Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2002(93)FLR1205]; JT2002(Suppl1)SC85; 2002(2)LC941(SC)
ORDER1. Delay condoned in filing SLP (C) Nos. 13684-13685/2001.2. Leave granted.3. These appeals arise out of an order made by the High Court in original petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.4. The Kerala Public Service Commission invited applications for selection to the post of sub-engineers (electrical) in the Kerala State Electricity Board as per the notification dated 21.6.1994. The said notification provided that the qualifications for the post would be as follows:' 1. SSLC or its equivalent 2. Technical qualifications - a) Diploma in electrical engineering of a recognised institution after 3 years course of study.Orb) A certificate in electrical engineering from any one of the recognised technical school's shown below with five years service under Kerala State Electricity Board.( Not fully extracted as not relevant) Orc) MGTE/KGTE in electrical light and power (higher) with five years experience as II grade overseer (electrical) under the Board.' 5. The appella...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1432; 2002(6)ALD108(SC); 2002(1)ARBLR675(SC); (2002)IICompLJ361(SC); JT2002(3)SC150; (2002)2MLJ175(SC); 2002(2)MPHT437; 2002(2)SCALE612; (2002)4SCC105; [2002]37SCL
S.N. Variava, J. 1. This Appeal is against a Judgment dated 10th October, 2000 passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:The Appellant entered into a contract with the 1st Respondent on 9th May, 1997. This contract contained an arbitration clause which provided that arbitration was to be as per the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (for short ICC). On 23rd October, 1997 the 1st Respondent filed a request for arbitration with ICC. Parties agreed that the arbitration be held in Paris, France. ICC has appointed a sole arbitrator.3. 1st Respondent filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called the said Act) before the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Indore, M.P. against the Appellant and the 2nd Respondent. One of the interim reliefs sought was an order of injunction restraining these parties from alienating, transferring and/or creating third party right, disposing of, dealing wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1334; 2002(3)ALD12(SC); 2002(3)ALT27(SC); 20022AWC(Supp)1163SC; (2002)176CTR(SC)104; [2002]255ITR147(SC); JT2002(3)SC1; 2002-3-LW427; RLW2002(3)SC353; 2002(2)SCALE580; (2002)3SCC533; [2002]37SCL425(SC); [2002]2SCR383; [2002]170TAXMAN303(SC); 2002(1)UC726
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.Noticing cleavage in views expressed in several decisions rendered by Benches of three learned Judges, two learned Judges referred the matter to a Bench of three Judges, and by order dated 30.10.2001 the matter was directed to be placed before a Constitution Bench, and that is how the matter is before us in C.A. No. 2226/1997. Special Leave petition No.12806/2000 was directed to be heard along with Civil Appeal.Leave granted in SLP No. 12806/2000.The controversy involved lies within a very narrow compass, that is whether after quashing of Notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') fresh period of one year is available to the State Government to issue another Notification under Section 6. In the case at hand such a Notification issued under Section 6 was questioned before the Madras High Court which relied on the decision and Ors etc. (1996 (3) SCC 88) and held that the same was validly issued.Learned counsel f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1443; [2002(2)JCR23(SC)]; JT2002(3)SC35; 2002(2)SCALE578; (2002)4SCC216; [2002]2SCR360; 2002(2)SCT402(SC)
Writ Petitioners [32 in all] in these petitions qualified themselves in the CPMT Examination held in June 1998 for admission to medical colleges in the State of U.P. They were called by the respondents for counselling for the MBBS seats available in Azamgarh Medical College run by the All India Children Care & Educational Development Society, respondent in C.A.No.3237/1999. They deposited the necessary fees and started attending the classes from July 12, 1999 and the 1st Professional examination was held in May 2000 and all of them have cleared their first professional. When they came to join the 2nd professional course, they found that there were neither lab facilities nor sufficient teachers for teaching and conducting the course and practical classes for the 2nd professional. However, on the assurances given to them at a parent-management meeting held on 25.7.2000 about providing adequate facilities, they joined the course.However, at this stage, it is pertinent to state that consid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1331; 2002(4)ALD76(SC); 2002(2)AWC1174(SC); [2002(2)JCR21(SC)]; JT2002(3)SC30; 2002(2)SCALE575; (2002)3SCC649; [2002]2SCR363; 2002(2)SCT404(SC)
Rajendra Babu, J. 1. Leave granted in SLP (C) No. 13876/1999. This appeal is alsoheard along with Civil Appeal No. 3237/1999.2. In Civil Appeal No. 3237/1999 the challenge is to an order madeby the High Court in a writ petition filed assailing two orders dated8.5.1998 and 22.5.1998 and seeking for a direction not to interfere withthe peaceful establishment and running of a medical college at Azamgarhby the respondent society.3. The High Court took the view that there is a deemed approval ofthe Central Government in respect of the scheme submitted by therespondent society in terms of Section 10A(5) of the Indian MedicanCouncil Act, 1956 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] and on that basisthe orders dated 8.5.1998 and 22.5.1998 quashed. The appellantscontended before the High Court that the respondent society does notfulfil the statutory pre-conditions required to be fulfilled before makingan application to attract the deeming approval of Section 10A(5) of theAct. They submitted that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1351; 2002(1)ALD12(SC); 96(2002)DLT691(SC); JT2002(3)SC21; 2002(2)SCALE605; (2002)3SCC722; [2002]2SCR369
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. The controversy centers around the interpretation of Sub-section(7) of Section 6 of the Press Council Act, 1978 (hereinafter 'the Act',for short), viz., for how many terms of the Council a member can benominated?2. The facts are jejune. Harbhajan Singh, the appellant, is aneditor of Indian Observer. All India Small and Medium NewspapersFederation, the respondent No. 2 is an 'association of persons' withinthe meaning of Clause (b) of Sub-section (4) of Section 5 of the Act.The appellant had been a member of the Council for two terms ofthree years each, namely, 1982-1985 and 1985-1988. Steps weretaken for the constitution of the Seventh Council commencing fromthe year 1998. A notification in that regard was issued on 21.11.1997.On 5.5.1997 and 9.8.1997 the Federation -- respondent No. 2 hadsought for a clarification-cum-opinion from the Chairman of the PressCouncil of India as to whether a person who had already been amember of the Council for two terms earlier is eligi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1397; [2002(94)FLR228]; JT2002(3)SC49; 2002LabIC1434; (2002)IILLJ445SC; RLW2002(3)SC363; 2002(2)SCALE598; (2002)3SCC326; [2002]2SCR380; 2002(2)SCT403(SC); (2002)2U
Rajendra Babu, J.C.A. No. 3221 OF 20001. The respondent brought a suit on the basis of certain instructionsissued by the appellant-Board for absorption of daily-wage workers towork-charged establishment who had completed 500 days of service.While the Trial Court did not have the benefit of the circular, theappellate court did have the benefit of that circular dated 19.9.1991.The Trial Court, however, decreed the suit.2. In the appeal, the appellate court noticed that the respondent ineach of these cases had completed 500 days as daily-wage worker by thecut-off date, which had been extend from time to time. Thus it wasfound that the respondent in each of the cases was entitled to beabsorbed as work-charged worker. But the appellant-Board had notconsidered his case while passing the order impugned in the suit and,therefore, he was entitled to be absorbed as work-charged worker byconversion from daily wage worker to the work-charged establishment.3. The matter was carried in second appeal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2002(93)FLR327]; JT2002(2)SC587; (2002)IILLJ265SC; (2002)2MLJ153(SC); (2002)3SCC473; (2002)2UPLBEC1183
1. By the impugned judgment, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana upheld the award of the Labour Court, Gurgaon, dated 14.3.2000 in Ref. No. 451 of 1996. Aggrieved by the same the present SLP is filed by Haryana Urban Development Authority.2. In the SLP, notice was issued to the respondent, limited to the question of back wages. Though respondent has been served, none appears for the respondent.3. Leave is granted and the appeal is heard insofar as the award of back wages is concerned.4. The respondent was engaged on daily wages as Helper on 1.8.1994. He worked up-to 17th October, 1995 when his services were dispensed with. According to the appellant he did not work continuously during that period and he was frequently remaining absent from duty for which a show cause notice (Ext. M. 1) was issued to him. It is an undisputed fact that no retrenchment compensation or one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof was offered to the appellant. On the admission of MW 1 that the workman rendered ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1565; 2002(2)AWC1120(SC); JT2002(2)SC589; 2002(2)SCALE521; (2002)3SCC696; 2002(2)SCT344(SC); 2002(1)UJ646(SC); (2002)2UPLBEC1161
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2779/2000, 2808/2000, 2809/2000, 2811-2863/2000, 2787-2803/2000, 2804-2807/2000, 2810/2000, 2782-2786/2000Writ Petitions were filed in different High Courts by persons who had undergone courses in medicine in medical colleges in the erstwhile USSR. After disintegration of USSR, their admissions ran into difficulties either not having studied in recognised colleges or partly in recognised and partly in non-recognised colleges or they had not completed their courses in full. The Medical Council of India (for short 'MCI') also entertained serious doubts as to the genuineness of some courses undergone by various students, thus leading to difficulties on the question of recognising their degrees and their registration as Medical Practitioners. MCI took the stand that when their initial admission in non-recognised institution could not be accepted, their transfer to recognised colleges subsequently cannot be of any benefit. MCI also passed various types of orders either dur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1405; 2002(2)AWC1123(SC); (SCSuppl)2002(2)CHN91; 2002CriLJ1814; JT2002(2)SC602; (2002)2MLJ157(SC); RLW2002(3)SC444; 2002(2)SCALE525; (2002)4SCC21; [2002]2SCR346
The most accepted methodology of governmental working ought always to be fairness and in the event of its absence, law Courts would be within its jurisdiction to deal with the matter appropriately. This proposition is so well settled that we need not dilate further on to this. It is this concept of fairness which Mr.Ganguli, appearing in support of the Petition for contempt very strongly contended, is totally absent in spite of three final rounds of litigation upto this Court between the parties. Mr. Bhaskar Gupta, learned senior advocate appearing for the alleged contemnors, however, contended that the conduct of the respondents can neither be termed to be unfair or in disregard to the orders of the Court on a true reading of the order this stand of the respondents, however, stands negated by Mr.Ganguli. The conduct, Mr.Ganguli, contended, is not only deliberate but utterly perverse and in grossest violation of the orders of this Court and by reason therefor the fruit of the litigatio...
Tag this Judgment!