Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2002)ILLJ1097SC; 2002(2)SCALE74; (2002)10SCC437
S.P. Bharucha, C.J.,; Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri,; U.C. Banerjee,; S.N. Variava and, JJ.1. The question that arises pursuant to the order of reference dated 11-11-1997 is whether the order of dismissal of a workman, which is upheld by the Industrial Tribunal on the leading of additional evidence, relates back to the date of its passing or operates from the date on which it is upheld by the Tribunal.2. The order of reference was made to a Constitution Bench by a Bench of two learned Judges for the reason that they found some difficulty in coming to a conclusion as to whether an earlier Constitution Bench judgment and judgments of Benches of three learned Judges resolved this question. In our view, a Bench of two learned Judges cannot make a reference directly to a Constitution Bench; this has been laid down in the judgment in Pradip Chandra Parija v. Pramod Chandra Patnaik1. It is, therefore, that this Constitution Bench will not decide the reference.3. The appeals are sent back to be li...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(165)ELT492(SC)
ORDER1. The argument on behalf of the appellant is that the Tribunal did not follow its earlier three member Bench judgment that took a different view. It does not appear that that earlier judgment was pointed out to the Tribunal by Counsel who appeared on behalf of the appellant and it is not so stated in the memo of the civil appeal. For the rest, classification is within the province of the Tribunal.2. The civil appeal is dismissed.3. No order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC850; 2002(1)BLJR778; JT2002(2)SC21; 2002(1)SCALE532
1. The above transfer petitions were entertained by this Court for a limited purpose of making available to the Company in question the advantage of the scheme notified by the Reserve Bank of India for Non Performing Assets (NPA) Scheme, which scheme, if availed of would give the Company a substantial financial benefit which benefit in turn could be made available for distribution amongst the various creditors of the Company. To fulfil the above object with the consent of the parties and also in consonance with the order of Madras High Court, by an order of this Court, we had directed the sale of a part of the property belonging to Pure Drinks (Calcutta) Ltd. situated at No. 36, Mount Road, Guindy, Madras to be sold by public advertisement. Pursuant to which ITC Ltd. offered the highest bid which was accepted by this Court with the consent of the parties and ITC have deposited the entire consideration amount accepted by us. By our earlier orders, we had directed the Registrar General o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2002(2)SC170
1. A large tract of land measuring 88 acres, 11 guntas situated within the municipal limits of Shahpur in the district of Gulberga, was proposed to be acquired by the Government of Karnataka, for establishing a government degree college. For that purpose, a notification under Section 4 was issued on 10th March, 1988. The said notification was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act, issued on 20th April, 1988. The appellant's land was covered by the aforesaid notifications. The land acquisition officer awarded compensation to the appellants at the rate of Rs. 6,800/- per acre. The appellants were not satisfied with the said offer of compensation. For that purpose, they sought reference before the civil court. The learned civil judge enhanced the compensation to Rs. 1,05,000/- per acre. Aggrieved, the State of Karnataka preferred a first appeal before the High Court. The High Court arrived at the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 78,750/- per acre and the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2002(2)SC182; (2002)9SCC384
1. The appellant No. 1 herein is a public charitable trust established with the objects, inter alia, of running educational institutions. It is alleged that appellants have already running a Kannada medium high school and a junior college. There is a piece of land numbered as site No. 22 within the limits of Bangalore Municipal Corporation. The said land vests in the Bangalore Development Authority, hereinafter referred to as "the authority" constituted and established under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". The said site falls within the comprehensive development plan. Civic amenity is defined under Section z(bb) of the Act. The definition of civic amenities as originally stood runs as under:"2 (bb) Civic amenity means: -(iv) A center for educational, religious, social or cultural activities or for philanthropic service run by a cooperative society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (Karnataka Act 11 of 1959) or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2002(2)SC482; RLW2003(1)SC110
ORDER1. Despite service, the respondents have not appeared in-person or through counsel. We, therefore, proceed to decide the matter in their absence2. The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for partition and allotment of separate half share in the property. The suit was decreed. The plaintiff-respondents put the decree in execution. The decree-holders filed an application under Order 20, Rule 12, Code of Civil Procedure for enquiry into the future mesne profit. This was objected by the appellants, who are the judgment-debtors. The application of the decree-holder was allowed by overruling the objection raised by the appellants herein. The judgment-debtor-appellants thereafter filed a revision before the High Court, which was also dismissed. It is against the said judgment of the High Court, the appellants have preferred this appeal.3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants urged that the judgments of the executing court as well as the High Court are erroneous inasmuch as the rel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2002(2)SC124; RLW2003(1)SC70
1. The suit premises are situated in Madras and are admittedly governed by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act), 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short). The landlord - respondents initiated proceedings for eviction of the tenant -appellant on the grounds available under Sections 10(2)(ii)(a) and (b), and 10(3)(c) of the Act alleging that the tenant had sub-let the tenancy premises although the lease did not confer on the tenant any right to do so, that the tenant had used the building for the purpose other than that for which it was leased and that the landlords, occupying only a part of the building, required additional accommodation for their activities. The rent controller and the appellate authority negatived all the three grounds and therefore, directed the eviction petition to be dismissed. The landlords preferred a revision under Section 25 of the Act to the High Court which has been allowed and holding the availability of groun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC778; 2002(2)ALD14(SC); 2002(2)ALLMR(SC)232; 2001(3)ALT9(SC); 2002(1)ARBLR326(SC); 2002(6)BomCR313; (2002)2BOMLR354; (2002)ICompLJ393(SC); JT2002(1)SC587; (2002)2ML
In Ador Samia Private Limited v. Peekay Holdings Limited & ors., [1999(8) SCC 572], a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court came to the conclusion that the Chief Justice or any person or institution designated by him, acting under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called "The Act"), acted in an administrative capacity and such order did not attract the provisions of Article 136 of the Constitution of India. A Bench of two learned Judges referred for re-consideration the decision in Ador Samia to a Bench of three learned Judges. The decision of the Bench of the three learned Judges [Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. & ors. v. Mehul Construction Co., 2000 (7) SCC 201] affirmed the view taken in Ador Samia, namely, that the order of the Chief Justice or his designate in exercise of the power under Section 11 of the Act was an administrative order and that such order was not amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136. Thereafter, in K...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC804; 2002(3)ALT17(SC); 2002(1)AWC697(SC); [2002(2)JCR73(SC)]; JT2002(1)SC472; (2002)1PLR752; 2002(1)SCALE501; (2002)2SCC656; [2002]1SCR750; 2002(1)UJ460(SC)
Plot No.A-1-B, situated at Sawai Jaisingh Highway, Banipark, Jaipur, is owned by plaintiff-appellants and admeasures 1545 sq. yards. With effect from 31.1.1986, a lease in respect of 6100 sq. ft. area, out of the total area of the said plot, was created by the plaintiff- appellants in favour of Smt. Shiv Kumari Vyas and Shri Uma Shankar Vyas (hereafter referred to collectively as 'Vyas', for short) for a period of 51 years. The purpose of lease was to allow Vyas to construct basement and ground floor on the leased land for the period of lease, that is, 51 years. The terms and conditions of the lease are incorporated in a registered deed of lease executed on 20.12.1986, wherefrom the relevant and material for the purpose of this order, are extracted and reproduced hereunder:-"xxx xxx xxx xxx3. That the second party will be entitled toconstruct in the leased premises according to his choice and in accordance with the law and will construct shops in basement and on it ground floor and the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2002(2)SC177; (2002)9SCC437
1. Two applications, seeking eviction of the tenant for the purpose of demolition and re- construction, as contemplated by Clause -(b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter 'the Act' for short) were disposed of by a common order by the controller, directing the tenants to be evicted. The tenants preferred appeals before the appellate authority which were allowed and the order of the controller was set aside. The landlord preferred revision petitions before the High Court which have been allowed and in supersession of the order of the appellate authority, the High Court has restored the order of eviction passed by the rent controller.2. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the tenants have filed these two appeals by special leave.3. The suit premises are a part of a larger property situated in the city of Madurai. It appears that the property of the landlord admeasures around 2688 sq. ft., out of which t...
Tag this Judgment!