Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1210; 2002(2)ALLMR(SC)598; 2002(2)AWC1346(SC); 2002(1)BLJR808; (2002)2CALLT42(SC); [2002]110CompCas527(SC); JT2002(2)SC357; (2002)2MLJ83(SC); (2002)2PLR653; 2002(2
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.This appeal has been preferred against the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi dated August 5, 1999 dismissing the Revision petition filed by the appellant against the orders passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal.The complainant, who is respondent No.1 in this appeal purchased a Kuboto power tiller on 21.4.1988 from the appellant, namely Kerala Agro Machinery Corporation Limited at its Malda branch, through its dealer, West Bengal Agro Industries Corporation. According to the respondent No.1, the Power Tiller started giving trouble within the warranty period, in respect whereof he made a complaint for repairs and replacement of certain parts, but the complaint was not considered nor defects removed, hence ultimately he filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum Malda on 16.6.1994.The District Consumer Forum, Malda by order dated 15.9.1994 allowed the claim of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2002(93)FLR1185]; JT2002(Suppl1)SC65; 2002(2)LC1277(SC)
ORDER1. An application was filed by respondent before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad bench (hereinafter referred to as the 'tribunal') making several claims but subsequently, he confined his claim only to the relief of payment of death-cum-retirement gratuity (for short the DCRG) and the leave encashment. The tribunal found that the respondent retired from service as head time clerk in the workshop of North East Railway, Gorakhpur on 31.7.1982. Payment of DCRG as well as leave encashment having not been done despite several representations, he filed an application before the tribunal for payment of the same along with the interest. The stand of the appellants before the tribunal has been that the payment of the said amounts had not been arranged on account of the fact that the respondent did not vacate the railway quarter which he continued to occupy even after retirement. It appears that he had filed an application before the authorities concerned for regularisation of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2002(3)BLJR2102; JT2002(Suppl1)SC71
ORDER1. The Patna Regional Development Authority (in short the P.R.D.A) resolved to lease out cinema plot No. 156 measuring 100'-6' x 140'-6' situate in Maurya Lok Complex on the Dak Bunglow Road in Patna town through a public auction.2. The auction was held on 17th March, 1981. In the said auction, the husband of appellant No. 1 offered a bid for Rs. 48,25,000/-. The aforesaid bid being highest, was accepted by the P.R.D.A. Consequently, the husband of appellant deposited 25% of the bid amount, namely, Rs. 12,06,250/-. Subsequently, it was found that on the said plot of land, no cinema hall building could be constructed under the building regulations framed by the authority. Under such circumstances, husband of appellant No. 1 requested the P.R.D.A. either to refund the money or give an alternative plot where cinema building could be constructed. The P.R.D.A. offered an alternative plot Nos. 154-156 on lease for construction of the cinema building. However, on the intervention of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(85)ECC246; 2002(144)ELT499(SC)
ORDER1. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that in view of the order passed in Civil Appeal No. 5658 of 1994 2001 (133) E.L.T. 261 (S.C.) upholding the decision of the Bombay High Court involving the import of In-shell Almonds where the customs authorities have imposed redemption fine and penalty, these appeals are to be allowed. However, the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that appeals filed by the appellants before the Collector (Appeals) were themselves not maintainable and the learned Single Judge of the High Court had accepted that contention. In the appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court, this question was not considered. However, the appeals filed by the appellants were dismissed accepting the view that In-shell Almonds were not 'dry fruits' but only 'seeds'. The learned Counsel for the respondents further submitted that in this situation, there was no need for the respondents to challenge the said order passed by the Division Bench and ur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1223; [2002(93)FLR657]; JT2002(2)SC419; 2002LabIC965; (2002)IILLJ820SC; 2002(2)SCALE367; (2002)3SCC302; [2002]2SCR121; 2002(2)SLJ403(SC); (2002)2UPLBEC1206
1. The decision taken by the State Government to discontinue with effect from 1.4.1994 the payment of House Rent Allowance (hereinafter referred to as 'HRA') and City Compensatory City Compensatory Allowance (hereinafter referred to as 'CCA') to the employees of Mangalore University and the consequential action taken by the State Government and the University to recover the excess payment made after 1.4.1994 in instalments was called in question by the respondents herein by filing Writ Petitions under Article 226. The learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court declined to grant relief and dismissed the Writ Petitions. However, on an intra-court appeal by the aggrieved employees/association of employees, the Division Bench of the High Court reversed the order of the learned Single Judge and set aside the impugned orders of the Government, thereby allowing the Writ Petitions. It is against this judgment of the Division Bench, these appeals are preferred by the State of Karnataka.2....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2002(1)ALT(Cri)373; [2002]2SCR106; 2002(1)UJ448(SC)
The appellants in these two appeals were found guilty by the Designated Judge (TADA), Meerut, for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(2)(i) of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities [Prevention] Act, 1987 (hereinafter called as the 'TADA Act') and also for offences punishable under Section 302 and Section 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The appellants were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- u/s 3(1)(2)(i) of TADA and in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year. The appellants were sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default to undergo imprisonment for one year under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The appellants were also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of five years and a fine of Rs.3,000/- under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for six months. The appellants were further found guilty and s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1373; 2002(3)ALD19(SC); JT2002(2)SC558; (2002)2MLJ154(SC); 2002(2)SCALE438; (2002)3SCC626; [2002]2SCR133
1. This appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in C.R.P. No. 2236 of 1997 dated July 19, 1999 is by the tenant. The respondents are the landlords of a non-residential building bearing No. 4-6-244 (Old No. 1883) Subhas Road, Subrie Street, Secunderabad which was earlier owned by one Smt. Pola Rajamaniamma who entered into an agreement of lease in regard to the ground floor of that building (for short, the premises') with the appellant. She sold the premises in favour of respondent No. 1 and one late Babu Lal Patel whose legal representatives are respondent Nos. 2 to 7. After the sale Smt. Pola Rajamaniamma sent a letter attorning the tenancy of M/s. Brij Mohan Chokkhani and Sons (for short, 'the firm') in favour of respondent Nos. 2 to 7. Thereafter the rent was being paid by the firm to the said respondents and receipts therefore were being issued in favour of the firm. While so the respondents filed eviction petition in the Court of the P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2002(Suppl1)SC36
ORDER1. This appeal is from the judgment and order of the High Court of judicature at Madras in CRP No. 2674/93 dated July 28, 1998. The appellant is the landlady of a non-residential building comprising of two shops of which the respondent is the tenant.2. The appellant filed an eviction petition before the principal district munsif, Coimbatore, for eviction of the respondent on the ground that he committed wilful default in payment of rent for the shops from March, 1985 to August, 1985. The application was later amended to read that the rent was due for the period from March, 1985 to February, 1986. The respondent contested the claim and denied that he committed wilful default in payment of rent for the said period. The learned trial court, by its order dated August 11, 1992, found that the respondent committed wilful default in payment of rent and accordingly, ordered eviction of the respondent from the shops. He challenged the correctness of that order before the court of the Rent ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1310; JT2002(2)SC563; 2002(2)MPHT298; 2002MPLJ50(SC); 2002(2)SCALE445; (2002)3SCC717; [2002]2SCR138
ORDER1. The appellant is the tenant of the premises - 1st Floor, 46M.L.B. Colony, Gwalior (M.P.) (for short 'the accommodation')which was initially owned by one Sushil Kumar who sold it to therespondent. Thus, the appellant became the tenant of the respondent.The appellant filed a suit against the respondent being Case No. 453Aof 1996 in the court of 9thCivil Judge, II Class, Gwalior, seekinginjunction against the respondent. In the said suit the respondent fileda counter claim under Order VIII. Rule 6 of C.P.C. claiming evictionof the appellant, inter alia, under Clause (e) of Sub-section (1) ofSection 12 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (for short 'theAct'). The appellant contested the counter claim filed by therespondent and pleaded that it was not maintainable. The trial court,after framing necessary issues and on considering the evidenceadduced by the parties held that the counter claim under Order VIII,Rule 6 of C.P.C. was maintainable and that the respondent requiredthe sui...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2002(3)SC409
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The appellant herein is the wife of the respondent. She has challenged the order dated 2.8.2000 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in miscellaneous criminal case No. 2472 of 1999. In the said order, the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.') quashed the order passed by the learned judicial magistrate first class, Jabalpur under Section 125 Cr.P.C. granting Rs. 250/- per month as maintenance for the wife which was confirmed by the learned 4th upper additional sessions judge, Jabalpur. From the discussions in the impugned order, it appears that the High Court interfered with the concurrent orders of the courts below mainly on two grounds; that the wife has left the matrimonial home voluntarily; and that she admitted that she was earning Rs. 50/- per day by agricultural operation. The High Court also observed that in her statement she accepted the position that her father-in-law owned no agricultural...
Tag this Judgment!