Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC3076; 2000(6)SCALE603; (2000)7SCC510
ORDERD.P. Mohapatra, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant who is in occupation of the ground floor of the building K 37-C, Kailash Colony, New Delhi, as a tenant has filed this appeal assailing the Judgment passed by the Delhi High Court dismissing his Revision Petition and confirming the order of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, directing his eviction from the premises.3. The respondent No. 1 who is a widow and her son (respondent No. 2 herein) filed a petition under Section 14-D read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for eviction of the appellant from the premises in question of the ground of personal requirement. In the petition it was stated, inter alia, that the respondent No. 1 is as aged lady, aged about 62 years, and she is suffering from various aliments including arthritis; that the widowed mother of the respondent No. 1 who is aged about 90 years is also residing with her and she is also suffering from various a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC3287; [2000(87)FLR793]; (2001)ILLJ596SC; 2000(6)SCALE614; (2000)7SCC741; (2001)1UPLBEC70
ORDERD.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The Hindustan Machines Tools Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'HMT Ltd.'), represented by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director at Bangalore and the General Manager and the Joint General Manager (Personnel Incharge) at Bali Nagar, Hyderabad have filed these appeals by special leave challenging the judgment dated 9th November, 1995 of the Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 3425 of 1995, which was confirmed in appeal by a Division Bench of that Court by its Order dated 28th December, 1995 in Writ Appeal No. 1710 of 1995. 2. HMT Ltd. is a Public Sector Undertaking of the Government of India which, as described by the appellants, has grown into a multi-unit, multi-product, multi-technology Company having four business groups and 20 manufacturing units spread over ten different States in the country. The Company engages casual workers on daily rate basis depending upon the need and exigencies of work. Forty two such casual workers engag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC3243; 2000(6)SCALE618; (2000)8SCC395; [2000]Supp3SCR573
M. Jagannatha Rao, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 10.6.1986 in TA No. 45 and 137 of 1985. By the said judgment, the said TAs were dismissed. Initially, the appellant had filed Writ Petitions 1343 and 1344 of 1981 in the High Court of Madras and the said petitions were transferred to the Tribunal.2. The appellant prayed in the Writ petition, the quashing of the order dated 7.8.1980, passed by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of India (2nd respondent) rejecting his appeal against non-promotion to super-time scale and for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the Government of Tamil Nadu (1st respondent) and the Government of India, to promote the writ petitioner w.e.f. 16.1.77 to the super-time scale, being the date on which his junior was promoted to the said scale. Respondent No. 3 in the petition was Mr. V. Karthikeyan, IAS and respondent No. 4, Mr. C.V.R. Panikar, both former ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC3282; 2000(6)ALT20(SC); (2001)1MLJ61(SC); 2000(6)SCALE649; (2000)7SCC756; [2000]Supp3SCR531; (2001)1UPLBEC38
A.P. Misra, J.1. This appeal raises two questions:(A) Whether the High Court could at all have awarded the compensation exceeding the claim made by the owners in the reference. The claim being Rs. 10,000/- per Bigha while the High Court awarded @ Rs. 11/- per sq. yd.(B) Whether the High Court was right in awarding interest @ 9% and 15% to the respondent-land owners in a case where the award was rendered on 27-12-77 and the reference order was also passed on 28-2-1981.2. In order to appreciate the controversy we are hereunder giving essential matrix of facts. The appellant desiring to establish mandi and its office complex, sent the proposal to the Special Land Acquisition Officer in which acquisition of certain compact land falling in villages, namely, Sangrampur and Kasba Khair both in Tehsil and Pargana District, Aligarh. Accordingly a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 28-5-1976. Invoking the urgency clause under Section 17(1) possession of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2001)10SCC338
K.T. Thomas and; R.P. Sethi, JJ.1. Issue notice.2. Mr D.S. Mehra accepts notice on behalf of the State.3. Leave granted.4. In this matter the appellants have been convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and each was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs 2000. When they moved for suspension of the sentence of imprisonment the High Court refused to do so for which just a one-line order had been passed by a learned Single Judge which is extracted below:“Heard learned counsel for the parties. Dismissed.”5. This Court has stated in Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai v. State of Gujarat1: (SCC p. 422, para 3)“3. When a convicted person is sentenced to a fixed period of sentence and when he files an appeal under any statutory right, suspension of sentence can be considered by the appellate court liberally unless there are exceptional circumstances.”6. No exceptional circumstance has been highlighted by the le...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC3279; (2001)1MLJ66(SC); 2000(6)SCALE598; (2000)8SCC143; [2000]Supp3SCR626
S.N. Variava, J.1. Leave granted.2. This Appeal is against a Judgment of the Punjab & Haryana I High Court dated 5th October, 1999 by which the second Appeal filed by the Appellant herein has been dismissed.3. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:One Ms. Raj Mohini possessed moveable and immovable properties. She was unmarried and did not have any issue. She executed a Will dated 2nd April, 1985 in favour of the 1st Respondent, which is the Indian Red Cross Society. The Appellant is related to Ms. Raj Mohini. He is the son of the maternal uncle of the lady. On 12th June, 1987 Ms. Raj Mohini executed another Will by which she cancelled the earlier will and bequeathed all her properties to the Appellant. The said Raj Mohini died on 27th April, 1998. (For sake of convenience she will hereinafter be referred to as the said deceased.)4. The 1st Respondent applied for a Succession Certificate in respect of the movable assets of the said deceased. They claimed to be beneficiaries under the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC3166; [2001]106CompCas267(SC); 2000(4)CTC687; 2000(6)SCALE654; [2000]Supp3SCR542; (2001)1SCC663
M. Jagannadha Rao, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant Federal Bank at Bombay was the 3rd defendant in the suit and has a branch at Pune. It has preferred this appeal against the order of the High Court dated 8-10-99 summarily dismissing the appellant's appeal AFO No. 818 of 1999. The appeal was preferred against the order of the trial Court dated 29-4-99 whereby the trial Court had confirmed an ex-parte interim injunction dated 20-5-98 granted by it earlier, rejecting the appellant's application to vacate the same. The matter relates to a Letter of Credit issued by the 2nd defendant, Bank of Maharashtra, Pune (3rd respondent) at the instance of the plaintiff-buyers (1st respondent), M/s. V.M. Jog Engineering Co., Pune. The sellers are M/s. Jaswant Steel, Nagpur (1st defendant) (1st respondent). The appellant Federal Bank was the Negotiating Bank (3rd defendant) while the 3rd respondent, Bank of Maharashtra was the Issuing Bank.3. The main point arising in the case can be stated briefl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC3266; 2000(72)ECC7; 2000(3)KLT820(SC); 2000(6)SCALE674; (2000)7SCC552; [2000]Supp3SCR616
K.T. Thomas, J.1. Leave granted.2. A bidder in auction for the privilege of vending foreign liquor within a circumscribed range was permitted by the Excise Commissioner to have his domain shifted to another range. On hearing the said news a hotelier who is doing business in the latter range was distressed and she quickly approached the High Court for thwarting the said move. At the first round the hotelier failed to checkmate the bidder as a single judge of the High Court declined to grant the relief prayed for by her. However, she succeeded on the second round, when a Division Bench of the High Court, on the appeal filed by her, quashed the order of the Excise Commissioner. This appeal by special leave is by the aforesaid bidder for restoration of the benefit which he secured from the Excise Commissioner.3. In the State of Kerala, the right to sell foreign liquor is restricted by statutory provisions. The Government of Kerala has formulated-rules for it under the Kerala Abkari Act and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC3089; 2000(6)SCALE607; (2000)7SCC686; [2000]Supp3SCR502
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. State of West Bengal represented by the Secretary Land and Land Reforms Department, the Junior Land Reforms Officer, Barrackpore Circle, P.S. Khardah, Distt. 24 Parganas and the Additional Collector and Additional District Magistrate (Land Reforms), 24 Parganas (North) have filed this appeal assailing the judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dated 7.4.1977 allowing the Appeal from Original Order No. 409 of 1961 filed by Sasthidas Malik, (respondent No. 2 herein) on setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 915/59. The Civil Rule was filed by Sasthidas Malik who will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioner.2. The dispute raised in the case relates to the question whether the writ petitioner is entitled to retain the lands comprised in plot Nos. 11 and 32 under Khatyan Nos. 21 and 390 respectively of Mouza Kalidash extending over an area of 2.3432 acres, under the provisions of the West Bengal Estates' Acquisit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC3084; 2000(6)SCALE536; (2000)7SCC618; [2000]Supp3SCR462
Shivaraj V. Patil, J.1. Since these petitions raise common questions based on similar set of facts they arc being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The petitioners filed their respective writ petitions against the respondents praying for the publication of their results and to issue diploma in teachers training, contending that on successful completion of the higher secondary they underwent secondary grade teachers training in different training institutes between the period 1989 to 1991; they had taken public examination in May, 1992 but their results were not published and certificates were not awarded. The institutes in which they had undergone training course had recognition but the same was withdrawn subsequently. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petitions following the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in P.M. Joseph v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. 1993 WLR 604 (Writ Petition No. 9494 of 1992) Writ appeals filed against the order of learned sing...
Tag this Judgment!