Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001VIIIAD(SC)371; AIR2001SC4029; JT2001(8)SC277; 2001(6)SCALE652; (2001)8SCC501
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is filed by the tenant against the order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 3205 of 1982 dated January 9/10, 1992.2. The question that arises in this appeal is: whether in calculating the ceiling area of the landlord for purposes of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 41-1B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, should any land held by him outside the State of Maharashtra be computed?3. By Maharashtra Act XXXIX of 1964 Chapter III-AA was inserted in the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. 1948 (for short, 'the Act') and the words 'or serving member of the armed forces' were deleted from Section 32F of the Act. Chapter III-AA contains special provisions for termination of tenancy by landlords who are or have been serving members of the Armed Forces and for purchase of their lands by tenants. Section 43-1B which is one of the main provisions in that chapter confers a rig...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001VIIIAD(SC)297; AIR2001SC4010; 2001(6)ALT30(SC); 2001(3)APLJ345; (2002)1CompLJ46(SC); JT2001(8)SC271; 2001(6)SCALE657; (2001)8SCC470; 2002(1)LC4(SC)
Ruma Pal, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The question which arises for determination in this case is whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are applicable to an application challenging an award, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (referred to hereafter as the '1996 Act'). 3. The award in this case was made by the Arbitrator on 29th August, 1998. Under the impression that the Arbitration act, 1940 applied, the Arbitrator forwarded the original Award to the appellant with a request to file the Award in the High Court of Bombay so that a decree could be passed in terms of the Award under the provisions of the Arbitrator Act, 1940. The Award was accordingly field by the appellant in the Bombay High court on 29th March, 1999. The appellant filed an application challenging the Award on 19th April, 1999 under Section 30 read with Section 16 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. Subsequently, the application was amended by inserting the words 'Arbitration ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001VIIIAD(SC)356; AIR2001SC4014; 2001CriLJ4683; JT2001(8)SC348; 2001(6)SCALE641; (2001)9SCC432
Thomas, J.1. Leave granted.2. The question is short but the range of consideration got widened much. Answer to the question may be of advantage to some accused and disadvantage to some other accused who are involved in a large number of criminal cases which are compendiously styled with the sobriquet 'Bihar Fodder Scam Cases'. These cases related to a series of orchestrated fraudulent acts by which a staggeringly huge amount of public money was plundered or looted after creating fake bills and other false documents for the said purpose, with the active participation or connivance of several high ups in the administration of the State. Though it is unnecessary now to mention the whopping sum so plundered in each case, we are told that the aggregate of them exceeds Rs. 720 crores. The persons arraigned in the cases include men who held high offices, besides the two former Chief Ministers of Bihar (Lalu Prasad Yadav and Dr. Jagannath Mishra).3. The above indicated question winched to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2002(4)ALLMR(SC)249; [2002(92)FLR400]; JT2001(10)SC433; (2002)ILLJ454SC; (2002)9SCC644; 2002(4)SCT609(SC)
1. Leave granted.2. The appellant was a conductor in KSRTC, KH Road, Bangalore. On 17-1-1985 at about 5.00 p.m. the checking staff intercepted the bus plying on route and found that there were 49 passengers in the bus but the appellant, the duty conductor, had not issued tickets to 8 passengers in spite of fare having been collected from them. Thedepartmental enquiry on charges of misconduct was held against him and the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed, While imposing such punishment the Disciplinary Authority took into consideration previous service history of the appellant wherein the appellant was found to have been involved in more than 41 cases of similar nature. Earlier the appellant was penalised even by imposing punishment of withholding of his increments and still the appellant did not show any sign of improvement.3. The appellant put in issue the finding of departmental proceedings as also punishment imposed therein by raising an industrial dispute under Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2003]114CompCas30(SC); (2003)11SCC486
1. Leave granted.2. It is very unfortunate that the High Court by the impugned judgment has interfered with an order passed by a trial magistrate permitting the complainant to produce a document though at the fag end of the trial.3. In a prosecution launched by the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the appellant completed the evidence including his own examination, cross-examination and re-examination. During such cross-examination the respondent-accused contested the question of service of notice envisaged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The acknowledgment card produced by the complainant contained a signature which the accused disowned as his. After the arguments concluded and the case was posted for judgment the complainant moved the trial court for reception of additional material (by producing a postal receipt) in exercise of the powers under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial court felt that the said ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2002(92)FLR601]; JT2001(10)SC428; (2002)ILLJ457SC; (2002)10SCC167
S. Rajendra Babu and; Doraiswamy Raju, JJ.1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. This appeal is directed against an order made by the High Court in which an order made by the Labour Court was challenged.4. The Labour Court noticed that the services of the respondent were terminated on 25-5-1985. He approached the Labour Officer on 17-3-1995 and thereafter reference was made by the Government to the Labour Court. There is a delay of more than 9 years in approaching the Labour Officer. The Labour Court noticed that it would be impossible to maintain records for such a long period and place them before the Labour Court. In those circumstances, it found that the delay of nine years would be fatal to the case and on that basis rejected the reference against which the writ petition was filed.5. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and stated that the delay in approaching the Labour Court would not be fatal to the case and the ends of justice would be met by reinstatement with co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2001(10)SC570; 2001(7)SCALE158; (2002)10SCC226
B.N. Kirpal and; Ashok Bhan, JJ.1. Special leave granted.2. The decision of the Central Government to locate the headquarters of South Western Railway at Hubli instead of Bangalore was successfully impugned by the respondents before the High Court of Karnataka. It was the case of the respondents that once the Railways had decided to establish the headquarters at Bangalore and spent public funds in putting up part of the establishment, a subsequent decision of shifting the headquarters to Hubli was bad in law.3. The High Court came to the conclusion that this decision was vitiated on account of legal mala fides as the appellants herein had decided to shift the zonal office from Bangalore to Hubli without any changed or compelling circumstances and without taking into account all relevant and material facts.4. It is contended by the learned Solicitor-General that where the headquarters of a zonal Railway should be is only a question of policy and it is no business of the court to interfe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2634; 2002CriLJ3509; 2002(80)ECC1; JT2001(10)SC540; (2003)11SCC498
1. The accused-appellanthas been held guilty of an offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) and in default of fine, to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for two years. The conviction, as also the sentence passed thereon by the learned Special Judge. Nagpur, have been maintained in appeal by the High Court.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that Bhaskar Kolhe (PW 6), Police Head Constable, attached to Crime Branch, Nagpur received an information at about 12-15 p.m. on 8th January, 1993 that a person by name Amarjeet Singh was possessing brown sugar and selling the same by standing near Mominpura Masjid. He was also informed of the features of the accused so as to identify him. Head Constable Kolhe made a record of the information and sent a copy of the same to the Assistant Commissioner of Police who was his immedia...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001VIIIAD(SC)303; AIR2001SC4007; [2001(91)FLR623]; JT2001(8)SC306; (2001)IILLJ1417SC; 2001(6)SCALE626; (2001)9SCC540; 2001(4)SCT831(SC); 2002(1)SLJ97(SC)
Raju, J.1. The above appeals have been filed against the common judgment of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dated 4.12.97 in Writ Petition Nos. 7771 of 1986, 321 of 1987 and 19366 of 1985 and they are by M/s Indian Overseas Bank, Canara Bank and Vijaya Bank respectively.2. The respective Banks had their own regulation for regulating the conduct, discipline and appeals pertaining to their officers and employees. Those Regulations contained a provision enabling an officer/employee to take the assistance of any other officer-employee to defend him in any disciplinary proceedings. This was sought to be amended by a circular order providing for the addition of a note to the relevant regulation in the following terms:Note: The officer employee shall not take the assistance of any other employee who has two pending disciplinary cases on hand in which he has to give assistance.3. This move was said to have been triggered by the communication of the Government of India dated 5.12.8...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC3988; [2001(91)FLR754]; JT2001(8)SC364; 2001(6)SCALE633; (2001)8SCC722; 2001(4)SCT836(SC); 2002(1)SLJ316(SC); (2001)3UPLBEC2455
Rajendra Babu, J.1. These appeals arise out of an order made by the High Court of Calcutta in writ petition Nos. 488/1993 and 489/1993 filed in the High Court challenging the validity of Regulation 13(b), substituted by notification No. S.O. 134/(E) dated March 15, 1993, of the Indian Airlines Employees' (Aircraft Engineering Department) Service Regulations, 1959 [for short 'the Regulations'], which provides that no employee shall resign from employment of the Corporation without giving six months notice in writing to the Corporation of his/her intention to resign with provision for Managing Director of the Corporation to dispense with or reduce the period of notice on medical grounds or other special circumstances. A further proviso being to the effect that Corporation may refuse to accept termination if the same is sought to avoid disciplinary action contemplated or taken and a circular No AIC/3/93 dated February 25, 1993 was issued by the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) by...
Tag this Judgment!