Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2002)9SCC655a
S. Rajendra Babu and; S.N. Variava, JJ.1. Respondent 2 (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent”) was employed as Trainee Technician in the establishment of the appellant by an order sent to him on 29-2-1989 which contained inter alia the following stipulations:“You will be on training for a period of one year from the date of joining. You are requested to join on or before 1-3-1989. During this period the management may at its discretion withdraw the above facility of providing training to you at any time without assigning any reason whatsoever.You will be considered for regular employment on satisfactory completion of your training.”2. The respondent was working as a Trainee Service Technician at Gwalior. He was transferred to work at Pune. On 28-1-1990, a letter was sent to him to the effect that he had absented himself from work from 10-8-1989 when he left Pune and had not returned to work at all. Therefore, in terms of appointment order the facility of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001(2)ALLMR(SC)807; JT2001(1)SC347; (2001)ILLJ1083SC; 2000(8)SCALE269; [2000]Supp5SCR368; (2001)2SCC259
G.B. Pattanaik, J.1. These Transferred Cases from different High Courts relate to the common question, namely, in the matter of placement of existing officers in the new grades and scale in the State Bank of India made under State Bank of India Officers (Determination of Terms and Conditions of Service) Order 1979, (hereinafter referred to as The Service Order'), under Paragraph 7 of the said Order is discriminatory in nature, so far as it deals with the Officers Grade I. The Central Board of the State Bank of India in exercise of power conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 43 of the State Bank of India Act 1955 made the condition of Service Order which came into force with effect from 1.10.1979. Paragraph 7 deals with the placement of the existing officers on the appointed date in the corresponding grades and scale as per the table given in Schedule I and Paragraph 8 deals with the fitment of the said existing officers in the new grade and scale of pay. Prior to coming into force of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2001)ILLJ1701SC; (2003)10SCC292
ORDERA.P. Misra, J.1. Heard learned Counsels for the parties.2. The petitioner has filed a writ petition in this Court seeking direction to the respondents to frame a scheme ensuring adequate means of livelihood, living wages, conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of leisure and social and cultural opportunities towards all the members of the petitioner No. 2 Association. According to the petitioner, there exists a scheme of financial assistance to voluntary associations to set up family counselling centers and reference made to the terms and conditions for sanction of grant in the said scheme which is annexed as Annexure P4 to the petition. When the matter was taken up earlier, this Court passed an Order in which six weeks' time was granted to the petitioner to submit a representation to the Government in the light of the letter of the Minister of Human Resources Development, India dated December 20, 1996. We are informed, such application has alread...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(3)SCALE670; (2003)10SCC255
ORDER1. Delay condoned.2. Leave grunted.3. The appellant has been convicted under Section 302 I PC and has been imprisoned for life for having killed his wife by strangulation. Against his conviction and sentence, the appellant preferred an appeal and the appeal has been disposed of by the High Court without examining the evidence on record by a very cryptic order, which cannot be held to be an order of the appellate court in accordance with law In this view of the matter and having heard Mr. Muralidhar, learned Counsel for the appellant and learned Counsel appearing for the State, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and direct that the High Court would do well in disposing of the Criminal Appeal No 342 of 1998 within a period of three months from today.4. This appeal stands allowed accordingly....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2002)10SCC390
K.T. Thomas and; R.P. Sethi, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. We were not initially inclined to interfere with the order passed by the High Court because it was passed in the discretion of the High Court. But Dr Rajeev Dhavan, learned Senior Counsel, under instructions, submitted that the appellant would deposit the amount of electricity charges of the power alleged to have been pilfered. Mr B.B. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent worked it out to be more than a crore of rupees. We are not at present interested in fixing up as to the precise amount due from the appellant. If the charges of electricity alleged to have been pilfered can be worked out even for a period of six months, it may even cross the figure of 40 lakhs of rupees, according to the counsel. Dr Rajeev Dhavan pointed out that the appellant has already remitted Rs 20 lakhs pursuant to the order passed by the High Court.3. Considering all aspects we think that anticipatory bail can be granted to the appellant on a condi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001ALLMR(Cri)387(SC); 2001(1)ALT(Cri)93; 2001CriLJ509; 2000(8)SCALE45; (2001)9SCC223
ORDERD.P. Mohapatra, J.1. Thirty three accused persons faced trial on charges under different sections of the Indian Penal Code including Sections 302, 201 read with Section 149 IPC and Sections 147,148,286 and 307. Of them five have filed this appeal against the judgment of conviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment along with other lesser offences. The judgment of the Sessions Judge has been confirmed by the High Court in appeal in so far as the appellants are concerned. Of the seven accused persons who filed the appeal before the High Court, two were acquitted. Therefore, in this appeal we are concerned with the five appellants i.e. accused No. 4 - Nelabothu Sundararamaiah, accused No. 12 - Arekatla Raghavaiah, accused No. 13 - Arekatla Sankaraiah, accused No. 25 - ThotaRama Rao and accused No. 28 - Bolla Venkateswarlu.The bizarre incident happened on 13.7.1985 at about 4 a.m. in village Gogulapadu under Police Station Nakerikal in which...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000(8)SCALE59; 2001(1)LC154(SC)
ORDERD.P. Mohapatra, J.1. Leave granted.2. All these appeals are inter-linked with each other. The parties are the same and common questions arising from the same set of facts are involved in all these cases which were disposed of by the High Court of Rajasthan by a common judgment. While SLP (C) Nos. 10917-10918 of 1999 are directed against the judgment passed by the High Court in Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 283 of 1992 and 825 of 1994 filed under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, SLP (C) Nos. 9170-9172 of 1999 are directed against Civil Review Petition Nos. 117 of 1997 and 118 of 1997 arising from the judgment/order passed in the said two appeals and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 691 of 1997. In Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 691 of 1997, the appellant-M/s. National Heavy Engineering Cooperative Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'company') challenged the order passed by the District Judge, Jaipur City, appointing the arbitrator in compliance with the direction passed by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001(1)ALD(Cri)240; 2001(73)ECC26; 2001(1)KLT169(SC); 2000(8)SCALE64; [2000]Supp5SCR333
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. Leave to appeal is granted in all the special leave petitions.2. These appeals arise from judgments and orders of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Crl. M.C. Nos. 2409/97, 431, 435, 444 and 448/98, 502, 503, 504 and 506/ 97, 4000, 2158, 2159/97, 791/98 and 788/98, passed on May 19, 1998.3. The common question that arises for consideration in these appeals, is: whether the impugned proceedings initiated against the appellants on the basis of samples collected from their shops under Section 31 of the Kerala Abkari Act, 1077 (before its amendment in 1997) are liable to be quashed under Section 482 of CrPC.4. Briefly stated, the following facts give rise to these appeals.5. In 1993, under Section 31 of the Kerala Abkari Act, 1077 (for short, 'the Act'), the Excise Inspectors of various ranges of Kerala State, collected samples from the liquor shops of the appellants who were licensed to carry on the business of liquor. The Excise Inspectors lodged com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001(1)ALD(Cri)384; 2001CriLJ485; RLW2001(1)SC55; 2000(8)SCALE41; 2001(1)LC255(SC)
ORDERD.P. Mohapatra, J.1. This appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan in Criminal Appeal No. 147/85 acquitting the respondent-Hanuman of the charge under Section 302 IPC on setting aside the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer, in Sessions Case No. 49/1983.2. Shorn of unnecessary details the prosecution case may be stated thus:3. On 9.10.1982 at about 6.00 p.m. when Panchu the deceased tried to draw water from the common well to irrigate his lands and change the course of the water towards his fields the respondent-Hanuman and co-accused Ganesh and Ram Kumar forbade him from doing so. Ganesh caught hold of Panchu and Hanuman gave three blows on his head with an axe held by him. When Smt. Badam, wife of Panchu and his sister Chhoti intervened to save him from the assault of Hanuman. Ram Kumar assaulted them with a Kassi. On hearing the cry of Chhoti. Arjun came to the spot from the f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000(8)SCALE12
ORDERD.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The legality and validity of the order amending the assessment list in respect of its property by the Municipal Committee, Sangrur in the State of Punjab is under challenge in this appeal filed by the Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation').2. The assessment in question relates to a godown described in the notice as 'property unit No. 239-Block No. 1 situated within the local limits of the Municipality'. By notice No. 110/HP dated 27.6.1991 issued under Section 67 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (for short 'the Act') the Municipal Committee intimated the Corporation that it intends to amend/revise the assessment in respect of its property and if the Corporation has any objection it may file the same along with documentary proof in support, within a month. The relevant portion of the notice is extracted here-under :ToThe Distt. Manager,Food Corporation of India,Jakhal Road, Sunam.Property Unit No. 239 Block No. 1Which is situa...
Tag this Judgment!