Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2002(2)SC245
1. All the I.As. are allowed.2. Leave granted.3. Respondent No. 1 filed an application for claiming mesne profits of the property known as Rajwade Mangal Karyalay by way of miscellaneous application No. 3 of 1982. The application was allowed with the following terms:(a) The applicant is entitled to claim his 8/28th share in the amount of Rs. 10,30,000/-.(b) The opponents Nos. 1 and 2 shall be entitled to have 8/28th share each in the amount mentioned above.(c) The opponent nos. 3,4,5 and 6 shall get 1/28th share in the amount mentioned above.(d) Parties are directed to pay court fees on the amount to the extent of their share in the abovesaid amount.(e) The opponent No. 1 is directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 10,30,000/- in the court within two months from today.4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid direction, the appellant herein preferred an appeal in the High Court which was dismissed along with the cross objections filed by respondent No. 1.5. The learned counsel appearing for the appell...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(1)ALT17(SC); 2002(3)BLJR2487; JT2002(2)SC122; RLW2003(1)SC121; (2001)10SCC301; 2002(5)WLN787
ORDERSLP (C) 2166-2168/2001 :1. Heard Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel on behalf of the appellant and Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned senior counsel on behalf of respondent No. 1.2. Leave is granted.3. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order of the High Court in C.M. Nos. 722-724 of 2000 in S.A.O. No. 365 of 1987 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi.4. The appellant is a tenant of premises Nos. H-18 and 19. Gobind Mansion. Connaught Circus, New Delhi of which the first respondent is the landlord. On 18th January. 1985, the appellant suffered an order of eviction from the additional rent controller on the ground that he sub-let the premises, a ground available to the first respondent, the landlord to seek eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of Delhi Rent Control Act. The appellant carried the matter in appeal before the rent control tribunal. The tribunal, by its order dated 22nd July, 1987, reversed the order of the additional rent controller and allowed the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC829; 2002(2)AWC912(SC); JT2003(2)SC9; 2002(1)SCALE425; (2002)2SCC678; [2002]1SCR605
1. This appeal has been preferred by the tenant of the premises in question against the Judgment and Order passed by Allahabad High Court dismissing appellant's Writ Petition, filed against the order for his eviction passed in revision, on the ground of default in payment of rent.2. The Landlords who are respondent Nos. 1-3 in the present appeal filed a suit for eviction of the appellant in the court of Judge, Small Causes, Jaunpur. The ground for eviction on account of subletting by the appellant/tenant, was not accepted by the Trial Court. However, it was found that the appellant/tenant was in arrears of rent, but decree of eviction was not passed, since the appellant paid the amount due on the first date of hearing in accordance with Section 20(4) of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972 (to be referred as Act). The Revisional Court, however, upset the order passed by the Trial Court and passed decree of eviction on account of arrears of rent as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2444; [2002(2)JCR10(SC)]; JT2002(2)SC17; 2002LabIC2331; 2002(1)SCALE438; (2002)2SCC669; 2002(2)SCT105(SC); (2002)2UPLBEC1147
The appellant herein, who lost before the High Court fighting his cause as fourth-respondent in a Writ Petition filed in the High Court by the fourth- respondent in this appeal, has challenged the judgment of the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court dated 4.9.98 in OJC No.3652 of 1996 wherein the Order dated 23.3.96 passed by the Second Respondent herein according approval insofar as it related to the appellant in the category of non-teaching staff as Junior Clerk-cum-Typist in Anchalika Mahavidyalaya Jagannath Prasad, Distt. Ganjam, came to be set aside.The relevant and necessary facts for appreciating the respective claims of the parties before us are that the appellant herein was appointed as Upper Division Clerk in the college with effect from 8.9.90 and joined service on 8.9.90. Since the college, as part of its own staff pattern, had a junior clerk (the fourth- respondent herein and the writ petitioner in the High Court) and another person as Lower Division Clerk-cum-Typist fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC817; 2002(1)AWC706(SC); JT2002(1)SC652; (2002)2MLJ48(SC); 2002(1)SCALE538; (2002)3SCC228; [2002]1SCR615; (2002)2UPLBEC1601
1. Leave granted.2. Under Notification dated 19.07.1981, issued under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1984, the State of Kerala acquired land for the benefit of Public Health Engineering Department of the State Government. On 27.08.1982, possession was taken over the acquired land. Sometime in June, 1983, a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was made. The Collector (Land Acquisition) initiated proceedings for assessing the amount of compensation payable and made an Award on 15th June, 1986. The claimants sought for a reference to the Civil Court seeking enhancement in the quantum of compensation which was made. These reference applications came to be decided by different awards made by the Civil Court between 1989 and 1991.3. With effect from 1st April, 1984, the State of Kerala, through an executive order, constituted Kerala Water Authority (K.W.A., for short) as a statutory Corporation. The Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1986 (Act No. 14 of 1986), which...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC771; 2002(2)ALT14(SC); 2002(4)AWC2364(SC); JT2002(5)SC5; (2002)2MLJ99(SC); 2002(1)SCALE447; (2002)2SCC686; [2002]1SCR586
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. Leave granted.2. An introductory statement of bare necessary facts would suffice for the purpose of this order. On 31.10.1987, a contract for sale of immoveable property was entered into between the parties whereby the appellant agreed to sell the suit property consisting of a building and the site on which the building stands, for a consideration of Rs. 40,25,000/-. An amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- was paid by way of advance or earnest money: the balance consideration of Rs. 32,25,000/- was to be paid simultaneously with the execution and registration of sale deed. This contract was in supersession of an earlier contract dated 22.9.1986 which had lapsed. The vendor had agreed to obtain the requisite permission from the Urban Land Ceiling Authority before 30th June, 1988. The time so appointed could be extended by mutual consent of the parties. It was expressly agreed upon between the parties that it the requisite exemption or permission under the Urban Land (Ceiling and R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2002(2)SC175; (2002)9SCC509
1. It is not disputed that the land measuring 17 acres and 18 dismals situated at village Prithvipur, Mazra Khamaria, tehsil Chhibraman, district Farrukhabad vests in gram sabha, Khubaraiapur. On 25.8.73, the land management committee, Khubaraiapur (hereinafter referred to as 'land management committee') by means of a resolution dated 5.2.1973 proposed to let out the said plot of land in favour of the appellant, herein subject to the approval by the assistant collector, first class, in charge of the sub-division. Accordingly, the appellant submitted an application before the sub-divisional officer (in short 'SDO') for according approval for grant of lease by the gram sabha in respect to the aforesaid plot in its favour. The SDO, instead of granting approval to the proposed lease by the gram sabha, passed an order dated 4.2.1975 directing for mutation of the name of the appellant in the revenue record as lessee. The said order of the SDO. was challenged by means of a revision petition u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC769; JT2002(1)SC413; 2002(1)SCALE320; (2002)3SCC42
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. Leave granted in both the S. L. Ps.2. In these appeals by special leave, the question arising for decision is the right of the appellants to renewal of their licences under the provisions of U. P. Establishment and Regulations of Saw Mills Rules, 1978.3. Jawahar Lal Sharma, appellant No. 1 in civil appeal arising out of S. L. P. (C) No. 4695/2001, purchased the saw mill from one Gauri Ram on 15-1-1985. Gauri Ram was holding a licence for establishing and operating of the saw mill since 15-7-1981. The licence was sought to be transferred in the name of appellant No. 1 by Divisional Forest Officer, Ghazipur. Thereafter, year by year, fees for renewal of the licence has been deposited and applications moved in that regard. In case of Munna Khan, appellant No. 2, he purchased the saw mill in the year 1991 from one Ram Prasad Vishwakarma who was holding the requisite licence since 16-6-1990. He too sought for transfer of the licence and went on depositing renewal fee year ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC852; 2002(1)ARBLR112(SC); [2002(2)JCR177(SC)]; JT2002(1)SC294; 2002(1)SCALE327; (2002)9SCC232; [2002]1SCR441; (2002)1UPLBEC814
Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.I.T.C. Limited filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the Patna High Court against an order of assessment passed by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Monghyr, demanding a sum of Rs.35,87,072/-, inter alia on the ground that the purchase of unprocessed tobacco leaves from the growers, being the subject matter of the levy, the Market Committee has no power to levy and collect fee. The stand taken before the High Court was that tobacco leaves neither having been bought or sold within the market area and the power to levy and collect market fee under Section 27 of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, being on the Agricultural produce bought or sold in the market area, the Market Committee was not entitled to levy market fee. The Division Bench however without entering into the aforesaid controversy, came to the conclusion that no clear notice appears to have been given to the comp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC748; 2002(1)ALD(Cri)424; 2002(1)ALT(Cri)326; 2002CriLJ1014; 2002(1)Crimes279(SC); JT2002(1)SC265; 2002(1)MPHT536; 2002(1)SCALE318; (2002)2SCC287
Leave granted.Pranjal Tiwari, the accused respondent No.2, has been apprehended on 27.2.1997 for an offence under Section 302/34 IPC committed on the same day. The accused claimed himself to be a juvenile as having not attained the age of 16 years and, therefore, entitled to the benefit of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986. An enquiry was held. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and the Sessions Court held the accused not to be a juvenile. The accused preferred a revision in the High Court which has been allowed. The orders impugned before the High Court have been quashed and the accused has been held to be a juvenile. The complainant, father of the victim in the incident, has preferred this appeal by special leave.At the enquiry, on behalf of the accused, mark sheets of Class VIII and High School, birth certificate, horoscope and entry in Kotwar Book were tendered in documentary evidence. In all of these documents, the date of birth of the accused is entered as 30.9.1981. In ora...
Tag this Judgment!