Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2000(9)SC464; (2001)9SCC398; (2000)3UPLBEC2224
ORDERM. Jagannadha Rao and Doraiswamy Raju, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. Heard Counsel on both sides. The appellant was denied promotion in the selection which took place in 1995 when, according to him, his junior was promoted. According to the appellant the adverse entries in his Annual Confidential Reports 1985-86 and 1986-87 could not have been taken into consideration in view of the fact that the appellant was subsequently allowed to cross the efficiency bar since 1.1.92 vide an order dated 20.5.92. In our view this contention of the appellant is correct and the adverse entries in 1985-86 and 1986-87 cannot come in the way of the appellant for further promotion once he was allowed to cross the efficiency bar on 20.5.92. So far as the adverse remarks of 1993-94 are concerned at the time of the selection in 1995 the said adverse remarks were there on record but they were subsequently deleted on 6.7.96. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for a fresh consideration for his promotion in 1995...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2000(10)SC329; (2002)10SCC704
G.B. Pattanaik and; U.C. Banerjee, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Service Commission could ignore the decision to make reservation policy applicable in respect of an appointment to the post, which was advertised on 10-1-1990, and the last date for submission of the application was 30-1-1990. The High Court in the impugned judgment is of the view that since appointments had not factually been made, the reservation policy would apply. As it transpires, the provisions of Section 57, which governs the field, did not contain any clause for reservation and sub-section (5) of the said Section 57 providing for reservation was introduced only on 22-8-1993. In this view of the matter in respect of the post advertised for which the process of recruitment had been initiated, the reservation policy could not have been made applicable. The impugned judgment of the High Court was, therefore, erroneous, and cannot be sustained. We,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC2679; 2000(2)ALD(Cri)376; 2001(2)ALD(Cri)86; 2001(49)BLJR827; 2000CriLJ3954; JT2000(8)SC430; 2000(5)SCALE355; (2000)7SCC455; [2000]Supp2SCR28; 2000(2)LC1244(SC)
R.P. Sethi, J.1. The appellant was charged under Sections 302 and 326 IPC for having caused the death of four persons of a family, namely, Mr. Babani Charan Das, Assistant Engineer, PWD, Morigaon Division, aged 37 years, his wife Smt. Minati Das, aged about 30 years, their daughter aged 2 1/2 years and Ms. Smriti Rekha Das, sister of Babani Charan Das aged about 22 years. He was also charged to have caused injuries with the sharp edged weapon to Smt. Jayanti Das, the mother of the deceased No. 1 and Shri Rajen Hazarika, neighbour of the deceased. On proof of charges, the trial court convicted the appellant of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 326, 325 and 323 IPC. As he was sentenced to death under Section 302 IPC, the trial court did not feel the necessity of awarding separate punishment for offences under Sections 326, 325 and 323 IPC. The trial court submitted the entire proceedings to the High Court for confirmation of the sentence. The appellant also filed an appeal agai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2001(90)FLR490]; JT2000(10)SC199; (2001)9SCC401
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The appellant was appointed as a General Manager in the Uttar Pradesh Scheduled Castes Finance and Development Corporation Ltd. on temporary basis. Subsequently, by an order, dated 4.2.1985, his services were terminated. The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court and was successful in obtaining an interim order, as a result of which he continued in service. Subsequently, the writ petition came up for hearing and the High Court found that there was no illegality in the order terminating the services of the appellant. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. Against the said decision, the appellant is in appeal before us.3. Learned Counsel for the appellant strenuously urged that, in fact, the order of termination is an order of removal without giving an opportunity to show cause and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. We find no merit in this contention. The order of termination does not cast any stigma and, moreover, the de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2000(87)FLR212]; JT2000(10)SC189; (2001)10SCC160
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The respondent filed an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal contending therein that she was eligible for being considered for the post of T.G.T., and yet her case has not been considered. The Tribunal by judgment, dated 3rd July, 1997 dismissed the application on a finding that the application is premature, but while dismissing the application, made certain observations with regard to the eligibility of those who are not registered in the Employment Exchange, which made it necessary for the Government to file a writ petition in the High Court. It was contended before the High Court that once the Tribunal rejects the application filed by an applicant, it would not be open for the Tribunal to make observations or issue any direction therein. The High Court, however, was not persuaded to accept the writ petition filed and hence the present appeal in this Court.3. Learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellants, contend...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2000(9)SC567; 2000(6)SCALE313a; (2001)10SCC209
ORDERS.P. Bharucha, Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri and N. Santosh Hegde, JJ.1. Under appeal by special leave is an order of a Division Bench of the High Court at Bombay, sitting at Panaji. By that order the writ petition filed by the appellant was summarily dismissed. 2. By the writ petition the appellant challenged the validity of a notice issued to it by the first respondent under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The notice alleged that the first respondent had reason to believe that the appellant's income chargeable to tax for the assessment year 1986-87 had escaped assessment and that, therefore, the first respondent proposed to assess the appellant's income for that assessment year. It was averred in the writ petition that the first respondent had failed to disclose the reasons that he was obliged to record under Section 148(2) for reopening the assessment. Further, the writ petition averred that the respondents had already issued a notice to the appellant under Section 148 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : II(2000)ACC360; 2001ACJ13; AIR2000SC2511; 2000(2)ALD(Cri)374; 2000CriLJ3508; JT2000(8)SC317; 2000(5)SCALE311; (2000)7SCC72; [2000]Supp2SCR15; 2000(2)LC1152(SC)
K.T. Thomas, J.1. Leave granted.2. A passenger, while boarding a bus, fell down therefrom as the vehicle moved forward. The driver of the bus was held guilty of culpable negligence in that episode. He now stands convicted under Section 304A of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to imprisonment for three months. All the three courts, the trial court, the Sessions Court and the High Court in revision - took the same stand. Hence these appeals.3. The finding of facts cannot be disturbed now. The only question which survives for decision is whether on such facts a conclusion that the appellant is guilty of negligent driving must necessarily follow. The facts which the courts found to have been established in the case are these:On 17.12.1993 the appellant was driving a bus of the Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation. A passenger by name Agamma boarded the bus en route at some point. When the bus moved forward she fell out of the vehicle and its rear wheel ran over her. She died of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2000(10)SC204; (2001)9SCC390
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. After hearing the learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent, we are of the view that the Rules framed by the University of Jammu so far as the revaluation of examination papers are concerned, are valid.3. In this case, the learned Single Judge had given a direction that not only respondent No. 1, but also respondent No. 2 was to be admitted in the M.C.A. Course, if necessary by creating one more seat for respondent No. 1. This order was affirmed by the Division Bench but now it has been verified by the learned senior Counsel for the University that the second respondent has not joined the course. In this appeal, notice was issued to respondent No. 2. He was served but has not chosen to appear and we set him ex-parte. In the circumstances, there can be no objection if the first respondent is accommodated in the available seat in the M.C.A. Course. There is no need to create extra seat. The secon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)162CTR(SC)252; [2001]247ITR271(SC)
ORDERBy the CourtUnder appeal by special leave is an order of a Division Bench of the High Court at Bombay, sitting at Panaji. By that order the writ petition filed by the appellant was summarily dismissed.By the writ petition the appellant challenged the validity of a notice issued to it by the first respondent under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The notice alleged that the first respondent had reason to believe that the appellant's income chargeable to tax for the assessment year 1986-87 had escaped assessment and that, therefore, the first respondent proposed to assess the appellant's income for that assessment year. It was averred in the writ petition that the first respondent had failed to disclose the reasons that he was obliged to record under section 148(2) for reopening the assessment. Further, the writ petition averred that the respondents had already issued a notice to the appellant under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the same assessment year and th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC3018; 2000(4)ALLMR(SC)886; JT2000(8)SC299; 2000(5)SCALE321; (2000)6SCC519; 2000(2)LC1146(SC)
ORDERDoraiswamy Raju, J.1. The controversy involved for consideration in these appeals is in a very narrow compass. The appellant M/s. Gautam Construction & Fisheries Ltd., and the 1st respondent National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, Bombay, entered into an agreement for the sale and purchase of office accommodation admeasuring 48,000 square feet of built up area together with the land at the rate of Rs. 400/- per square feet of built up area. The transaction is governed by two agreements and whereas under the principal agreement, the total amount payable is 1,20,00,000/- at the rate of Rs. 250/- per sq. ft. for 48.000 sq.ft. Under the subsidiary agreement, provision was made for amenities, extra works, fittings etc. in a payment of Rs. 150/- per sq.ft. and that is how the total rate constituted Rs. 400/- per sq.ft. Though originally there was a provision for construction of still for parking cars, subsequently what was desired and constructed was a basement for car park...
Tag this Judgment!