Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001(8)SCALE414,(2003)10SCC564
ORDERI.A. No. 1471. Dismissed as withdrawn.I.A. No. 1512. Issue notice to the non-applicants as well as to the learned Amicus Curiae returnable on 6th December, 2001 at 2.00 P.M.3. Copy of this application be also forwarded to Shri Bhure Lal who should constitute an agency which would independently carry out random inspection at the petrol pumps, oil depots and tank lorries in Delhi and give a report with regard to the quality of petrol and diesel available there. It will not be necessary for such an agency to give advance notice before lifting samples as it will be helpful if there is an element of surprise.4. Copy of this order be sent by the Registry to Shri Bhure Lal alongwith a copy of the application within this week. Shri Bhure Lal is requested, if possible to give a Report to this Court on or before 5th December, 2001.5. It is made clear that the expenses in connection with the execution of the work done by the above agency will be to the account of the Union of India.6. Mr. Dw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC208; 2002(1)AWC351(SC); [2002(92)FLR573]; [2002(1)JCR286(SC)]; JT2001(10)SC53; 2002LabIC120; 2001(8)SCALE261; (2002)1SCC616; 2002(1)SCT226(SC); (2002)1UPLBEC1
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. Leave granted in both the cases.2. The State of Uttar Pradesh, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Medical Education and the Director, Medical Education and Training. U.P. have filled these appeals challenging the judgments rendered by the Allahabad High Court, in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition Nos. 14686/88 and in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.15989/87. Both the writ petitions were filed by Dr. K.U.Ansari respondent No.1 herein, citing the appellants, Dr.S.S. Mishra, retired Director, Medical Education, U.P., the Principal, Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad and Dr.A.K. Kapoor, Lecturer in Pharmacology, Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad and some other officers of the Department of Pharmacology in the Medical Colleges at Meerut and Kanpur as respondents. In Writ Petition No. 14686/88 the prayer of the petitioner was for quashing the adverse character roll entries for the years 1979-80, 1980-81, 1984-85 and to direct the respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2001)10SCC715
R.C. Lahoti and; Brijesh Kumar, JJ.1. The land in suit is owned by one Abdul Hamid Khan. In the year 1957, Om Chand, Respondent 2, obtained a lease for 99 years from the owner. On 29-3-1957, a registered lease deed was executed between the appellant and Amarchand (Respondent 3) (hereinafter collectively called as “the tenants”) on the one hand and Respondent 2 Om Chand on the other hand, whereby some area out of the said land measuring 14,740 sq ft was leased out to the tenants for a period of 10 years commencing with effect from 1-3-1957. The land had a low-lying level and the tenants were permitted to raise the level of the land, so as to bring it up to the road level at their own expense. The purpose of letting, as set out in the lease deed, was: “The second party (i.e. the tenants) is entitled to use it by itself or lease it out further to a sub-lessee.” The tenants were permitted by the terms and conditions of lease, to raise construction over the land subj...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC233,2002(1)ALLMR(SC)647,2002(1)ALT26(SC),2002(1)BLJR350,(SCSuppl)2002(1)CHN72,[2002(1)JCR306(SC)],JT2001(10)SC169,(2002)1PLR215,2001(8)SCALE246,(2002)1SCC
1. Leave granted.2. Kamaleshwar Kishore Singh, the appellant and his two minor sons suing through the appellant as next friend, have filed a suit for partition of movable and immovable properties registered as T.P. Suit No. 489 of 1993 in the Court of Sub-Judge-I, Patna. A perusal of the plaint shows that the parties are alleged to be members of joint Hindu Mitakshara family and the properties forming subject matter of the suit, set out in the two schedules annexed with the plaint (Schedule-I listing the immovable properties and Schedule II listing the movable properties) are alleged to be joint family properties of the parties. The source of acquisition of properties is alleged to be joint family funds. The share claimed by the plaintiffs is '25/3 paise out of 100 paise'. The remaining shares belong to the defendants. The reliefs sought for are: (i) a preliminary decree defining plaintiffs' share at '25/3 paise' in the suit properties described in Schedule I & II of the plaint, (ii) a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC206,2001(3)ARBLR686(SC),2002(1)BLJR35,(SCSuppl)2002(1)CHN101,[2002(1)JCR303(SC)],JT2001(9)SC582,2001(8)SCALE250,(2002)1SCC216
Shah, J.1. Leave granted.2. Limited question involved in this appeal is -- whether the High Court ought not to have exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for granting relief in case of alleged breach of contract. 3. writ is not the remedy for enforcing contractual obligations. It is to be reiterated that writ petition under Article 226 is not the proper proceeding for adjudicating such disputes. Under the law, it was open to the respondent to approach the Court of competent jurisdiction for appropriate relief for breach of contract. It is settled law that when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to the litigant, he should be required to pursue that remedy and not invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Equally, the existence of alternative remedy does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court of issue writ, but ordinarily that would be a good ground in refusing to exercise the discretion under Article 226.4. Despite the settl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC236,2002CriLJ548,2002(1)Crimes180(SC),JT2001(9)SC574,RLW2002(1)SC105,2001(8)SCALE235,(2002)1SCC253,2002(1)LC246(SC)
Thomas, J. Leave granted.1. Appellant who scored substantially in a land acquisition proceeding in now facing rough weather as he is arraigned in a criminal proceeding on account of certain documents he produced as evidence. The court which granted a quantum leap in awarding compensation to the land owners later found that they had used forged documents for inveigling such a bumper gain as compensation and hence the court ordered some of the claimants to face prosecution proceedings in a criminal court. The only point now canvassed by the appellant is that he court should have heard the appellant before ordering such prosecution. The said plea raised by the appellant before the High Court was repelled as per the impugned judgment. Hence this appeal by special leave.2. An area of 3.9 acres of land was acquired by the State Government for construction of a canal under Arunwati Project in 1985. The land acquisition officer awarded a total of Rs. 24,000/- as compensation for the entire lan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC195; 2002(1)ALD60(SC); (SCSuppl)2002(1)CHN16; [2002(1)JCR290(SC)]; JT2001(9)SC538; 2002(1)KLT438(SC); 2001(8)SCALE206; (2002)1SCC273
Bharucha, C.J.Writ Petition (C) No. 42/19851. In this writ petition, the Court is called upon to interpret for the first time the provisions of Clause (1A) of Article 30 of the Constitution of India. Clause (1A) was introduced int he Constitution by the Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978.2. Article 30, subsequent to the forty-fourth amendment, reads thus:'30. Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions.-(1) All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.(1A) In making any law providing for the compulsory acquisition of any property of an educational institution established and administered by a minority, referred to in Clause (1), the State shall ensure that the amount fixed by or determined under such law for the acquisition of such property in such as would nor restrict or abrogate the right guaranteed under that clause.(2) The state shall not, i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC224,[2002(93)FLR310],[2002(1)JCR301(SC)],JT2001(10)SC191,2002LabIC128,(2002)ILLJ819SC,2001(8)SCALE212,(2001)10SCC51,(2002)2UPLBEC1121
Raju, J. 1. The appellants, the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and authorities of the said Corporation, challenge the judgment dated 7.5.1997 of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, in W.P. No. 2053 of 1996, sustaining a challenge made to the selection list for appointment of Drivers - displayed on 26.7.1996 and as a consequence thereof, set aside the said selection list while declaring that the claims of the ten petitioners are also to be considered for selection to the post of Drivers. In coming to the said conclusion, the Division Bench of the High Court held that the claims have to be considered in terms of Circular No. 15/95 dated 4.4.1995 which was said to be in force when the applications were called for and that Circular No. 17/96 dated 24.6.1996 has got to be ignored as being arbitrary, illegal and, at any rate, not retrospective in effect.2. The third appellant issued an advertisement, inviting applications for the posts of Drivers and Conductors in the Newspape...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC204; 2001(6)ALT63(SC); JT2001(9)SC591; (2002)2PLR352; 2001(8)SCALE205; (2002)1SCC475
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. By the impugned orders, the High Court appointed a Receiver to ascertain the availability of 1040 sq. ft. of floor space in the building in question. By the said order, it also restrained the appellants herein from changing the status quo existing on the date of the impugned order in regard to the said area. When the SLPs from which these appeals arises, came up for preliminary hearing before this Court on 6.11.2000, this Court was pleased to issue notice and pass an order, staying all further proceedings before the High Court until further orders.3. When the matters were taken up for hearing today, Mr. V.R. Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, questioned the jurisdiction of the High Court to make the impugned orders at the threshold without deciding the question of delay in filing the appeal as well as the objections as to the maintainability of the appeal which according to him was raised by the appellants herein. According to the learn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC200; 2002(1)AWC73(SC); JT2001(9)SC558; (2002)2PLR251; 2001(8)SCALE222; (2002)1SCC610
Phukan, J.1. This appeal, by special leave, arises from the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench dated January 12, 1998 passed in Writ Petition No. 02 (RC)/1998. By the impugned judgment the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the landlord.2. The suit premises was let out by the appellant to the contesting respondent No. 1 and at that time his son Rohit was a minor. In the year 1992, Rohit obtained a post-graduate diploma in computer science and thereafter the appellant filed an application under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Building (Regulation of Lettings, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short 'the Act') for the eviction of the respondent from that suit premises on the ground that it was required bonafide for starting a computer consultancy center as Rohit acquired necessary qualification and was unemployed. It was contended that the appellant has no other alternative accommodation. It was further pleaded that ...
Tag this Judgment!