Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC2544; 2000(5)SCALE269; (2000)6SCC715; [2000]Supp1SCR655; 2000(2)LC1149(SC)
K.T. Thomas, J.1. The demand for establishment of High Court benches at centers different from the principal seat is a clamour without abatement. It may be an ideal proposition to have justice dispensing centers located at close proximity to all seekers of justice but as a proposition for practical implementation proliferation of High Court benches is fraught with many irredeemable infirmities. Taking cue from those few States where benches have been established away from the principal seat of the High Court, pressure is being mounted up, mostly by members of mofussil Bar Associations to have branches of High Courts located at such centers also. Here is one such case of persisting clamour for a bench of Karnataka High Court at Hubli or Dharwad.2. The petitioner is described as 'Federation of Bar Associations in Karnataka' comprising of District Presidents of various Bar Associations in Karnataka State numbering 18. They filed this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000(72)ECC470; 2000(121)ELT581(SC); JT2000(10)SC343; (2002)10SCC757
ORDER1. Leave granted. 2. The order under appeal has been passed by a Division Bench of the High Court at Delhi. It was reversed the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Tri.) requiring the respondent before us to deposit a sum of Rupees twenty crores towards duty as a condition precedent for the hearing of the appeals filed by the appellant before the Tribunal. The order under challenge requires the Tribunal to hear the appeals without any pre-deposit. All that it says, which may be called reasoning is, 'We have heard learned Counsel for the parties on the question of pre-deposit. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly the circulars No. 44/97, dated 30th September, 1997 and No. 20/98, dated 25th March, 1998, we direct the Tribunal to hear and decide the appeal filed by the petitioner on merits without insisting on any pre-deposit'.3. When a writ petition is disposed of, we would expect, however briefly, some discussion o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2001)166CTR(SC)187
ORDERBy the Court:We have heard learned counsel and find that on the facts of this case, no interference is called for.The civil appeal is dismissed.No order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2001)10SCC659
M.Jagannadha Rao and; Doraiswamy Raju, JJ.1. In a number of cases coming up in appeal in this Court, we find that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana at Chandigarh is passing a standard order in the following terms:“We have heard the Law Officer of HVPN — appellant and have also perused the impugned order. We do not find any legal infirmity in the detailed and well-reasoned order passed by District Forum, Kaithal. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal.”2. We may point out that while dealing with a first appeal, this is not the way to dispose of the matter. The appellate forum is bound to refer to the pleadings of the case, the submissions of the counsel, necessary points for consideration, discuss the evidence and dispose of the matter by giving valid reasons. It is very easy to dispose of any appeal in this fashion and the higher courts would not know whether learned State Commission had applied its mind to the case. W...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2002)10SCC483
M.Jagannadha Rao and; Doraiswamy Raju, JJ.1. We find that, except writing a letter dated 11-10-1999 to the Assistant Registrar of this Court, the so-called legal representatives of the appellant are not prosecuting these appeals effectively. Necessary applications and process fee have not been paid.2. In these circumstances, we have no choice, but to dismiss this appeal for non-prosecution and we do so....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC3586; 2000(5)SCALE587; (2004)10SCC86
ORDER1. In a number of cases coming up in appeal in this Court, we find that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal, Commission Haryana at Chandigarh is passing a standard order in the following terms: We have heard the Law Officer of the H.V.P.N. - appellant and have also perused the impugned order. We do not find any legal infirmity in the detailed and well-reasoned order passed by District Forum, Kaithal. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order and dismissed the appeal2. We may point out that while dealing with a First Appeal, this is not the way to dispose of the matter. The Appellate Forum is bound to refer to the pleadings of the case, the submissions of the counsel, necessary points for consideration, discuss the evidence and dispose of the matter by giving valid reasons. It is very easy to dispose of any appeal in this fashion and the higher Courts would not know whether learned State Commission had applied its mind to the case. We hope that such orders will not be passed by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC2548; 2001(49)BLJR801; [2000]102CompCas13(SC); JT2000(8)SC141; (2001)1MLJ18(SC); 2000(5)SCALE250; (2000)6SCC385; 2000(2)LC1390(SC)
ORDERS. Rajendra Babu, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal arises out of a suit filed to enforce a Bank Guarantee against the respondent under Order XXXVII C.P.C. The respondent filed an application seeking leave to defend the suit unconditionally. That application having been allowed this appeal is filed by special leave. Facts leading to this appeal are as follows:3. The appellant entered into a contract with a consortium of M/s. Saipem SPA/Snamprogetti of Italy for construction of a system of undersea pipelines known as the Gas Lift Pipelines. The work comprised of pre-engineering survey, design and engineering, procurement, wrap and coat, fabrication, transportation, laying, installation, testing and pre-commissioning of forty sub-marine pipeline segments of approximately total length of 181.8 kms. The contract price was to the tune of US $63,875,000 plus Indian Rs. 8,06,00,000/-.The scheduled completion date of the entire works subject to any requirements in the contract specificati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2000(10)SC454; (2001)10SCC430
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment of the High Court of Allahabad. The dispute centers around the question as to from which date the appellant would be entitled to promotion to Group-I from Group -II. The appellant had already been promoted to Group-I since 1979, but he has been claiming that he is entitled to get promotion w.e.f. 1972. In execution before the learned Civil Judge, on interpreting the earlier orders, the Civil Judge came to the positive conclusion that the appellant is entitled to the promotion w.e.f. 1975, the date on which his juniors had been promoted. The appellant not being satisfied with the said order, approached the Additional District Judge. The State never assailed the order of the Civil Judge. Therefore, the conclusion and findings of the Civil Judge that the appellant is entitled to promotion to Class-1 w.e.f. 1975, has become final and cannot be altered.3. The Addl. Distt. Judge however accepted the contention of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2000(87)FLR561]; JT2000(10)SC481; (2001)10SCC445
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether a teacher of a private school whose services stood terminated not as a measure of penalty but on account of the fact that he allegedly did not have the requisite qualification, could move the Delhi School Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') against the order of termination, constituted under Section 11 of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') or not?3. The appellant being of the view that the impugned order would not come within the expression 'dismissal, removal or reduction in rank' used in Sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Act, directly approached the High Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.4. A learned Single Judge of the High Court came to the conclusion that availability of an alternative remedy oust the jurisdiction of the Court and, therefore, refused to interfere. The appellant approached t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2000(8)SC175; 2000(3)KLT123(SC); (2001)1MLJ12(SC); 2000(5)SCALE257; (2000)6SCC394; [2000]Supp1SCR645; 2000(2)LC1222(SC)
K.T. Thomas, J.1. A dispute which constantly caused many litigations to prolong in the past (whether a lease could be made by an unregistered instrument when such deed is compulsorily registerable) has once again been raised and that dispute has lengthened the longevity of this litigation through a chequered career. The successor of the party who was mainly responsible for not registering the instrument has now been benefited of it as the impugned judgment gave a decree for eviction of the person who was admittedly inducted into possession of the building by the former. Though appellant claimed protection under the provisions of the Rent Control legislation the High Court discountenanced it on the premise that the document executed by the parties regarding the transaction is void under law. The simple question now is whether appellant can claim protection as a tenant under Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1965 (for short the 'Rent Act').2. Facts, mostly undisputed, are the...
Tag this Judgment!