Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2540; 2002(80)ECC3; JT2001(10)SC330
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against an order and judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench dated 26-9-1997 upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant for an offence under Section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act').2. According to the prosecution case on 8-8-1988 at about 4.30 p.m. the appellant was travelling in a bus which was checked by Narcotics Sub-Inspector Dudhnath Ram PW-1 near Hasanpaliya village at Neemuch-Dhar Road. PW-1 found that there was an attachee lying on the rack and three persons were sitting on the back side seat of the bus. On inquiry as to who did that attachee belong to, the appellant is stated to have admitted that it belonged to him. The attachee also carried a name slip with the name of the appellant on it. The attachee was taken into possession by PW-1 and the appellant was made to alight from the bus. He was asked about the key of the attachee whic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2525; [2002(92)FLR346]; JT2001(10)SC316; (2002)10SCC212; 2002(4)SCT396(SC)
1. An advertisement was made by the first-respondent, Chaudhary Charan Singh Agricultural University (hereinafter referred to as 'the University') to fill up one post of Vegetable Botanist. The requisite qualifications for the same are as under :'i) Bachelor's degree with at least 55% marks in percentage system or at least 2.50/ 4.00 or its equivalent on point scale system.ii) Master's degree with at least 60% on percentage system or at least 3.20/4.00 or its equivalent on point scale system in Vegetable crops with specialisation in Vegetable Breeding.iii) Ph.D. in the Vegetable Crops with specialisation in Vegetable Breeding.iv) Five years experience of Research/ Teaching/Extention.'2. The appellant was one of the persons who had applied for the said post. The Selection Committee constituted by the University selected two candidates, namely. Dr. K.S. Baswana and Avtar Singh, the appellant. The Selection Committee noticed as regard the appellant that he may not possess the necessary ex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2531; 2002(2)ALD(Cri)266; 2002(1)BLJR316; 2002CriLJ3505; 2002(2)Crimes38(SC); I(2002)DMC480SC; JT2001(10)SC344; (2002)10SCC163
1. Leave granted.2. Three persons were convicted under Sections 304B, 201 read with Sections 34 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The present appellants were sentenced to RI for seven years each for the first count and RI for two years on the second count while no separate sentence was awarded for the third court. As for the remaining convicted person the sentence awarded on the first count was RI for nine years (Ram Pukar). All the convicted persons appealed before the High Court and the conviction as well as sentence were confirmed. The present appellants are A1-Mungeshwar Prasad and A3-Devanti Devi. Their son Ram Pukar is the remaining convicted person who has not challenged the verdict of the High Court. So we are dealing with this appeal only in respect of the present appellants before us.3. Sudama Devi was married to the son of the appellants-Ram Pukar sometime during 1992. She died of unnatural circumstances on 24-1-95. The convicted persons are alleged to have subjected her to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2001(91)FLR816]; JT2001(9)SC35; (2001)IILLJ1547SC; 2001(8)SCALE330
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. In this appeal, the workman has challenged the judgment of a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in APO No. 13 of 2000 allowing the appeal filed by the employer, respondent No. 1 herein (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent').3. The controversy raised in the case relates to the eligibility of one Amar Roy to represent the respondent before the Industrial Tribunal as the President of Employers' Association of which the respondent is a member. The association is known as Assam, West Bengal, Orissa and Bihar Employers' Association which is stated to be registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act. The objection raised by the appellant against representation of the respondent by Amar Roy was that being a legal practitioner he was not eligible to represent the respondent in view of the provisions in Section 36(2), (3) and (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further, it was alleged by the appellant that Amar Roy was not the President of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2002)1CALLT13(SC); [2001(91)FLR1179]; JT2001(9)SC21; (2002)ILLJ463SC; 2001(8)SCALE328; (2002)1UPLBEC148
1. The appellants before us and the first respondent are officers of Bolangir Anchalika Gramya Bank (for short 'the bank'). A promotion policy was formulated by the bank on October 25, 1991 by which the promotion to the cadre of area managers/senior managers would be pursuant to a selection as provided in Clause 3 thereof on the basis of a written test, seniority, performance and/or service record, CAIIB examination and interview.2. The officers' association of the bank submitted a representation to the Chairman protesting against the issuance of the circular on the promotion policy on the ground that it is violative of the provisions contained in the relevant rules. The promotion policy indicated that even an officer who submits (i) a conditional refusal, and/or (ii) absents himself from written examination, and/or an interview without prior intimation or valid proof, shall be permanently debarred from the promotion to the higher grades and officiating chances too and suitable noting ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001VIIIAD(SC)77; AIR2001SC3645; [2001(91)FLR380]; JT2001(7)SC571; (2001)IILLJ1239SC; 2001(6)SCALE300; (2001)9SCC609; 2001(4)SCT428(SC); (2001)3UPLBEC2515
Rajendra Babu, J.1. These two sets of cases are cross-appeals filed by the Management of the Gwalior Sugar Company Limited and their workmen.2. The workmen were charged that on 9.2.1979 when Kanhaiyala Agrawal was to duty on trailer weigh bridge of the factory gate from 2 a.m. to 10 a.m. in collusion with Harihar Giri, center Incharge, Ramesh Chandra Savita, Harihar Sharma, Devi Ram Rajak, Dedaram, C.P. Madan, Hari Singh, Umeshchandra and Narendra Singh conspired to allow one trailer sugar cane requisition slip No. 5999 in the name of Chatura for bringing sugar cane by bullock cart at Sunwai Depot on false payment slip No. 14964 wrote gross weight 46.70 and help him in making payment of Rs. 373.1 paise without the arrival of sugar cane in the company for their respect benefits and each of the workmen was dismissed after inquiry. Applications were filed by them before the Labour Court challenging their termination from service.3. In the case of Kanhaiyala Agrawal, the labour court came ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001VIIAD(SC)575; AIR2001SC2871; [2001(91)FLR494]; JT2001(7)SC607; 2001LabIC3728; (2001)IILLJ1234SC; 2001(6)SCALE285; (2001)8SCC322; 2001(4)SCT419(SC)
Rajendra Babu, J.1. The appellants before us are workmen on the establishment of the M.P. State Road Transport Corporation. In these appeals the workmen had approached the labour court for classification as Booking Agents and for payment of wages for different periods for which they had worked as such on the establishment of the first respondent. The appellant in Civil Appeal No. 636 of 1998 sought to be classified as Traffic Supervisor-II on the ground that though he was holding the post of Booking Agent but was directed to discharged the duties of Sub-Depot Incharge which is equivalent to the post of Traffic Supervisor-II. The appellants in the other appeals also claimed a similar benefit. The labour court allowed the claim of the appellant. Writ petitions were preferred against the same. The learned Single Judge following the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs . Narain Singh Rathore & Ors., : (1995)ILLJ899MP , allowed the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001VIIAD(SC)593; AIR2001SC3678; 2002(1)ALD(Cri)36; 2002(1)ALT(Cri)211; 2002CriLJ80; JT2001(7)SC597; 2001(6)SCALE292; (2001)8SCC86
Banerjee, J.1. It is now well-settled that the Court can sift the chaff from the grain and find out the truth from the testimony of the witnesses. The evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness and once the same stands satisfied, it ought to inspire confidence in the mind of the Court to accept the stated evidence. This Court in Leela Ram (Dead) Through Duli Chand V. State of Haryana and another : AIR1999SC3717 relying upon an earlier decision of this Court in State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthon : 1985CriLJ493 observed:'..There are bound to be some discrepancies between the narrations of different witnesses when they speak on details, and unless the contradictions are of a material, dimension, the same should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety. Incidentally, corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases. Minor embellishment, there may be, but variations by reason therefore should not render the evidence ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC3324; [2001(91)FLR373]; JT2001(7)SC664; 2001LabIC3363; 2001(6)SCALE271; (2001)8SCC532; 2002(1)SCT262(SC); 2002(1)SLJ89(SC); (2001)3UPLBEC2562
Raju, J.1. This appeal filed against the order of a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court at Cuttack dated 25.297, involves a challenge to the order sustaining in its turn the order passed by the Chancellor, Sambalpur University, annulling the appointment of the appellant to the post of Lecturer in Political Science, on the ground that he did not possess the minimum required academic qualification prescribed by the University Grants Commission.2. The appellant was initially appointed as a Research Assistant in the Post-Graduate Department of the respondent-University and joined as such on 6.7.79. In the course of his employment, he performed his duties for collection, compilation, tabulation and interpretation of data in addition to assisting the M. Phil. Programme. On 30.11.92, the University issued an advertisement inviting applications in the prescribed form for certain posts enumerated therein, of which the Lecturer in Political Science was also one. Note 4 indicated that the det...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2542; JT2001(10)SC252; (2002)9SCC698; [2003]41SCL142(SC)
1. Apex Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and Fair growth Financial Services Limited had entered into a hire-purchase agreement whereby a sum of Rs. 36.50 lakhs was advanced by Fair growth to Apex Engineering for purchasing two wheel loaders from M/s. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. (TELCO). Agreeing to the terms of the agreement, Apex Engineering had to pay 36 equal quarterly instalments totalling Rs. 56.21 lakhs. The agreement further stipulated that in the event of default of payment by Apex Engineering it would be required to pay interest at 2 per cent per month compounded on daily basis.2. Some instalments were paid, but on 7th May, 1992, Apex Engineering wrote to Fair growth that there were some inherent manufacturing and design defects in the wheel loaders rendering them unusable and requested Fair growth to repossess the wheel loaders and take up the matter with TELCO.3. On 6th June, 1992, the Special Courts Ordinance was issued, which was subsequently replaced by the Act and ...
Tag this Judgment!