Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2001(1)SC196; 2000(8)SCALE230; [2000]Supp5SCR535
G.B. Pattanaik, J.1. The Judgment of the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court, setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge is the subject matter of challenge in these appeals. The appellants are technically qualified direct recruits to the post of Operator/Overseer/Meter Reader/Assistant Store Keeper. The Karnataka Electricity Board Recruitment and Promotion Regulations, 1969 were amended on 3-2-1982, providing a ratio of 1:1 for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) between technically qualified (Direct Recruit) and technically not qualified (Promotees). The present appellants, assailed the aforesaid amendment by filing writ petitions, inter alia, on the ground that it is highly discriminatory and arbitrary and that there is no rational basis for providing a ratio between technically qualified and technically unqualified people for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer. The learned Single Judge accepted the contention of the appellants and allowed the w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001(1)ALD(Cri)183; 2001ALLMR(Cri)749(SC); 2001(1)ALT(Cri)92; 2001CriLJ740; JT2001(1)SC31; RLW2001(1)SC58; 2000(8)SCALE237; [2000]Supp5SCR545
S. Rajendra Babu, J.1. Pipal Singh, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 432 of 1999 and Mukhtiar Singh, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 433 of 1999, were accused along with several others for having caused the death of Sardara Ram and injuries to Sukhdev Raj when they were entering their own land. The learned Sessions Judge sentenced the appellants along with certain others to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each or in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC for murder and further sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for simple hurt under Section 323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and both the sentences run concurrently. On appeal, the High Court reappraised the evidence adduced before the trial court and came to the conclusion that the appellants had a common cause and had come together duly armed at a place which was in possession of the deceased with the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001(1)ALD(Cri)252; 2001(1)ALT(Cri)96; 2001CriLJ742; JT2001(1)SC120; 2000(8)SCALE239; (2001)9SCC346
ORDERR.C. Lahoti, J.1. The State of Uttar Pradesh has filed this appeal by special leave putting in issue the judgment of the High Court whereby Mundrika, Brindaban Mouria and Ram Asrey, the three accused respondents have been acquitted setting aside the conviction of Mundrika under Section 302 & the other two under Section 302/34, IPC Brindaban Mouria, the accused respondent No. 2 had expired during the pendency of appeal in the High Court. Apparently it is a mistake, rather an act of carelessness to have impleaded him as respondent No. 2 in the memo of special leave petition.2. The charge against the three accused persons related to the homicidal death of one Dharamdeo caused on 20-10-1982 at about noon in Village Raghunathpur, Police Station Harpur Budhat, District Gorakhpur. Smt. Kabutra, P. W. 1, is the mother of the deceased Dharamdeo. She had an agricultural land in village Raghunathpur wherein gram crop was sown at the time of the incident. On 19-10-1982, four persons namely Or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001(2)ALT14(SC); JT2001(1)SC47; 2000(8)SCALE311; [2000]Supp5SCR572; (2001)1UPLBEC273
G.B. Pattanaik, J. 1. These appeals are directed against the order of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, disposing of O.A. No. 276/87 with O.A. No.226 of 1989. The applicants before the Tribunal were Junior Engineers, working in Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board. The dispute centers round the question as to whether it is permissible for the employer to frame Regulations, providing a separate quota of promotional avenues for the less qualified Junior Engineers in preference to the claim of the qualified diploma holder Junior Engineers. The feeder category for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer is Junior Engineer. In the cadre of Junior Engineer, 95% of the vacancies are filled up by direct recruitment of persons, who are diploma holders and only 5% is by promotion from amongst the lower category, who are usually matriculates with I.T.I. certificate. So far as the promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers is concerned, the Board has been amending the promoti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2002)10SCC265
K.T. Thomas and; R.P. Sethi, JJ.1. In a double murder case the appellant was arraigned along with twenty others. But the Sessions Court convicted only three out of them including the appellant who was ranked in the array of the accused as A-1. The conviction was for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. All the convicted persons were sentenced to imprisonment for life. Each of them filed appeal before the High Court. The State of Andhra Pradesh also filed an appeal against the acquittal of some of the remaining accused. All the appeals were heard together and they were disposed of by the common judgment dismissing all the appeals.2. It is unnecessary for us to narrate the facts of the case in detail as we propose to remit the case back to the High Court in respect of this appellant alone. This is because the other convicted persons have not chosen to challenge the judgment of the High Court. So far as they are concerned the judgment has become fin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2002)10SCC562
A.P. Mishra and; D.P. Mohapatra, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. In a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property the trial court decreed the suit in terms of the plaint. But the District Court in a first appeal filed by the defendant reversed the said decree and dismissed the suit and the plaintiff filed a second appeal before the High Court. A learned Single Judge of the High Court passed the impugned order dismissing the second appeal in which it is observed that in the light of the finding of the first appellate court that the property did not belong to the 2nd defendant he had no authority to execute an agreement to sell the same.3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended before us that the learned Single Judge of the High Court had misquoted the judgment of the first appellate court since there was no such finding that the 2nd defendant had no title to the property. Our attention had been drawn to paragraph 14 of the judgment of the first appellate court, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2001)165CTR(SC)6
1. These are appeals that relate to the same assessee, Prince Muffakham Jah; they are in respect of the Assessment years 1969-70 to 1975-76 and 1977-78. They raise the same question. That question was referred on the application of the Revenue by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to the Andhra Pradesh High Court under Section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act. The question reads thus : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) order who directed the Wealth Tax Officer to exclude the amount for the assessment year 1977-78 relating to the life interest of the assessee added by the Wealth Tax Officer in accordance with Rule 1B of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1957.2. The principal judgment of the High Court was delivered in the case of Commissioner of Wealth-Tax vs. Prince Muffakkam Jah Bahadur [186 I.T.R. 421], which is challenged in Civil Appeal Nos. 2388-2394 of 1994, and it was followed in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2001]247ITR351(SC); JT2001(1)SC144; 2000(8)SCALE210; [2000]Supp5SCR518
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. These are appeals that relate to the same assessee, Prince Muffkham Jah; they are in respect of the Assessment Years 1969-70 to 1975-76 and 1977-78. They raise the same question. That question was referred on the application of the Revenue by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to the Andhra Pradesh High Court under Section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act. The question reads thus:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) order who directed the Wealth Tax Officer to exclude the amount for the assessment year 1977-78 relating to the life interest of the assessee added by the Wealth Tax Officer in accordance with Rule 1B of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1957.2. The principal judgment of the High Court was delivered in the case of Commissioner of Wealth-Tax v. Prince Muffkham Jah Bahadur 1861 TR.421, which is challenged in Civil Appeal Nos. 2388 to 2394 of 1994, and it was fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001(1)ALD(Cri)407; 2001ALLMR(Cri)565(SC); 2001(1)ALT(Cri)139; 2001CriLJ515; JT2000(10)SC268; 2000(8)SCALE303; (2001)1SCC691; [2000]Supp5SCR584
K.T. Thomas, J.1. Can a legal presumption be based on a factual presumption? The latter is discretionary whereas the former is compulsory. Such a question arose in this appeal and in view of the importance of the issue of two-Judge Bench has referred this case to be heard by a larger bench. The legal presumption envisaged in Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (for short 'the Act') is that on proof of certain fact the court 'shall presume' certain other fact. When there is no direct evidence for establishing the primary fact the court has to depend upon the process of inference drawn from other facts to reach the said primary fact. The crux of the question involved, therefore, is whether an inference thus made could be used as a premise for the compulsory presumption envisaged in Section 20 of the Act.2. The aforesaid question arose from the following assortment of facts. Appellant was manager of a Milk Chilling center attached to Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Cooper...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2001(88)FLR682]; JT2001(1)SC363; (2001)ILLJ561SC; RLW2001(1)SC59; 2000(8)SCALE329; [2000]Supp5SCR552; 2001(1)LC520(SC)
S.N. Variava, J.1. These appeals are against a common judgment dated 13th November, 1995 passed by the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in five civil special appeals and a writ petition.2. In 1983 the appellant-Company had a 'lay off'. According to the appellant lay off became necessitated because there was a 100% power cut and the Company's own generators were under repairs. Thereafter on 15th January, 1983 the appellant-Company terminated the services of 1164 workmen. According to the appellant this termination was necessitated because of closure of a section of the Nylon Plant. According to the appellant-Company this unit had to be closed because of huge losses and also because of lack of power.3. On 17th January, 1983 another 1201 workmen were retrenched by the appellant-Company. The Rajasthan Trade Union Kendra (hereinafter referred to as 'RTUK') filed a petition in the Rajasthan High Court (W.P. No. 213 of 1983) challenging the termination and retrenchment of the 2367 w...
Tag this Judgment!