Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(10)SCALE10
ORDERB.P. Singh, J.1. Since we have pronounced the judgment in the batch of appeals today, the record received from the High Court may be sent back so that the High Court may be able to forward the same to the court concerned for necessary action. This writ petition stands disposed of....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(10)SCALE1110; (2003)12SCC511
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The State of Manipur is in appeal before us, aggrieved by a judgment and order dated 29.1.2003 passed by the Gauhati High Court in Writ Appeal No. 84 of 2000, insofar as the respondent herein had been granted monetary benefits applicable to the post of Additional Chief Engineer on the basis of order of relaxation passed in his favour by an order dated 6.7.1999. In the said order the following directions were issued : 'Firstly, because the facts of the present case do not reveal any conscious deprivation of the appellant's right by the State authorities and secondly, on the principle of 'No work no pay' which principle in our considered view, must be made applicable to service of Jurisprudence in appropriate cases. On the contrary, we are inclined to hold that the ends of justice would be met if the state respondents are directed to notionally fix the pay of the writ appellant in the scale of Addl. Chief Engineer w.e.f. such date/dates when the principal respond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2003(10)SC268; 2003(10)SCALE87; (2004)1SCC559
ORDERAshok Bhan, J.1. This order shall dispose of Civil Appeal No. 7284 of 2001 arising from the order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated January 7, 2000 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13353 of 1992 and Civil Appeal No. 6637 of 2003 arising from the order of the another Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 5th March, 2003 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28558 of 2002. Both the impugned orders pertain to the same set of property between the same parties. Seemingly, there is a contradiction and inconsistency in the two orders passed by the two different Benches. For the reasons stated hereinafter the matters need to be remanded back to the High Court for a fresh decision for disposal by taking them up together to avoid any contradiction or inconsistency.Facts in Civil Appeal No. 7284 of 20012. The property in dispute situate in Survey No. 143, Old Cantonment, Allahabad was put to auction in execution of a decree agains...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(2)AWC1405(SC); (2004)ILLJ566SC; (2004)2MLJ35(SC); 2003(10)SCALE10d; (2004)1SCC605; 2004(86)SLJ124(SC)
S. Rajendra Babu, J. 1. Whether the Appellant is a badli worker and, if so, is he entitled to be absorbed in the Respondent bank is the matter for judgment in this case.2. Appellant's case is as follows. That he was appointed as a Badli Subordinate Staff/Sepoy against one permanent vacancy in the Shyamsundar Branch of the Bank of India on 30/10/1988 and worked there up to 16/04/1991, for about 492 days. On 16/4/1991 the Branch Manager of the bank asked him not to work anymore. Later he made a representation to the Zonal Manager requesting to appoint him as a regular employee in the bank by quoting the circular No. XVIII/90/20 dated 7th September 1930 of the Federation of the Bank which referred to absorption of Badli Sepoys and the bipartite agreement entered between management and Union regarding the same which provides that :'...a Badli worker who has more than 240 days worked in the permanent vacancy after February 1988 in a block of 12 months would be absorbed against clear vacancy...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(1)ALD124(SC); 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)243; (SCSuppl)2004(3)CHN179; 97(2004)CLT815(SC); 2004(1)CTC156; JT2003(10)SC435; 2005(1)KarLJ305; (2004)1MLJ180(SC); 2003(10)SCALE111; (2
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.1. Parties are brothers. The appellant/defendant is the elder brother. The respondent/plaintiff is the younger brother. The suit for partition and possession filed by the respondent claiming one-half share in suit properties has been decreed by the trial court. The first appeal of the appellant has been dismissed by the High Court by the impugned judgment.2. The basis of claim in the suit was the gift deed dated 9th September, 1947 executed by Smt. Mahadevi, younger sister of Ganapathi, father of the parties. When gift deed was executed, the appellant was a minor aged 13 years. At that time, respondent was not bom. In the year 1936, the suit properties were sold by Ganapathi to his younger sister Mahadevi. The sale was effected due to some helpless conditions of Ganapathi. Mahadevi was issueless. She enjoyed properties from the year 1936 upto execution of the gift deed. The same properties were gifted under the gift deed in question. The dispute in this appeal is, how...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2004(2)JCR4(SC)]; 2003(10)SCALE89; (2003)12SCC408
ORDER1. Leave granted in both the SLPs.2. Common questions of law, in the backdrop of similar facts, arise for decision in these two appeals. It would suffice for our purpose to notice facts of one of the cases.3. One of the respondents, a student, having taken his education in Government Boys Higher Secondary School, passed the matriculation examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Assam, in the year 1991. Thereafter, he passed higher secondary examination and then the B.Sc. examination in the year 1998. When he filed the writ petition, he was undergoing a course of study in computers. At that point of time, on October 12, 1999, he moved an application to the Board complaining that his date of birth was wrongly mentioned in the school records as May 30, 1974, while his actual date of birth was August 16, 1975. The mistaken date of birth, as forwarded by the school, had crept into the Admit Card issued by the Board. The writ-petitioner student pleaded that he did not ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.1. By order dated 29/30th October, 2002, this Court directed closure of all unlicensed saw mills and prohibited opening of any new saw mill without prior permission of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC). The proliferation of wood based industry was one of the causes of degradation of forest. It is evident that the order was passed with a view to ensure protection of the forest wealth and to enforce measures to stop illegal felling, removal and utilization of timber. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under:'No State or Union Territory shall permit any unlicensed saw-mills, veneer, plywood industry to operate and they are directed to close all such unlicensed unit forthwith. No State Government or Union Territory will permit the opening of any saw-mills, veneer or plywood industry without prior permission of the Central Empowered Committee. The Chief Secretary of each State will ensure strict compliance of this direction. There shall also be no relaxati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC1787; 2004(2)ALD87(SC); 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)559; 2004(2)AWC1470(SC); JT2004(5)SC490; 2003(10)SCALE1085; (2004)3SCC711; 2004(1)LC653(SC)
Doraiswamy Raju, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellants are the plaintiffs in suit No. 2145 of 2000, on the original side of the High Court of Bombay and the respondents-defendants are registered firm of partnership and its partners, respectively. The plaintiffs are builders and developers and they have entered into an agreement with the defendants on 13.5.1994 to sell the landed property owned by the respondents and a sum of Rs. 38 lakhs was said to have been paid by the appellants as deposit or earnest money on the execution of the agreement, which the respondents received under the agreement. Clause 2.3 of the agreement, insofar as it is relevant for the purpose, reads as hereunder:'If for any reason the vendors fail to fulfill their obligation under Clause 2, the purchasers shall have an option either to fulfill the said obligation themselves at the cost and expenses of the vendors or to terminate the agreement, in which event the vendors shall return to the purchasers the earnest wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2004)136PLR899; 2003(10)SCALE1016; (2004)2SCC130
S.B. Sinha, J.1. These appeals involving common questions of law and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The short question which arises for consideration in these appeals centers round the power of resumption of land/building of the first respondent in favour of the appellants under the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 read with the Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Buildings Rules, 1973 and the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.BACKGROUND FACT :2. The factual matrix of the matter is being noticed from Civil Appeal No. 49 of 1999. The site bearing No. SCO 126-127, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh was purchased on lease-hold basis by the appellant in open auction held on 13.3.1988. The purchase amount was to be paid in lump sum and/or in four yearly instalments. In the event of the purchaser opting for payment in instalments, 7% interest was payable. It is not in dispute that 25% of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(1)ALD(Cri)319; JT2003(10)SC262; 2003(10)SCALE110; (2003)12SCC636
N. Santosh Hegde, J. 1. The two appellants in these appeals were convicted by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Central), U.P., Lucknow for offences punishable under Sections 120B IPC, 161, 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo 2 years' RI under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act, and were further directed to pay a fine of Rs. 500 for an offence punishable under Sections 120B and 161 IPC and Section 5(2) of the Act; in default to undergo further sentence of 6 months' RI. In an appeal filed by the appellants, the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow, while dismissing the said appeals, reduced the sentence to one year RI. It is against the said order of the High Court that the two appellants are before us in these two appeals. The basic facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows :At the relevant time, Suleman Tayab A-1 was working as a LDC in 'B' Ward, ...
Tag this Judgment!