Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001VIIAD(SC)410; AIR2001SC3703; 2002CriLJ86; JT2001(7)SC587; 2001(6)SCALE280; (2001)8SCC306
Santosh Hegde, J.1. Leave granted.2. Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 in these appeals (hereinafter to be referred to as the said respondents) along with one Rachhpal Singh, their father, were convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Nabha on 13.8.1987 for offences punishable under Sections 326 325 324 read with Section 34 IPC. On an appeal filed against the said judgment and conviction, the learned Sessions Judge, Patiala, confirmed the convictions as against respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and allowed the appeal of Rechhpal Singh and acquitted him of the charges alleged against him. Against the said judgment of the appellate court, the said respondents filed a revision petition before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh and the learned Single Judge who heard the revision petition, dismissed the same on 17.7.1998 upholding the conviction and sentence awarded to the said respondents.3. It is of importance to note that during the period of trial ending with confirmation of convi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001VIIIAD(SC)656; AIR2001SC3515; 2002(1)ALD(Cri)57; 2001(2)ALT(Cri)273; 2001CriLJ4758; JT2001(8)SC19; 2001(6)SCALE290; (2001)8SCC387
1. This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal Nos. 794-796 of 1996, filed by the State of Karnataka, by special leave, as also Criminal Appeal No. 2045 of 1996, filed by A-20 (Raja @ Venkataraja) and A-33 (Hanumanthaiah @ Hanumaiah) against their conviction and sentence.2. For the murder of Chennappa and Honna Nanjaiah, which occurred on 16th February, 1987, as many as 37 persons were charged for committing various offences and sent up for trial before the learned sessions court. The trial court, vide judgment dated 30th March, 1992 acquitted 18 persons out of the accused party, 16 persons were convicted for various offences out of which A-1, A-2, A-20, A-30 and A-33 were convicted for substantive offences under Section 302/149 IPC besides other offences. 13 of the accused persons were convicted for various offences including offences under Section 326/149 IPC. A-27, A-26 and A-29, three ladies, were convicted for an offence under Section 323 IPC but given the benefit of Probation o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001VIIAD(SC)509; AIR2001SC3607; [2001(91)FLR253]; JT2001(7)SC564; 2001LabIC3335; 2001(6)SCALE215; (2001)8SCC537; 2001(4)SCT418(SC); 2002(1)SLJ81(SC); (2001)3UPLBEC2556
Rajendra Babu, J.1. These appeals arise out of certain proceedings in O.A.No.418/94 filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench [hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal']. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, who were working as Electricians [HS], Grade II, by O.A. No. 771/93 challenged the selection of the appellants as Electricians [HS]. A Division Bench of the Tribunal after going through the record of the selection and the mark sheets found that out of the total marks of 100, 35 marks have been allotted to written test, 40 marks for practical test and 25 marks for viva voce. All the applicants had not obtained the qualifying minimum marks of 50 per cent prescribed for general candidates and 40 per cent marks for SC/ST candidates. On the basis of the marks obtained by the, the appellants have been promoted to the higher grade, which is a selection grade, and dismissed the application of respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Subsequently another application in O.A. No. 1308/93 was filed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2002(92)FLR207]; JT2001(10)SC360; 2002LabIC2319; (2002)ILLJ548SC; (2002)9SCC691; 2002(4)SCT617(SC)
ORDERB.N. Kirpal, N. Santosh Hedge and S.N. Variava, JJ.1. Special leave granted.2. The respondent, as is evident from the facts which emanate from the record, was appointed in a project of the appellant, namely, the Ballast project of the Northern Railways. He was appointed as a khalasi and no formal letter of appointment was issued. In 1988, he was transferred to the head office and by memo dated 29th June, 1992, he was informed that his services were no longer required but he was paid compensation as per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.3. The respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court. Before the High Court, an order of this Court dated 2nd May, 1997 in the case of Sufal Jha and Ors. v. U.O.I. and Ors. was referred to. That was a case where certain persons working at the projects were sought to be retrenched and on concession, it was directed that there will be an offer of appointment to those of the petitioners whose names figure on the panel to be p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC2176; 2002(3)ALLMR(SC)577; JT2001(10)SC265; (2002)9SCC593
A.S. Anand, C.J.; R.C. Lahoti and; P. Venkatarama Reddi, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. The appellants filed Civil Suit No. 197 of 1995 seeking perpetual injunction to restrain respondents from disturbing their possession over the suit property. An ex parte interim injunction came to be issued which was confirmed by the learned Civil Judge on 22-8-1995. The appeal, filed against the order of the trial court dated 22-8-1995, was dismissed on 24-4-1996 by the learned Additional District Judge. The matter rested there.3. Respondent 1 filed Civil Suit No. 120 of 1996 seeking perpetual injunction against the appellant. That suit was decided against the appellant and the suit filed by Respondent 1 was decreed on 21-11-1998.4. The appellant, thereafter, challenged judgment and decree dated 21-11-1998 by filing regular civil appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge, Ahmednagar. Along with the appeal, the appellant filed an application seeking condonation of delay of 14 days in filing the appea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001VIIAD(SC)416; AIR2001SC2875; JT2001(7)SC544; 2001(6)SCALE218; (2001)8SCC460
ORDERRajendra Babu, J.1. This appeal by special leave is against the judgment in Letters Patent Appeal No. 206 of 1992 on the file of the High Court of Madras. The question raised in this appeal is as to whether the temples of the Madurai Veerasami and 18 Padi Karupannasami Temple are 'private temples' of the appellants' family or they belong to the second respondent temple Meenakshi Sundereswarar Temple, Madurai or a sub-temple belonging to as claimed by respondents.2. The appellants claim that the two shrines of Madurai Veerasami and 18 Padi Karupannasami Temple are situate in a premises bearing Door No. 52, East Chitrai Street, Madurai: that adjoining these temples are two shops in premises bearing Door Nos. 51 and 53: that they are 'private temples' and are in their possession and enjoyment as such; that though they were situate in 'paramboke' lands of the Government, these lands on which the temple situate are recognised as private lands of the appellants in the proceedings of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001VIIAD(SC)456; AIR2001SC3290; [2001(91)FLR232]; JT2001(7)SC466; 2001LabIC3330; (2001)IILLJ1520SC; 2002MPLJ1(SC); 2001(6)SCALE156; (2001)7SCC394; 2001(4)SCT413(SC); 2002(
Raju, J.1. The two important questions that are put in issue in this appeal are as to:a) Whether the Bombay Iron & Steal Labour Board constituted under the provisions of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', falls within the definition of 'Industry' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; and b) Whether the appellant, appointed and working at the relevant point of time as an Inspector, discharging duties, powers and obligations envisaged under Section 15 answers the description of 'workman' as defined in Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, 1947.2. The appellant was working as an Inspector in the Bombay Iron & Steel Labour Board [hereinafter referred to as 'tem Board'] from 13.3.79, having been appointed as such on 10.3.79. On such appointment, the appellant was placed on probation for a period of three months and after putting in a service of 21 months, a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001VIIAD(SC)427; AIR2001SC3757; 2001(4)ALLMR(SC)489; [2002(92)FLR297]; JT2001(7)SC519; 2001LabIC3337; 2001(6)SCALE162; 2001(4)SCT361(SC); (2001)3UPLBEC2401
Pattanaik, J.1. This batch of cases deals with the dispute between the direct recruits and the promotees in the cadre of U.P. Higher Judicial Service comprising of posts borne in Class I. U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 have been framed in exercise of powers conferred by the Proviso to Article 309, read with Article 233 of the Constitution by the Governor in supersession of the earlier Recruitment Rules of 1953. The earlier Recruitment Rules of the year 1953 were struck down by this Court in the case of Chandra Mohan vs. State of U.P. on a conclusion that the same was violative of Article 233 of the Constitution.2. The present Rules govern the conditions of service including recruitment of the members of the service constituting a cadre. The dispute, in fact centers round recruitment made in different recruitment years, and is basically one on the calculation made by the High Court to find out the ratio between direct recruits and promotees in a given year. We, however do not ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2002(92)FLR340]; JT2001(10)SC264; (2002)ILLJ672SC; (2003)9SCC129
ORDER1. The respondent applied for employment with the appellant on compassionate ground on the grounds that his father died in harness and his family was in dire circumstances. He also indicated that his elder brother, who is an employee of the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board is residing separately and has his own family. However, the appellants having rejected the application made by the respondent, the matter was carried to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur.2. The Tribunal in the first instance merely directed to consider the case of the respondent afresh for appointment on compassionate grounds in relaxation of the educational qualification on merits and the matter was disposed of. Thereafter, the said order was reviewed by another application when the various circumstances of the death of the father of the respondent, brother being in employment and living separately not supporting the family of the respondent, were considered and the matter had been p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2381; [2002(92)FLR357]; JT2001(10)SC318; 2002LabIC2190; (2002)ILLJ832SC; (2002)9SCC592
ORDER1. The respondent was appointed as typist on 29-01-1992 while he was working as an attender in the office of the first appellant in terms of Rule 10(a)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules indicating that the said appointment is purely temporary and is made under emergency provisions of the said rules liable to be terminated any time without prior notice and without assigning any reason.2. Thereafter, another order was made by the commissioner on 14-05-1996 stating that the respondent does not possess necessary experience of 5 years, before he could have been appointed by transfer from the post of an attender to the post of a typist. This order was challenged before the tribunal. The tribunal on consideration of the effect of Rule 10(a)(i) of the said rules, held that the non-possession of the requisite qualification and experience was not taken note of inasmuch as the promotion was only temporary otherwise than in accordance with the relevant rules. Rule 1...
Tag this Judgment!