Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2000(8)SC263; (2001)1MLJ8(SC); (2000)7SCC521
ORDERS.P. Bharucha, J.1. Leave granted.2. The notice that was issued on the Special Leave Petition stated that the matter might be disposed of at this stage by an order setting aside the order under challenge and restoring the Special Appeal to the High Court for reconsideration.3. The order under challenge was passed in an appeal against interim orders on the respondent's writ petition. The order states :. Actually, the relief which the Court could have granted finally has been granted by means of the interim order. If the career of the student had not been involved, this Court would have certainly interfered with such orders, but after the declaration of the result ana issuance of the marks sheet, the petitioner might have taken admission in any University or College. Hence, it would not be appropriate for this Court to allow this Special Appeal because the entire career of the student would be adversely affected.In view of the aforesaid reason only, we dismiss the appeal but observe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2000(6)SC643; 2000(4)SCALE483; (2000)5SCC451
ORDERS.N. Phukan, J.1. By this judgment we dispose of these appeals filed by the Delhi Administration against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dated 7th January, 1995 passed in a batch of writ petitions. The High Court held that the amendments made to Rules 49, 63, 65 and 67 and also to Form P5 of the Delhi Land Revenue Rules by the notification dated 8.11.1989 are ultra vires of the provisions of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 (for short the Land Revenue Act). We quote below the old and the new amended Rules: ___________________________________________________________________________ OLD RULE NEW RULE 49. - Inspection tours - (1) In 49. - Inspection tours - (1) In order to maintain the map and order to maintain the map and field book, the patwari shall field book, the patwari shall make three field to field ins- make three field to field inspections every year of every inspections every year of every village in his Halka. The tours village in his Halka. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000(2)ALD(Cri)126; 2000CriLJ3175; JT2000(6)SC465; 2000(4)SCALE635; (2000)6SCC286
ORDERG. B. Pattanaik, J.1. These appeals are directed against the Judgment of acquittal of the charge under Section 302 IPC passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The accused respondent stood charged and was tried by the Sessions Judge, Eluru for the offence under Section 302 IPC, on the allegation that he committed the murder of his daughter Suneetha and his wife Padmavati. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life. On appeal being carried, the High Court by the impugned Judgment acquitted the accused of the charge under Section 302 IPC and instead convicted him under Section 498A IPC and for such conviction, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer R.I. for three months. It is the order of acquittal recorded by the High Court of the charge under Section 302 which is being assailed by the State as well as by the father of the d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC3595; JT2000(8)SC201; (2001)9SCC326; (2000)3UPLBEC2438
ORDER1. The Petitioner has filed Writ Petition No. 5357 of 1999 seeking a direction of writ of mandamus, to the District Collector and other officers for issue of a necessary patta certificate, title deeds and orders in respect of two acres of land in Tirupati town in Survey No. 4049/3 and for the purpose the petitioner relied upon F.O. No. 9006 Revenue (Assignment-IV) dated 30.12.98. The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition by a short order dated 7.3.99. Against the said order, the petitioner filed a Writ Appeal No. 449 of 1994 which was also dismissed on 5.4.99 by the Division Bench of the High Court. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court.2. Initially the Government filed a counter affidavit dated 28.10.99 stating that the G.O. produced by the petitioner in Writ Petition was a 'fake' one and further that the order in W.P.M.P. No. 13996/97 in the earlier pending Writ Petition No. 9780/97 is also a fake one. As regards to the W.P.No. 9780/97 it ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000CriLJ2286; JT2000(6)SC177; RLW2000(2)SC346; 1999(5)SCALE598a; (2000)6SCC168
ORDER1. Delay condoned.2. The victim of rape in this case is a child of one and a half year. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment. Section 376 IPC provides that on the offence of rape being established, the Court shall sentence the accused with rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than ten years, but 'which may be for life' and shall also be liable to fine. The proviso to Sub-section (2), however, allows the Court to impose a sentence of imprisonment of either description for a term which may be less than ten years.3. Having regard to the facts of this case, especially the age of the victim, we issue notice to the petitioner to show cause why the sentence of ten years' rigorous imprisonment should not be enhanced to life imprisonment. The notice shall be returnable within six weeks....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2000(6)SC298; (2000)126PLR367; 2000(4)SCALE458; (2000)6SCC84
ORDERR.P. Sethi, J.1. Holding that the land described as 'Charand' is included within the definition of 'Shamilat deh' as defined under Section 2(g) of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and relying upon its earlier Division Bench judgment in the case of Khushi Puri v. State of Haryana 1978 Punjab Law Journal 78, the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants praying for issuance of directions prohibiting the Gram Panchayat from leasing out the Charand land and to keep land measuring 541 kanal and 2 marlas reserved as Charand for grazing up catties. The High Court also did not consider it proper to grant the prayer of the appellants seeking declaration that the land reserved for Charand during consolidation could not be used for the income of the Gram Panchayat as it stood allegedly deducted from the lands of the proprietOrs. Not satisfied with the Judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, the appel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000(4)ALT65(SC); 90(2000)CLT450(SC); [2000(86)FLR197]; JT2000(6)SC281; (2000)IILLJ1SC; 2000(4)SCALE670; (2000)6SCC493; (2000)3UPLBEC2055
ORDERUmesh C. Banerjee, J.1. The core question which falls for determination before this Court in these Civil Appeals pertain to the interpretation of Family Benefit Scheme as introduced in NJSC Tripartite Agreement of 1989 and the consequences thereof on the existing welfare measure as contained in NJSC Agreement in 1983: Whereas the Orissa High Court in the judgment impugned held that by reason of introduction of Family Benefit Scheme in terms of NJSC Tripartite Agreement in 1989, question of compassionate appointment would not arise the appellant herein contended that by reason of Clause 8.14.1 in the 1989 Agreement; the requirement of compassionate appointment cannot possibly be given a go bye: It is an existing obligation and has been expressly saved. The appellant contended that having regard to constitutional obligation as regards Egalitarian society, the issue of compassionate appointment cannot and ought not to be trifled with - the question therefore does not seem to be so si...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2000]102CompCas401(SC); 2000(3)CTC360; JT2000(8)SC239; (2000)9SCC716; (2000)3UPLBEC2455
M. Jagannatha Rao, J.1. Special leave granted.2. The suit by the respondent Bank is of the year 1984. It was filed in the Court of the 1st Assistant District Judge and was transferred to the Original Side of the High Court in 1987 under Section 24 of the CPC.3. In a recent judgment in Allahabad Bank. v. Canara Bank and Anr. : [2000]2SCR1102 (at pages 426, 427) this Court has observed that all suits from civil courts shall stand transferred to the Debts Recovery Tribunal constituted under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. This transfer under Section 31 of the Act is automatic, and the Registrar of the High Court, where the suit is pending , is only to perform the ministerial act of transferring the papers to the Tribunal. But unfortunately, the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court, Amitav Lala, J. held that this suit was transferred to the High Court earlier on the Judicial Side, under Section 24 of the CPC and the Registrar could not ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2000(86)FLR776]; JT2000(8)SC198; 2000(II)OLR(SC)298; (2000)9SCC327; (2000)3UPLBEC2152
G.B. Pattanaik, J.1. Leave granted.2. The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice, in course of the departmental proceeding, and on that score was justified in interfering with an order of termination of service by the departmental authority. It transpires that the respondent, a conductor under the UP. State Road Transport Corporation faced a departmental proceeding on a set of charges, and in course of enquiry, several witnesses were examined in support of the allegations of charges that delinquent was to meet. On the basis of the evidence, the departmental authority came to the conclusion that the charges have been established, and as such inflicted the punishment of termination. The delinquent respondent assailed the legality of the said order of punishment by filing a Writ Petition in Allahabad H...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC2281; JT2000(6)SC349; 2000(4)SCALE451; (2000)6SCC179
ORDERD.P. Mohapatra, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellant Haresh Dayaram Thakur and respondent No. 3 Pitambar Dayaram Thakur are brothers. Raj Kumari Petambar Thakur Respondent No. 4 is wife of respondent No. 3. The dispute raised in the case, centers round the flat bearing No. 16/199 at Ramakrishna Nagar, Khar (W), Mumbai, belonging to the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority, Mumbai (for short 'MHADA'). THE MHADA had granted lease of the said flat to one N.H. Krishnan, who transferred his right, title and interest thereunder to one Manmeet Singh Chadha under an agreement of transfer dated 7th April, 1986. By the agreement for transfer dated 21.11.1989 the right, title and interest of the flat was purchased by the appellant for a consideration of Rs. 3,45,000/-. The appellant also became a member of the society of flat owners of the building called Melody Cooperative Housing Society of which the flat in question is a part. The appellant had applied to MHADA for regularisation...
Tag this Judgment!