Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC317; 2003(9)SCALE591; (2004)1SCC106
ORDER1. In the State of Karnataka there existed several hereditary village offices, namely, Patel, Patwari and Gramsahayaks prior to 1961. In the year 1961, the Karnataka Legislature passed an Act known as Karnataka Village Officer's Abolition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') in terms whereof all the hereditary offices at village level were abolished. However, the holders of such offices were allowed to continue on ad-hoc basis on compassionate ground. Subsequently a circular was issued providing for compassionate appointment of children of Gramsahayaks who hold earlier hereditary offices on November 1, 1991 and died in harness. 2. It appears that the respondents herein were appointed as Gram Sahayaks in pursuance of the Government Order permitting the hereditary offices to continue on ad-hoc basis. It is not disputed that respondents were appointed as Sahayak Lekhpal between 1979 to 1983. Alleged on the ground that what' were paid to them as salary was very meagre; th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004CriLJ628; [2004(1)JCR185(SC)]; JT2003(9)SC17; 2003(9)SCALE396; (2003)11SCC527
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. This appeal has been filed questioning correctness of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court directing acquittal of the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused'). The Additional Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Midnapore, had found the accused guilty of offence, punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the 'IPC') and also Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short the 'Arms Act'). Sentence of imprisonment for life, 7 years and one year respectively was awarded. Originally 5 accused person's were there, and each was charged for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 302, 307 read with Section 34, and 447 IPC. One Golok Pal died before charge, sheet was filed. Similarly accused Narendera Patra died during trial and three persons namely accused appellant Phani, Niranjan Pal and Swaran Dutta faced trial. The trial Court found accused Niranjan Pal and Swaran Dutta to be not gu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC218; JT2003(8)SC413; (2004)1SCC256; [2003]134STC610(SC)
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. Challenge to the constitutional validity of the Tamil Nadu Scheduled Articles (Prescription of Standards) order, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Order, for short) in its application to 'tea' having failed, the appellants are in appeal by special leave. The crux of the controversy centers around the question whether 'tea' can be included within the meaning of 'foodstuffs' listed as Sub-clause (v) of Clause (a) of Section 2 of the Essential commodities act, 1955 (hereinafter, the EC Act, for short) which defines 'essential commodity'.2. The EC Act was enacted to provide, in the Interest of the general public, for the control of the production, supply and distribution of and trade and commerce, in certain commodities. The phrase 'essential commodity' is defined by Clause (a) of Section 2 of the EC Act as under:2. Definitions - In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, - xxxxx (a) 'essential commodity' means any of the following classes of commodities:- (i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)149; 2004(1)BLJR110; (2004)12SCC322; 2004(1)SLJ155(SC)
ORDERV.N. Khare, C.J.1. The respondents herein were appointed on adhoc basis as JBT teachers on various dates in the year 1982-1983 in the school run by the State of Haryana. Their qualification is JBT and Prabhakar, which they acquired prior to joining as JBT teacher. In the year 1957, the State of Punjab issued a Circular on 23rd July, 1957 directing that higher pay scale shall be granted to a particular-class of teachers on acquiring the particular educational qualification. It is alleged that this Circular was made applicable to the State of Haryana also. Subsequently, on 5th September, 1979, State of Haryana issued an Order which provided for the grant of higher pay scale on acquisition of higher qualification which was superceded by Government Order dated 9th March, 1990 which runs as follows:'8. In the present revision of pay scale of government employees teaching personnel of the Educational Department (hereinafter called the 'policy of the Government', in unequivocal terms the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC173; 2004(1)BLJR4; (SCSuppl)2003(2)CHN139; [2004(1)JCR164(SC)]; JT2003(8)SC478; 2003(9)SCALE393; (2004)1SCC191
Dharmadhikari, J.1. These appeals are directed against a common judgment dated 28.7.1997 passed by High Court of Patna in two revisions under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure [hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'].2. In the cross suits, one filed for redemption of mortgage and the other filed for specific performance of Agreement of Sale, the petitioner made two applications, for her impleadment as co-plaintiff in one suit and defendant in the other. Third application was filed for amendment of the pleadings consequent to her proposed joinder as a party in the two suits. The three applications were made respectively under Order 1 Rule 10, Order 22 Rule 10 and Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code. 3. According to the petitioner during pendency of the suits, she has purchased the suit property in the year 1996 from the original plaintiff - Amichand Agarwal and has, thus, acquired in his place the right of redemption of the mortgaged suit property. In the cross suit of the opposite part...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC257; 2004CriLJ368; JT2003(8)SC562; 2003(9)SCALE387; (2003)12SCC464
B.N. Agrawal, J.1. The sole respondent Mela Singh was tried along with his two brothers Jit Singh and Malkiat Singh and the trial court while acquitting the other two accused persons convicted the respondent under Section 302 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. He was further convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. The sentences were, however ordered to run concurrently. Against order of acquittal of the other accused persons, no appeal was preferred by the State whereas the respondent filed an appeal in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana against his convictions which has been allowed and he has been acquitted of all the charges.2. Prosecution case, in short, was that one Jarna...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC248; 2004(1)ALD14(SC); 2004(2)AWC1381(SC); JT2003(8)SC471; 2003(9)SCALE454; (2004)1SCC281; 2004(1)SLJ370(SC); (2004)1UPLBEC457
Arijit Pasayat, J. 1. Leave granted.2. High court of Allahabad having dismissed the writ application filed by the appellant questioning order of termination of his services by the Committee of Management of Mahamana Malviya Degree College, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as the 'Managing Committee') and the application for review, these two appeals have been filed. Factual background sans unnecessary details is as follows:3. Appellant was appointed as the Principal of the college in question in July 1974. In the year 1977, University Examinations for graduate classes were held in the college. University received report regarding certain irregularities in the examination center. Vice-Chancellor appointed a Committee to enquire into alleged irregularities. The inquiry Committee enquired into the matter and found that the conduct of the examination at the center where the appellant was acting as Senior Superintendent of the Examination center was not in order. The inquiry Committee found ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC252; 2004CriLJ365; JT2003(10)SC165; 2003(9)SCALE537; (2003)12SCC670
ORDER1. These two appeals are directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad dated April 11, 1996 in Criminal Appeal No. 453 of 1993. The High Court by its impugned judgment and order dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants and affirmed their conviction and sentence under Sections 409, 467 and 471 IPC as also under Section 5(1)(c) and (d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appellant in Criminal Appeal 204 of 1997 namely L. Chandraiah has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 409 IPC and Section 5(1)(c) and (d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 467 IPC. So far as the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 312 of 1997 namely Y.V. Kamesham is concerned he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 409 and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003LC814(SC); 2003(158)ELT401(SC)
ORDER1. A complaint was filed against the respondent-Company and two others who were Director and Assistant Manager of the said Company as officers-in-charge of the affairs of the said Company under Section 9(l)(i) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. During the pendency of the said trial, A-2 and A-3, viz., the said Director and Assistant Manager made an application for discharge on the ground that they were not liable for the offence punishable. During the pendency, on 28th October, 1989, the Trial Court discharged A-2 and A-3 for want of service of notice on them. The Company, in question, on 29-11-1989 filed an application before the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking for quashing of the proceedings against it on the ground that since Section 9(l)(i) of the Central Excise Act provides a mandatory punishment of imprisonment and there being no individual person before the Court representing the company, the proceedings against the said company c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(3)ARBLR579(SC); 2004(1)BLJR352; JT2005(6)SC402; 2004(7)KarLJ669; 2003(9)SCALE596; (2004)1SCC372
ORDER1. In response to the Notification issued by the Gulbarga University inviting tenders for construction of an Indoor Stadium, the appellant herein submitted his tender. His tender was accepted and on 21st May, 1993, an agreement was executed between the appellant and the respondent-University in contortion with the work to be carried out by the appellant. The estimated cost of construction for the work order issued to the appellant was for Rs. 91,88,909/-. It is not disputed that in pursuance of the work order, the appellant completed the construction. Certain disputes arose in relation whereto the appellant herein invoked the arbitration clause. It is not in dispute that the Superintending Engineer, P.W.D., Gulbarga Circle, Gulbarga, ex-officio, was named to decide such disputes. Before the Arbitrator, the parties filed their claims and counter claims. The University also filed certain counter claims. After hearing the parties, the Superintending Engineer, Gulbarga Circle, Gulbarg...
Tag this Judgment!