Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : II(2000)ACC1; JT2000(5)SC526; (2000)3MLJ124(SC); 2000(4)SCALE297; (2000)4SCC543; (2000)2UPLBEC1611
ORDERD.P. Wadhwa, J.1. We grant leave to appeal.2. The questions, which arise for consideration in this batch of eight appeals, are: (1) can the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution award compensation for the death caused due to electrocution on account of improper maintenance of electric wires of equipment by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, the appellant; and (2) whether the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution appoint an arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1998 (new Act) to decide the quantum of compensation and then make the award of the arbitrator Rule of the Court.3. First question has recently been dealt with by judgment of this Court in Chairman Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. and Ors. v. Sukamani Das and Anr. : (1999)7SCC298 . In that case the deceased met his death due to electrocution. It was alleged that while the deceased was proceeding from his village to another place he decided to return back as d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC2008; 2000(3)BLJR1681; [2000]102CompCas403(SC); 2000(3)CTC246; JT2000(6)SC560; (2000)3MLJ74(SC); 2000(4)SCALE580; (2000)6SCC236; [2000]Supp1SCR324
ORDER1. All these Civil Appeals are being disposed of by this common Order. It is clarified that at this stage this Court is not going into the facts of any case but is only dealing with the propriety of the procedure followed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter for sake of convenience called the 'Commission') in all these matters.2. With the Industrial Revolution and development in the International Trade and Commerce, there has been a substantial increase of business and trade, which resulted in a variety of consumer goods appearing in the market to cater to the needs of the consumers. The modern method of advertisement in media, influence the mind of the consumers and notwithstanding the manufacturing defect or imperfection in the quality, a consumer is tempted to purchase the goods. There has been possibility of deficiency in the services rendered. For the welfare of such consumer and to protect the consumers from the exploitation to provide protecti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1999(1)SCALE683; (2002)9SCC472
B.N. Kirpal and; Doraiswamy Raju, JJ.1. On 6-8-1996 this Court had inter alia held that it accepted the recommendation that there shall be no shops, hotels, tea stalls permitted either by the U.P. Sunni Central Wakf Board or by the Archaeological Survey of India or by any other authority within 300 metres of the shrine. The existing shops were to be removed before 30-11-1996. Three-and-a-half years have elapsed but no progress has been made except that from inside the Dargah the stalls have now moved to Plot No. 221/5.2. In the affidavit of Shri D.V. Sharma, filed in this Court on 11-10-1999 on behalf of the Archaeological Survey of India, it has been stated that Plot No. 221/5 is a protected monument/site and therefore construction cannot be permitted of shops and for the shopkeepers to remain there. In this affidavit, it is further stated that Plot No. 244/2 located between the Dargah complex and Agra Gate at a distance of approximately 150 metres from Agra Gate, Fatehpur Sikri is a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)163CTR(SC)158
ORDERLeave granted.2. The notice on the Special Leave Petition stated that the matter might be disposed of at this stage in the fight of the judgment of this court delivered on 1-10-1999 in Union of India v. S. Muthyam Reddy (Civil Appeal No. 762 of 1997) : [1999]240ITR341(SC) .3. The respondent has been served but has not put in an appearance.4. The judgment aforesaid being applicable and in favour of the appellant, the civil appeal is allowed and the judgment and order under appeal is set aside.5. The question that the appellant sought reference of, namely, 'whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the profits arising out of sale of agricultural land could not be subjected to income tax', shall now be referred by the Tribunal to the High Court to be decided in the light of the judgment in S. Muthyam Reddy's case (supra) case.6. No order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2000(7)SC128; 2000(5)SCALE64; (2000)6SCC488
ORDERS.N. Variava, J.1. This Civil Appeal is against the Judgment dated 17th September, 1987 delivered by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. By this Judgment the Division Bench dismissed the Appeal filed by the Appellant against a Judgment of a learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court which upheld the challenge of the 1st Respondent to Ordinances and Amendment Act set out hereinafter.2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:On 6th February, 1925 the Government of Uttar Pradesh granted to one M/s. Martin & Co. a licence for supply of electric energy. This licence was subsequently transferred to the 1st Respondent. One of the terms of the licence was that at the end of the licence period the Government had a right to purchase the undertaking. The licence was for a period of 50 years. The 50 years period would thus end on 5th February, 1975. On February 1, 1974 the Appellant served a notice on the 1st Respondent, under Section 6(1) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2000]246ITR465(SC); JT2000(8)SC329; (2001)9SCC703
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The notice on the Special Leave Petition stated that the matter might be disposed of at this stage in the light of the judgment of this Court delivered on 1st October, 1999 in Union of India v. S. Muthyam Reddy (Civil Appeal No. 762 of 1997) : [1999]240ITR341(SC) .3. The respondent has been served but has not put in an appearance.4. The judgment aforesaid being applicable and in favour of the appellant, the civil appeal is allowed and the judgment and order under appeal is set aside.5. The question that the appellant sought reference of, namely, 'whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT was correct in holding that the profits arising out of sale of agricultural land could not be subjected to income tax', shall now be referred by the Tribunal to the High Court to be decided in the light of the judgment in S. Muthyam Reddy's case.6. No order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC2422; 2000(4)ALLMR(SC)682; JT2000(6)SC578; 2000(5)SCALE53; (2000)6SCC481
ORDERS.N. Variava, J.1. This Civil Appeal is against the Judgment dated 11th January, 1989 delivered by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. By this Judgment the Division Bench dismissed the Appeal filed by the Appellant against a Judgment of a learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court which upheld the challenge of the 1st Respondent to Ordinances and Amendment Act set out hereinafter.2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows: On 18th December, 1923 the Government of Uttar Pradesh granted to one M/s. Martin & Co. a licence for supply of electric energy. This licence was subsequently transferred to the 1st Respondent. One of the terms of the licence was that at the end of the licence period the Government had a right to purchase the undertaking. The licence was for a period of 50 years. The 50 years period would thus end on 17th December, 1973. On December 4, 1972 the Appellant served a notice on the 1st Respondent, under Section 6(1) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2000(8)SC267; (2001)9SCC377; (2000)3UPLBEC2433
ORDER1. Special leave granted.2. The short question involved in the present case is whether respondent No. 1 is entitled to continue as an acting Principal of the College till 30th June, 2000 as has been ordered by the High Court.3. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 1, who was a teacher, had been appointed as an acting Principal. He attained the age of 60 years sometime in December, 1999. With an effort to continue in office, he filed a writ petition (CM. Writ Petition No. 54640 of 1999) and in the impugned order dated 5th January, 2000, the Division Bench of the High Court observed that in view of the decision of another Division Bench in Udai Narain Pandey's case, respondent No. 1 could continue to function as Principal of the Institution till 30th June 2000. Hence this appeal.4. On a query raised by us, learned Counsel for the respondent drew our attention to a decision of the Government contained in document dated 16th February, 1999, in which it was, inter alia, stated that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000(4)ALT12(SC); JT2000(7)SC19; 2000(5)SCALE69; (2000)6SCC213; [2000]Supp1SCR389; 2000(2)LC1196(SC)
S. Saghirahmad, J.1. This case, which was finally decided by this Court by its Judgment dated December 13, 1996, has been placed before us for determination of the quantum of pollution fine. It may be stated that the main case was disposed of with the following directions:1. The public trust doctrine, as discussed by us in this judgment is a part of the law of the land.2. The prior approval granted by the Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forest by the letter dated November and the lease-deed dated April 11, 1994 in favour of the Motel are quashed. The lease granted to the Motel by the said lease-deed in respect of 27 bighas and 12 biswas of area, is cancelled and set aside. The Himachal Pradesh Government shall take over the area and restore it to its original-natural conditions.3. The Motel shall pay compensation by way of cost for the restitution of the environment and ecology of the area. The pollution caused by various constructions made by the Motel in the river be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2000(7)SC269; 2000(5)SCALE79
ORDERS.N. Variava, J.1. This Civil Appeal is against the Judgment dated 17th September, 1987 delivered by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. By this Judgment the Division Bench dismissed the Appeal filed by the Appellant against a Judgment of a learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court which upheld the challenge of the 1st Respondent to Ordinances and Amendment Act set out hereinafter.2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:On 18th December, 1923 the Government of Uttar Pradesh granted to one M/s. Martin & Co. a licence for supply of electric energy. This licence was subsequently transferred to the 1st Respondent. One of the terms of the licence was that at the end of the licence period the Government had a right to purchase the undertaking. The licence was for a period of 50 years. The 50 years period would thus end on 17th December, 1973. On December 4, 1972 the Appellant served a notice on the 1st Respondent, under Section 6(1) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 ...
Tag this Judgment!