Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000(4)SCALE171; (2000)9SCC519
ORDER1. On 28th July, 1998, with a view to arrest the growing pollution of air, certain steps were directed to be taken with immediate effect. Besides a schedule was also given containing various directions based on the Report of the Committee headed by Shri Bhure Lal. Direction 'F' reads:No 8-year old buses to ply except on CNG or other clean fuels. (Time frame -after-1.4.2000).Direction 'G' provides:Entire city bus fleet (DTC & private) to be steadily converted to single fuel mode on CNG. - (Time frame - by - 31.3.2001)2. These applications have been filed by Action Committee of un-aided private schools and other educational institutions seeking modification of the order dated 28th July, 1998, primarily on the ground of hardship to the institutions and the students.3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.4. On behalf of the applicants, it is submitted that buses which are owned by college, school or other educational institutions, are being used solely for the purpose of tra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000(9)SCC509; 2001SCC(Cri)638
K.T. Thomas and; R.P. Sethi, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. This appellant and the other three accused were convicted under Sections 307 and 326 and some other lesser offences of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court affirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to imprisonment for three years. We are not inclined to interfere with the conviction as the special leave petition filed by the other three accused has been dismissed.3. So far as this appellant is concerned, learned counsel submits that the appellant is now aged 90. In support of that submission he has invited our attention to a medical certificate issued by Dr. R. S. Gupta, Civil Assistant Surgeon who certified that the appellant is 90 years old and is suffering from some diseases mentioned in the certificate. Learned counsel also submitted that the appellant has undergone imprisonment in connection with this case for a period exceeding two months. Considering the age and physical condition of this appellant we do not think it ex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2001)9SCC244
V.N. Khare and; R.C. Lahoti, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. The respondents were appointed as Law Assistants for a period of six months purely on contractual basis. From time to time the said appointments were extended. It is not disputed that these respondents intermittently remained in service for a period of two-and-a-half years. Subsequently, the respondents' appointments were not extended and they were relieved of their duties. Under such circumstances, the respondents filed writ petition in the High Court praying for continuity of their services. The writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of the High Court with a direction that the respondents would continue in service till the regular appointments were made by the appellants. Aggrieved, the respondents filed a writ appeal before the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court and the same was dismissed. It is against the abovesaid judgment the respondents are in appeal before us.3. It is stated in the appeal that the appell...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC3467; 2000(1)ALD(Cri)842; 2000(1)ALT(Cri)360; 2000CriLJ3178; JT2000(5)SC16; 2000(4)SCALE256; (2001)9SCC161
ORDER1. This appeal filed by accused Karamjit Singh is directed against the Judgment/Order passed by the Designated Court-II, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 117/95. In the said case the appellant along with other three accused persons was tried on the charge under Section 120B, Section 4(1) read with Sub-sections (3)(a) and (b) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 and in addition the appellant was charged under Section 307, IPC, Section 4(1) Sub-section (2)(1) of TADA and Section 6 of TADA.2. The prosecution story shorn of unnecessary details, may be stated thus : On 2-10-1986, on the birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi, the President of India, the Prime Minister of India and other VIPs were to visit the Samadhi of Mahatma Gandhi at Rajghat for holding prayers. The Prime Minister and his wife along with their personal security officers arrived at the VIP gate Rajghat at about 6.50 a.m. As they were proceeding from the gate towards the Samadhi a shot was fired i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)9SCC271
S.P. Bharucha and; Shivaraj V. Patil, JJ.1. This is a transfer petition filed by the wife. She seeks the transfer of the proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the husband in Ghaziabad (U.P.) to Jagadhri (Haryana) where she now resides. It is her case that she cannot defend the case in Ghaziabad effectively as she is dependent on her father. The maintenance petition that she has filed is pending and it is pending in the Court at Jagadhri. The defence case is that since she has filed her appearance in the matrimonial proceedings at Ghaziabad, her claim of lack of finance and other inability to defend those proceedings is incorrect. We do no appreciate this submission. The wife could not have permitted the petition for restitution of conjugal rights to go undefended before she filed the transfer petition. Having regard to the fact that, admittedly, she is not getting any maintenance from the husband, her financial difficulties are established.2. In the circumstances, we ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000ACJ1188; AIR2000SC217; 2000(4)ALLMR(SC)247; (2000)3GLR2309; JT2000(5)SC34; (2000)3MLJ98(SC); 2000(3)MPHT150; 2000(II)OLR(SC)234; (2000)125PLR790; 2000(3)SCALE417; (2000
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Medical Negligence plays its game in strange ways. Sometimes it plays with life; sometimes it gifts an 'Unwanted Child' as in the instant case where the respondent, a poor labourer woman, who already had many children and had opted for Sterilisation developed pregnancy and ultimately gave birth to a female child in spite of sterilization operation which, obviously, had failed.3. Smt. Santra, the victim of the medical negligence, filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2 lakhs as damages for medical negligence; which was decreed for a sum of Rs. 54,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the payment of the decretal amount. Two appeals were filed against this decree in the court of District Judge, Gurgaon, which were disposed of by Addl. District Judge, Gurgaon, by a common judgment dated 10.5.1999. Both the appeals - one filed by the State of Haryana and the other by Smt. Santra were dismissed. The second a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001(1)BLJR245; 2000(4)SCALE27; (2000)5SCC346
ORDERDoraiswamy Raju, J.1. The above appeal is against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Patna High Court whereunder the claim of the appellant to quash the notice dated 16.11.95 asking the Vice President of the appellant-company to take licence under the Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Act, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') came to be rejected and the Court also declined to grant a declaration sought for that the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, namely, the Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') are not applicable to them.2. The appellant-company is engaged in manufacturing and assembling of vehicles of various descriptions including trucks and light motor vehicles, such as Car, Jeep, etc. at its various factories situate in different parts of the country including the State of Bihar. The activities of the company consist of manufacturing of trucks of various descriptions and size, as also their components. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2000(6)SC574; 2000(4)SCALE34; (2000)5SCC362; (2000)3UPLBEC2171; AIR2000SC2076
ORDERDoraiswasmy Raju, J.1. Special leave granted.2. The appellant, who lost before the Tribunal as well as the High Court, has come up before this Court challenging the judgment of the High Court declining to interfere with the order dated 16.4.99 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in O.A. No. 241 of 1999 which, in turn, repelled a challenge to the repatriation of the appellant to his parent department. The appellant, a member of CRPF and serving as an Assistant Sub-Inspector in the said parent department w.e.f. 1.1.87, joined the service of CBI on deputation in the same capacity as ASI on 1.8.91. He continued to work as ASI on the deputation terms for the initial period, which came to be extended from time to time with the mutual consent of the lending and borrowing department. In the year 1994, no doubt, the borrowing department expressed an inclination for permanent absorption in the CBI and sought for the concurrence of the CRPF to which, it appear...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC3425; JT2000(5)SC135; 2000(4)SCALE221; (2000)5SCC742; 2000(2)LC1317(SC); (2000)2UPLBEC1642
ORDERR.P. Sethi, J.1. Leave granted.2. Finding that the Judge Advocate was lower in rank to the accused facing trial before a General Court Martial (hereinafter referred to as 'GCM'), the Division Bench of the High Court set aside the order of the Trial Court and the entire Court Martial proceedings conducted against the respondent No. 1. The Bench, however, observed that the quashing of the proceedings of the GCM will not prevent the authorities concerned to initiate fresh court martial proceedings if they are so advised in accordance with law and also in the light of the judgment delivered. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment the present appeal has been filed with a prayer for setting aside the impugned judgment and upholding the order of the GCM as well as the learned Single Judge.3. The relevant and almost admitted facts for determining the controversy in this appeal are that the first respondent joined the Indian Army as a Commissioned Officer in 1971 and was promoted to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2000(7)SC66; 2000(4)SCALE249; (2000)5SCC250
ORDER1. These three appeals are dealt with together since not only they involve a common question of law but also for the reason that they were dealt with in common in the High Court and submissions have been also in common before us.2. The respondent in Civil Appeal NO. 113/98 was appointed as Assistant Traffic Manager in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'KSRTC') pursuant to a Select List of candidates prepared and published on 13/15-12-82 for a period of two years and was placed on probation. On 10.1.85, due to certain lapses, which were pending inquiry, an order postponing one increment was passed. On 7.8.85, the period of probation was extended upto 14.6.86. Ultimately, on 13.1.88 his services came to be terminated for the reason that his Performance Report during the period of probation was not satisfactory and he also failed to show any improvement despite having been given a chance to do so. Aggrieved, Writ Petition No. 4273/88 was filed before the High cour...
Tag this Judgment!