended that some the workers had re-sorted to strike and refused to come for work. By the end of December, 1971, the Management of the first respondent-Company started the business with about 65 workmen and the other workers were not allowed to join duty. The first respondent-Company contended that these workers were offered employment, but they refused to join duty. Disputes relating to these issues were referred to the Industrial Tribunal and in I.D. No. 11/71, the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, passed an Award on 17.2.1987 and it was held that there was no lock out declared by the first respondent-Company. Meanw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2001(89)FLR694]; JT2001(1)SC117; (2001)ILLJ553SC; 2000(8)SCALE407; (2001)1UPLBEC346
ORDERK.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. The petitioners claimed that they had been working in the first respondent-company since last several years as 'Budli' workers and that they were entitled to be regularised. This dispute between the petitioners and the management of the first respondent-company was referred to the Industrial Tribunal by the appropriate Government for adjudication. The dispute referred to the Industrial Tribunal read thus : Whether the demand of the Badli workmen as shown in the annexure for regularisation of their services in the permanent roll of the company is justified? What reliefs, if any, are they entitled? 2. The Industrial Tribunal, by its award dated 29-1-1999, held that out of the 100 workmen, 92 workmen were entitled to be regularised and to have all benefits and status like regular employees. They were further held to be entitled to have other statutory benefits also from the date of their respective initial engagement. 3. The award of the Tribunal was challenge...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001(1)ALD(Cri)222; 2001(1)ALT19(SC); 2001CriLJ2932; JT2001(1)SC81; 2001(1)KLT585(SC); 2000(8)SCALE345; [2000]Supp5SCR677; 2001(1)LC543(SC); (2001)1UPLBEC335
K.T. Thomas, J.1. The contempt of court jurisdiction is not exercised to protect the dignity of an individual Judge, but to protect the administration of justice from being maligned.' While dealing with this contempt proceedings we remind ourselves of the said observation made by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India and Anr. : [1998]2SCR795 .2. One S.K. Sundaram, Advocate (hereinafter referred to as the contemnor) sent a telegraphic communication to Dr. Justice A.S. Anand, the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India on 3.11.2000. As the present proceedings are founded on the wordings of that communication we feel it necessary to extract the material portion thereof. It reads thus:I call upon Shriman Dr. A.S. Anand, Hon'ble Chief Justice of India to step down from the Constitutional office of Chief Justice of India forthwith, failing which I will be constrained to move the criminal court for offences under Sections 420, 406, 471 Indian Penal Code ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 91(2001)CLT496(SC); JT2001(1)SC305; 2000(8)SCALE416; (2001)9SCC273; (2001)1UPLBEC714
ORDERD.P. Mohapatra and Shivaraj V. Patil, JJ.1. Leave granted. 2. Heard Shri Ashok Kumar Panda, learned senior counsel for appellant and Shri Jayant Das, learned senior counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Shri S.B. Upadhyay, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 4 to 7, and Shri Janaranjan Das, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 8 to 11. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of the High Court dismissing the writ petition OJC No. 4783, the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave assailing the judgment. The Writ Petition was filed by the appellant seeking issue of a writ of mandamus to the respondents - the Indira Gandhi Institute of Technology (for short 'IGIT'), Sarang, in the State of Orissa and the State Government for framing of specific rules governing his service conditions; for inclusion of his name in the common cadre of ministerial staff in the category of cashier/senior assistant accepting him as a ministerial staff/cashier since 17-4-1986/1-7-1986; for his placement in the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2001(1)SC66; 2000(8)SCALE418; (2001)9SCC409; 2001(2)LC822(SC)
ORDERD.P. Mohapatra, J.1. This appeal, filed by accused No. 1 Babu Kuttan Ramkrishna Pillai and accused No. 2 Umesh @ Babu Purshottam Bhatt of TADA ACT Spl. Case No. 33 of 1994, is directed against the judgment and order dated 21-8-1998 of the Designated Court at Brihan Mumbai under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (for short 'TADA Act'). In the said case seven accused persons faced trial under Section 120-B read with 307 r/w 34, 307 r/w 114, 307 r/w 149, 387 r/w 34, 143, 144, 147, 148 and 506(ii) 353 r/w 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(2)(ii), 3(3), 3(5), 5 and 6 of the TADA Act and Section r/w 25(1B)(a), Section 5 r/w 27 of the Arms Act.2. The gist of the prosecution case relevant for the purpose of this proceeding may be stated thus :3. With the growth of industry, commerce and trade in and around the city of Mumbai which generates substantial quantity of wealth, there has been increase of organised activities by gangs of anti- socials to ex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001(73)ECC225; 2001(127)ELT3(SC); JT2001(1)SC127; 2000(8)SCALE421; [2000]Supp5SCR701
Umesh C. Banerjee, J.1. This batch of appeals against the order of Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) pertain to classification of de-oiled rice bran extraction, higher seed extraction of tapioca chips and sesame seed extractions as animal feed falling under Tariff Heading No. 21 of the Second Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The core question thus relates to the factum of export duty being leviable thereon during the relevant period - CEGAT has answered that since these products are only ingredients of animal feed and not 'animal feed' by themselves, the same would not come within the ambit of the term 'animal feed' as detailed in the statute.2. Shri Mukul Rohtagi, the learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the appellant, very strongly contended that differentiation, there might be as regards the product, but the factum of the product being an ingredient or a supplement to the animal feed would definitely bring it within the scope of 'H...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001(1)ALD(Cri)220; 2001(1)ALT(Cri)219; JT2001(1)SC150; 2000(8)SCALE432; (2001)2SCC17
ORDERS.N. Variava, J.1. Leave granted.2. This Appeal is against an Order dated 10th November, 1999 by which, in an Application under Section 482 of the CrPC, a criminal complaint has been quashed on the ground that the complaint spelled out civil wrong and continuance of the criminal prosecution would be an abuse of process of the court.3. The complaint was that Respondents 2 to 10 had fraudulently got the father of the Complainant to execute a gift deed. On the basis of this complaint the Magistrate held an enquiry under Section 202 the CrPC and dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the CrPC. As against the Order of dismissal the Appellant went in Revision. The learned Sessions Judge set aside the Order of dismissal and remanded the case back to the Magistrate.4. On such remand the Magistrate issued process against Respondents 2 to 10 to face trial under Sections 419, 420, 467 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.5. Respondents 2 to 10 then filed a Petition under Section 482 of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2001(90)FLR310]; JT2001(1)SC161; 2000(8)SCALE437; [2000]Supp5SCR718
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. By this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India the petitioner, who is a member of Bihar Superior Judicial Service and posted as District & Session Judge, Giridih, seeks issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the State of Bihar to frame rules for enhancement of age of superannuation of the judicial officers of the State as per directions of the Supreme Court issued in the case of All India Judges' Association case : (1993)ILLJ723SC and also for a writ or direction quashing the communication contained in the letter dated 17th May,2000 of the Registrar General of the Patna High Court informing the petitioner that having assessed and evaluated the services of the petitioner in the light of the decision of this Court in All India Judges, Association and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. : (1993)IILLJ776SC , the High Court has been pleased to decide not to allow him the benefit of enhancement of the retirement age from 58 years to 60 years and th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001(2)ALT1(SC); JT2001(1)SC308; 2000(8)SCALE424; [2000]Supp5SCR707
Shivaraj V. Patil, J.1. Leave granted.2. The controversy that needs to be addressed and resolved in this appeal relates to grant of leave to the tenant under Section 25B(5) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short the 'Act') to contest the application filed for eviction under Clause (e) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act.3. In brief, the facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are:The respondent herein (the landlord) filed a petition under Clause (e) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act seeking eviction of the appellant (the tenant) from the premises on the ground of his bona fide requirement for his occupation as a residence for himself and other members of the family dependent on him stating that he has come back and permanently settled in India; his sons, daughters and other relations who are settled in United Kingdom also visit him but he is unable to provide them accommodation; his son Shri Rajpal Singh has decided to return to India t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2001(1)SC287; RLW2001(1)SC73; 2000(8)SCALE455; [2000]Supp5SCR743; 2001(1)LC478(SC); (2001)1UPLBEC723
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. The present State of Rajasthan came into being on November 1, 1956 in accordance with the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (hereinafter 'the Act') consisting of the territories mentioned in Section 10 thereof. Sub-section (2) of Section 49 mandates a High Court being established for the new State of Rajasthan as from the appointed day, i.e., November 1, 1956. On October 27, 1956, the President of India in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 51 of the Act, directed Jodhpur to be the principal seat of the new High Court for the State of Rajasthan. Initially the Chief Justice of the State established a temporary bench of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur but eventually exercising the power conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 51 of the Act the President, on January 31, 1977 issued an order which reads as under:In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 51 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (37 of 1956), the Pres...
Tag this Judgment!