Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2679; 2002(4)ALT33(SC); (2002)4CompLJ170(SC); II(2002)CPJ1(SC); [2002(94)FLR745]; (2002)3GLR830; [2002(3)JCR78(SC)]; JT2002(5)SC149; 2002(3)KLT25(SC); 2002LabIC264
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. Leave granted.2. A group of advocates practicing in the High Court of Madras filed a writ petition alleging that a sitting Judge of that High Court ceased to be a Judge as he was appointed as President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pondicherry, (for short 'the State Commission') and prayed for an appropriate writ or other directions. The writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court and aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.3. The post of the President of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Pondicherry was being manned by a retired High Court Judge. After the completion of this term of office, nobody else was willing to be considered for appointment as President of the State Commission. Pondicherry being a small Union Territory with limited financial resources could not afford to have a full-time President for the State Commission. The post was lying vacant for a considerable period. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2002(95)FLR201]; JT2002(6)SC369; (2002)3UPLBEC2698
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The State of Haryana is in appeal against the impugned judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has come to the conclusion that the respondent would be entitled to the higher scale of pay of Rs. 1200-2040 with effect from 1.1.1986, but added a rider that this will be restricted to 38 months preceding the filing of the writ petition. Be it be stated that the respondent was appointed as an assistant pump operator on 21.10.1985 in the pay scale of Rs. 400-600. After the recommendation of the 4th pay commission, he was given the scale of pay of Rs. 950-1500 with effect from 1.1.1986. There had been a lot of grievances and demand made by these categories of people before the government. Government ultimately somatically considered the representations received from several quarters and suggestions made by the different authorities and decided to modify the scale of pay in respect of some posts with effect from 1.5.1990. So f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2002)10SCC86
ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal, filed by the defendants in the suit for partition, is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in Regular Second Appeal No. 187 of 2001 in which the High Court dismissed the appeal on merit. The High Court placed reliance on its previous decision in the case of Mohd. Sa v. Alli Sa1. The learned Single Judge in the judgment under challenge observed: “In my opinion the legal issue involved in the present appeal is covered by the abovesaid judgment of this Court which binds me as well. This second appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit.” The question involved in the case was whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the plaintiff was entitled to claim a share in the properties granted in the name of Kasimsaheb, one of the owners of the original holder of the village office. It appears that the learned Single Judge did not dismiss the second appeal in limine but disposed of the same on merit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2676; 2002(4)AWC2444(SC); [2002(94)FLR741]; JT2002(5)SC143; 2002LabIC2640; (2002)IILLJ1156SC; (2002)3MLJ78(SC); 2002(5)SCALE174; (2002)6SCC41; [2002]SUPP1SCR127; 2
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal, filed by the Management of M/s. Hindustan Motors Limited, is directed against the judgment dated 26.06.2001 of the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in APO No. 540 of 1998 setting aside the judgment of the single Judge and directing reinstatement of the workman, respondent herein with back wages. It was further ordered by the Division Bench that seniority and continuity in service should be maintained and any interim amount paid by the management to the workman should be deducted from the amount of back wages. The learned single Judge in his judgment dated 12.3.98 had set aside the Award of the Industrial Tribunal passed on 3.10.1991, in which direction for reinstatement of the workman with back wages was ordered.3. On 3.9.2001 this Court issued notice to the respondent limited to the question of back wages only. In the light of the said order learned counsel appearing for both the parties confined their arguments to the question o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2002(6)SC16; 2004(1)SCALE82; 2002(2)LC1417(SC)
ORDER1. Heard Mr. B.D. Sharma, learnedcounsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Rohit Minocha, learned counsel for respondent No. 1.2. Leave is granted.3. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the division bench of the High Court of judicature for Rajasthan (Jodhpur bench) in special appeal No. 1152 of 1998 dated April 10, 2000.4. The short point that arises for consideration in this appeal is : whether the board of revenue was justified in declining to admit a certified copy of mutation No. 49 dated June 11, 1961 filed as additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure?5. One Rupa Ram was khatedar tenant of 130 bighas of the agricultural land situated in village Dakwa, tehsil Rajgarh, district Churu, Rajasthan (for short, 'the suit land'). He had a son and three daughters. The appellant is one of his daughters and the first respondent is his son. She along with another sister filed the suit, out of which this appeal arises, for a declaration that they had...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2582; 2002(5)ALD6(SC); 2002(3)ALLMR(SC)945; 2003(51)BLJR63; 2002(6)BomCR668; II(2002)DMC205SC; [2002(3)JCR11(SC)]; JT2002(5)SC159; (2002)3MLJ82(SC); (2002)3PLR492;
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. Leave granted.2. What is the meaning and import of the expression 'cruelty' as a matrimonial offence is the core question on the determination of which depends the result and the fate of this case.3. The appellant is the wife of the respondent. They were married according to Hindu rites and customs on 6thDecember, 1985, The marriage was preceded by negotiation between the two families, ring exchange ceremony, etc. A meeting between the boy and the girl was also arranged at Yamuna Nagar in the State of Haryana. After marriage the spouses stayed together at Panipat where the respondent was posted as a Judicial Officer. They lived together till 28th April, 1986 when they parted company never to stay together again. It is the case of the respondent that right from the first day of the marriage he sensed something abnormal with his wife; he was unable to consummate the marriage as there was no cooperation from the side of the wife for sexual intercourse. Despite several...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2002(6)SC387; (2002)6SCC196
D.P. Mohapatra, J. 1. Having lost the case before the trial court, the single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala, defendants 7 and 8 have filed these appeals assailing the judgment rendered by the Division Bench on 13.8.1992 in AFA No. 44/1992 and 47/1992.2. The suit OS No. 246 of 1978 was instituted by respondents 1 and 2 herein alleging, inter alia, that they, the defendants 1 to 4 and mother of defendant No. 5 are thechildren of late Muthammal wife of Subbayyan Chettiar. The parties belong to Thelunkchetty caste and are governed by Hindu Mitakshara Law. The suit property as described in the schedule to the plaint is 93 cents of land under survey No. 86/7 in Niyamam village. It was the self-acquired property of Muthammal. She mortgaged the said property with one Velayudhan Pillai for Rs. 2,000/- on 9.8.1956. It was stipulated in the mortgage deed that the mortgagee would not spend more than Rs. 300/- for construction of a house on the mortgage property and he would ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2589; 2002(3)ALLMR(SC)932; 2002(3)AWC2477(SC); 2002(2)BLJR1688; [2002(94)FLR851]; JT2002(5)SC189; 2002LabIC2630; RLW2003(1)SC3; 2002(5)SCALE138; (2002)6SCC72; [200
D.P. Mohapatra, J. 1. This appeal filed by the State of Haryana, represented by the Chief Secretary and the Secretary to Government of Haryana, Department of Finance, is directed against the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court dated 13.8.1996 in CWP No. 4206/95 filed by the Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association through its General Secretary Shri Ram Mehar Sharma. In the writ petition the petitioner prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the Personal Assistants (for short 'P.A.s') the pay scale of Rs. 2,000-3500 plus Rs. 150/- as special pay which have been given to the P.A.s working in the Central Secretariat for the reason that the State of Haryana had accepted the recommendations made by the Fourth Central Pay Commission with regard to revision of pay scales with effect from 1.1.1986 with all consequential benefits like fixation of pay, arrears and other benefits. 2. The case of the writ petitioner sans unnecessary detail...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2699; JT2002(5)SC217; (2002)6SCC162
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. In these appeals filed by special leave the Shiromani Gurudwara Prabhandhak Committee (for short 'SGPC'), Amritsar, has challenged the common judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in First Appeal from Order Nos. 160/76 and 389/79, filed by Mahant Lachhman Dass (dead) through legal representatives, respondents herein. In the said judgment the Full Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal by majority (S.P.Goyal and D.S.Tewatia, JJ); reversed the judgment of the Tribunal and declared the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Udasi Dera as the owner of the properties in dispute; the third Judge (Surender Singh, J.) struck a discordant note and dismissed the appeals.2. A resume of relevant facts necessary for appreciating the questions raised may be stated thus: Fifty-nine Sikh worshippers of Gurudwara Sahib Guru Granth Sahib situated within the revenue estate of village Landa, Tehsil Sirhind, District Patiala of the State of Punjab submitted a petition under Section 7(1) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2498; 94(2002)CLT545(SC); [2002(94)FLR753]; [2002(3)JCR54(SC)]; JT2002(5)SC139; 2002LabIC2627; (2002)IIILLJ258SC; 2002(5)SCALE128; (2002)6SCC223; 2002(3)SCT670(SC)
P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. The respondent herein was appointed as French Interpreter by the petitioner-company (a public sector undertaking) on contract basis on 25.1.1985 after holding an interview. It was in the nature of contract appointment on a consolidated pay, which was initially for a period of one year. The contract of employment was being extended from time to time up to 1.1.1990, the latest order of extension being 30.10.1989. He was drawing a consolidated pay of Rs. 1800/- per month. By a telegraphic Communication dated 8.1.1990, the respondent was notified that his contractual appointment had expired on 1.1.1990 and that he was free to collect the dues from the Finance department. It is this order that was challenged in the High Court of Orissa. The specific relief the respondent sought for was to direct the grant of renewal extension of service. It is the case of the respondent- writ petitioner that the persons junior to him, were appointed on similar terms, were continue...
Tag this Judgment!