Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2002(94)FLR940]; JT2002(5)SC355; (2002)IIILLJ527SC; (2002)10SCC379
ORDER1. These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment of the central administrative tribunal, Calcutta bench dated 24.2.1995 and 29.6.1995 in O.A. No. 1170/93 and review petition in M.A. No. 117/95 respectively. 2. The appellant was employed in the ministry of railways as inspector of works, in-charge. He voluntarily retired from service on 30.11.1991. Since the post-retirement benefits were not paid to him in full, he approached the tribunal. The tribunal on perusal of the record produced by the respondents held that the appellant, inspector of works supplied to contractors excess of material and a sum of Rs. 49,536/- was recoverable from the appellant's gratuity amount. The impugned order dated 24.11.1992 was upheld. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the tribunal has erred in law inasmuch as this amount was arrived at by the respondent without giving opportunity to the appellant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Union of India has co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1162; 96(2002)DLT320(SC); 2002(62)DRJ236; JT2002(2)SC308; (2002)2MLJ120(SC); 2002(2)SCALE302; (2002)3SCC39; [2002]2SCR1
1. This is an appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi allowing the respondent's Second Appeal Order No. 275 of 1980 on December 2, 1981.2. The appellant-landlord of the suit premises is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act. It filed application against the respondent-tenant for his eviction from the suit premises under Clause (d) of Section 22 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short "the Act") on the ground that the premises are required bonafide for furtherance of its activities. The respondent filed written statement denying both that the appellant is an institution within the meaning of that provision and that it required the premises bonafide for furtherance of its activities. It appears that when the case was posted for trial, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent conceded the facts disputed by the respondent in his written statement before the Court. The statement of the advocate was recorded by the Addl. Rent Controlle...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2002(93)FLR1208]; JT2002(Suppl1)SC81
ORDER1. Mr. Prag P. Tripathi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1- U.P. Public Service Commission (for short the Public Service Commission) submits that in compliance with the order dated 10th January, 2001, Public Service Commission has prepared a list of eligible candidates which is produced before us today in court and is reproduced as under:'Categories of Petitioners'(A) Lecturer in CBSE/ICSE Board's recognized colleges:1. Mohd. Altaf CA Nos. 961-962 of 19992. Mahendra Pratap CA Nos. 963-966 of 1999Singh3. Vinod Kumar CA Nos. 965-966 of 1999Sharma4. Dhananjai Dwivedi CA Nos. 974-975 of 19995. Mohd. Iqbal CA Nos. 967 of 19986. Maheshwar Singh CA Nos. 974-975 of1998(B) L. T. Grade Teachers/Trained GraduateTeachers:1. Devendra Swaroop C.A. No. 968 of 19992. Virendra Kumar Singh C.A. No. 968 of 19993. Onkar Singh C.A. No. 968 of 19994. Ram Prakash C.A. Nos. 970-971 of 19995. Anoop Saxena C.A. No. 969 of 19996. Jamuna Prasad C.A. No. 969 of 1999 Gangwar7. Fate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2002(Suppl1)SC153
ORDER1. This appeal by direct recruit wireless operators in the wireless department of the State of Haryana is directed against the judgment of the division bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court. The sole grievance of these appellants before the High Court was that the persons belonging to different other cadres of police department on being absorbed in the wireless department can claim seniority only from the date of absorption and not from the date of their enlistment in the police department, and necessarily therefore, the promotion to the post of head constables being on the basis of seniority-cum-merit the respondents who were absorbers could not have been promoted ignoring the claim of these appellants. In support of the stand, the appellants had filed the writ petition relying on the earlier order of the director general of police dated 2nd August, 1988. The stand of the state government before the High Court was that on 12.6.91, the superintendent of police (wireless) who is t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1139; 2002(2)ALLMR(SC)600; 2002(1)ARBLR493(SC); (2002)IICompLJ374(SC); [2006(1)JCR97(SC)]; JT2002(2)SC222; 2002(2)MPHT154; 2002(2)SCALE232; (2002)3SCC572; [2002]38
Leave granted.This Appeal is against a Judgment dated 18th May, 2000. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:The Appellant and the Respondents are family members who had disputes and differences in respect of the family businesses and properties. All the parties agreed to resolve their disputes and differences through one Mr. Pramod Kumar Khaitan. Subsequently, on 29th September 1996 they agreed that the said Mr. Pramod Kumar Khaitan and one Mr. Sardul Singh Jain resolve their disputes. For the purposes of this Order we are not deciding whether these two persons acted as Arbitrators or Mediators. That is a matter of contention between the parties which we are, at present, not called upon to decide. For the purposes of this order we are presuming that the parties had agreed to the Arbitration of these two persons. The parties made their respective claims before these two persons. All parties participated in the proceedings. On 6th October, 1996 an Award came to be passed by the said Mr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1168; 2002(1)ALD(Cri)458; 2002(2)Crimes60(SC); JT2002(3)SC345; 2002(2)SCALE244; (2002)3SCC327; [2002]1SCR1152
Sethi, J.1. Appellant Sukhbir Singh (in Crl.A.No. 650 of 1992) and 8other accused persons were arrested in FIR No. 166 dated22.9.1986 of the Police Station Ganaur and afterinvestigation charged for the offences punishable underSections 302 307 326 324 323 148 and 452 read withSection 149 of the Indian Penal Code by the AdditionalSessions Judge, Sonepat. After completion of the trial,appellant sukhbir Singh was convicted under Section 302 IPCand sentenced to imprisonment for life besides paying a fineof Rs. 1000/-. The other accused persons were convictedunder Section 302 read with Section 149 and sentenced toimprisonment for life besides paying a fine of Rs. 1000/-each. All accused persons were also convicted underSections 326/ 149 and sentenced to three years RigorousImprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- each. Upon convictionunder Section 148 IPC, the respondents were sentenced toundergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and uponconviction under Sections 324/ 149 IPC to undergo Rigorous...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1181; 2002(2)ALLMR(SC)635; 2002(5)BomCR221; (2002)3BOMLR388; [2002(93)FLR157]; JT2002(2)SC198; 2002LabIC988; 2002(2)SCALE275; (2002)3SCC244; [2002]1SCR1125; 2002(2
This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution by the promotee District Judges, who are members of the Maharashtra State Judicial Service Association, assails the decision of the Bombay High Court on Administrative side on the question of inter se seniority of District Judges, appointed by nomination from the Bar and those who are promoted from the rank of Additional District Judge. On consideration of the relevant statutory rules and the judgment of this Court in Balasaheb Vishnu Chavan and anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 1984(2) S.C.C. 675, the High Court came to the conclusion that District Judges, who are appointed by nomination would reckon their seniority in the cadre from the date of appointment, even though they are asked to work as Additional District Judges and the promotee Distict Judges would reckon their seniority from the date of their promotion. In the writ petition that had been filed, Smt. U.R. Joshi, a direct recruit District Judge had been arrayed as respo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1163; JT2002(2)SC311; RLW2002(3)SC440; 2002(2)SCALE297; (2002)3SCC189; [2002]1SCR1167
1. This is a tenant's appeal, putting n issue the judgment, and decree of the High Court, directing the tenant to be evicted from the suit accommodation - a shop.2. The facts necessary for decision in this appeal are not in controversy. The suit shop is owned by the respondent and is held by the tenant-appellant on a monthly rent of Rs. 22/-. Earlier, there was a default in payment of rent by the tenant, for which, on the ground available under Clause (1) of Sub-section (1) Section 13 of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter 'the Act' for short), the landlord-respondent had filed an suit for recovery of rent and for eviction. Let this suit be referred to as 'first suit'. During the pendency of this suit, the tenant complied with Sub-section (4) of Section 13 by making the deposit of rent, as contemplated therein. On 14.11.1983, the Trial Court refused to pass a decree for eviction against the tenant, holding that although the tenant had committed a de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1119; 2002(2)AWC1264(SC); [2002(93)FLR165]; [2002(2)JCR85(SC)]; JT2002(2)SC191; 2002LabIC982; RLW2002(3)SC364; 2002(2)SCALE214; (2002)3SCC146; [2002]1SCR1091; 2002
Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.The appellants, Union of India and others have impugned the judgment and order dated July 18, 2002 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, dismissing their writ petition assailing the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal by which the Tribunal had set aside the termination of the services of the respondent.The Railway Recruitment Board, Bangalore issued an advertisement notice 4 of 1995 for recruitment to the posts of Junior Clerk Cum Typist. In pursuance of the selection held, the respondent was appointed as Junior Clerk cum Typist on 28.6.1996. After about three years of appointment, a communication dated 21.4.1999 was received by the respondent from the Railway administration relevant part of which has been quoted in the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. It is re-produced below:-"Now it has come to notice of Railway Board that RRB Bangalore has not subjected the candidates to typewriting test w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1117; [2002(94)FLR739]; [2002]254ITR827(SC); JT2002(2)SC235; (2002)ILLJ1051SC; 2002(2)SCALE225; (2002)3SCC8; 2002(2)SCT390(SC)
Leave granted.The Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Inspector, appointed under the Kerala Toddy Welfare Fund Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to "the Act") held the appellants to be the employers of the workers employed for running the Toddy shop and thus liable to pay an amount of Rs.72,048/- and interest of Rs.23,641/- towards Welfare Fund. The appellants filed a writ petition in the High Court alleging that they were not the employers of the workers within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act as they themselves were the employees of Joy Kourian, respondent No.4 who was the licensee of the shop where the toddy was being sold. The High Court negatived their plea vide the judgment impugned, hence appeal.It is not disputed that the business in the Abkari Shop No.68 of Erattupetta Range was being conducted by respondent No.4 with the help of the appellants. Respondent No.4 had been granted the licence and under Rule 6(23) of the Kerala Abkari Shops Disposal Rules, 2001 the licensee is obliged ...
Tag this Judgment!