Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC2114; JT2001(Suppl1)SC356; 2001LabIC1790; 2001(3)SCALE673; (2001)9SCC54; 2001(2)SCT1039(SC)
Balakrishnan, J. 1. Leave granted.2. The Judgment of the Division Bench of High Court Andhra Pradesh is challenged before us. The appellants and respondents 3 to 10 are now working in different cadres such as Assistant Secretaries, Superintendents and Senior Assistants in Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (hereinafter being called 'APPSC'). The appellants were initially recruited as Typists and Respondents 3 to 10 were initially recruited and appointed as Junior Assistants. For Junior Assistants, the next promotion post was Senior Assistants. Those who were appointed as Typists had also been urging for promotion to the post of Senior Assistants and form 1978 onwards they were given promotion to the post of Senior Assistants. Promotions to the post of Senior Assistant from the cadres of Junior Assistant and Typist were in the ratio of 4:1. However, promotions so made were not supported by any rules but were based on a policy adopted by APPSC. In 1992, APPSC decided that inter se ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2002(94)FLR657]; (2001)IILLJ422SC
ORDER1. Delay condoned. Leave granted. On perusal of the records and on consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the Industrial Court, Bench at Bhopal should have decided the case on merit instead of dismissing the first appeal solely on the ground of delay. The delay in filing of the appeal was 52 days. The High Court also in the writ petition did not apply its mind to the case on merit but merely confirmed the judgment / order of the Industrial Court. It is our view that for the sake 9f proper adjudication of the dispute raised in the case and for the ends of justice the matter should be remitted to the Industrial Court for disposal on merit after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. 2. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment/order of the Industrial Court, Bhopal Bench, in Appeal No. 2309/MIPR/92 dated April 21, 1995 and the judgment/order of the High Court confirming the same are set aside. The case is remitt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2001(90)FLR356]; (2001)IILLJ417SC
ORDER1. Leave granted.The short question that arises for consideration is whether the High Court was justified in interpreting the provisions of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short the Act) in the matter of granting relief to the workman requiring the workman to file affidavit that he/she is not gainfully employed, at every point of time when an application is to be filed.2. The services of the workman having been terminated and a reference being made to the Industrial Forum the Industrial Court set aside the order of termination and directed reinstatement with 50% back wages. The employer assailed the said award by filing a writ petition which is pending before the High Court and obtained an order of stay of the direction of the Industrial Tribunal. The workman having approached the High Court by filing an affidavit and indicating that he had not been employed in any establishment and as such would be entitled to the benefits flowing from Section 17B of the Act, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC2054; JT2001(Suppl1)SC366; 2001(3)SCALE574; (2001)4SCC700; [2001]3SCR241
Banerjee, J.1. The State of West Bengal is in appeal against the Judgment and Order of the Calcutta High Court recording a finding that the dispossession of the writ petitioner/Respondents herein on 19th March, 1991 who arbitrary and without process of law. The High Court further directed in its Order that the State authorities will not in any way disturb the possession of the Writ Petitioners without taking recourse to the provision of the West Bengal (Public Land Eviction of Unauthorized occupants) Act 1962 or such other provision as may be available to them.2. The contextual facts depict that the Writ Petitioners were in possession of three out houses in premises No. 62 Syed Amir Ali Avenue, Calcutta. The High Court while dealing with the facts came to the conclusion, however, that possessory right ought not to prevent the vesting of the entire property in the State Government and thus came to a finding that the entire premises No. 62, Syed Amir Ali Avenue Calcutta came to be vested...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2001]118TAXMAN825(SC)
ORDERThe order under challenge declined to interfere with the order passed by a learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge had, by an interim order, granted stay of proceedings before the income-tax Authorities, provided the appellant deposited a sum of Rs. 5 crores out of a tax demand of Rs. 40 crores. We see, as the High Court did, no reason to interfere with that order of deposit.2. However, before us, time has been sought to make that deposit of Rs. 5 crores and attention has been drawn to the fact that some amount had been deposited and adjusted in the interregnum. It is now not disputed that only a sum of Rs. 1.20 crores is required to make up the deficit. The learned counsel on behalf of the appellant to make that deposit within a period of two weeks. That undertaking is accepted and, accordingly, it is directed that upon that deposit being, made, the proceedings before the income-tax authorities shall remain stayed.3. The order of the learned Single Judge also required the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC2117; 2001(3)ALLMR(SC)822; JT2001(Suppl1)SC381; 2001(3)SCALE561; (2001)5SCC323; 2001(2)LC1118(SC)
Shivraj V. Patil, J.1. In this appeal, the appellants have questioned the validity and correctness of the order dated 14.1.1991 passed by the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 3201 and 1990, dismissing the same. 2. The first appellant is a partnership firm carrying on business as share and stock brokers and the second appellant is a partner of the said firm.They filed the writ petition in the High Court challenging the action of the respondent no. 1 declaring the appellants as defaulters by its resolution / notice dated 25.3.1997 and to re-admit them as member. Before the High Court mainly two grounds were urged - (i) that the decision of the respondent no. 1 declaring the appellants as defaulters was in violation of the rules of natural justice as a copy of the impugned Resolution/Notice dated 25.3.1987 was not furnished nor they were given hearing before taking decision, (2) having regard to the unblemished track record of the appellants, the decision to declare them as defau...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC2412; 2001(3)ARBLR2(SC); [2001]106CompCas852(SC); (2001)3CompLJ1(SC); JT2001(Suppl1)SC603; 2001(4)SCALE102; (2001)5SCC751; [2001]3SCR236; 2001(2)LC1315(SC)
Kirpal, J.1. This is an appeal filed against the judgment of the Special Court constituted under the Special Court (Trial of Offences relating to Transactions in securities) Act, 1992 whereby the suit filed by the respondent was decreed and it was inter alia ordered that the appellant herein should purchase units which had been agree to be sold to the respondent and deliver the same to it.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the respondent paid Rs.26,82,00,000/- to the appellant on 10th September , 1991 for purchase of 2 crore units of the Unit Trust of India at the rate of Rs.13.41p. per unit Subsequently, on 23rd October, 1991 it paid further sum of Rs. 75,83,12,500/- as consideration for the purchase of 5.50 crore units at the rate of Rs.13.7875 per unit.3. In respect of the aforesaid two transactions the appellant issued to the respondent two bankers' receipts - one bearing No.53 dated 10th September, 1991. According to the said bankers' receipts the units were to be delivered by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2002(4)AWC3037(SC); [2002(94)FLR655]
ORDERA.S. Anand, C.J.,R.C. Lahoti and Doraiswamy Raju, JJ. 1. Appellant joined service as a Munsif in 1976 after completion of the training period. He was later on promoted as a Civil Judge and posted at Dehradun with effect from 27.2.1986. While he was serving at Dehradun, certain adverse entries came to be made against him on 27.10.1987, against which he filed a representation. Those adverse entries pertained to the year 1986-87. While his representation was still pending, more adverse entries came to be made against him in the A.C.R. for 1988-89 and 1989-90. He filed representations against those adverse entries also. Promotion of the appellant was withheld because of the adverse entries in his C. R. His representation against adverse entries came to be rejected on 13.12.1990 and the review petition filed by the appellant was rejected on 23.10.1991. The appellant put in issue the correctness of adverse entries of 1986-87 and the validity of rejection of his representation through Wr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC2120; 2001(1)ALD(Cri)800; 2001ALLMR(Cri)1017(SC); 2001CriLJ2343; 2001(2)Crimes231(SC); JT2001(5)SC121; 2001(3)SCALE539; (2001)4SCC759; [2001]3SCR210; 2001(2)LC1076
Banerjee, J.1. There is available a very wide discretion in the matter of obtaining additional evidence in terms of Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A plain look at the statutory provisions (Section 391) would reveal the same and the same reads as below:'391. Appellate Court may take further evidence or direct it to be taken -- (1) In dealing with any appeal under this Chapter, the Appellate Court, if it thinks additional evidence to be necessary, shall record its reasons and may either take such evidence itself, or direct it to be taken by a Magistrate, or when the Appellate Court is a High Court, by a Court of Session or a Magistrate, (2) When the additional evidence is taken by the Court of Session or the Magistrate, it or he shall certify such evidence to the appellate Court, and such Court shall thereupon proceed to dispose of the appeal. (3) The accused or his pleader shall have the right to be present when the additional evidence is taken. (4) The taking of evidenc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC2124; 2001(1)ALD(Cri)917; 2001(2)ALT(Cri)95; 2001(49)BLJR1728; 2001CriLJ2556; 2001(2)Crimes242(SC); I(2001)DMC734SC; JT2001(5)SC127; 2001(3)SCALE549; (2001)6SCC407
Banerjee,J.1. The appeal in question tell the tale of a young girl dying out of burn injuries. Whereas the learned Sessions Judge convicted each of the accused being the husband, the father-in-law, the mother-in-law and the brother-in-law under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code and 498A/34 together with 120B of the Indian Panel Code and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life under 304B IPC and a further sentence of 3 years to each of the accused for an offence under 498A IPC and in view of the sentences passed, no need was felt to pass any sentence under Section 120B IPC. The appeal taken to the High Court stands allowed so far as the appellant Nos.1,2 and 4 are concerned upon taking into consideration of the facts under Section 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Panel Code as also under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Code was confirmed. Arvind Singh, the husband was however, found guilty for murder of the wife Minta Devi and his conviction under 304...
Tag this Judgment!