Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1467; 2003CriLJ1207; JT2003(2)SC49; RLW2003(3)SC375; 2003(2)SCALE36; (2003)3SCC427; [2003]1SCR1011; 2003(1)UJ750(SC)
By the impugned judgment and order dated 31st March, 1993, the High Court has come to the conclusion that the appellant Radha Mohan Lal (Criminal Appeal No.445/93) and his advocate, appellant Sualal Yadav (Criminal Appeal No.449/93) have committed the contempt of court. Both have been sentenced to three months' simple imprisonment each besides fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. The basis for initiation and punishment for contempt of court is the averment made in para 4 of the application dated 18th September, 1991 that had been filed before a learned Single Judge of the High Court in a civil revision petition which was listed before the learned Judge. The said para 4 reads as under :"That apart from it, the undersigned has been informed by his client-Shri Radha Mohan Lal Vakil Ex. Chairman of the Municipal Council, Jaipur, that he along with other non-petitioners have moved a complaint in writing against Hon'ble...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1579; [2003(96)FLR995]; (2003)IILLJ176SC; 2003(2)SCALE51; (2003)9SCC154; [2003]1SCR1029; 2003(2)SLJ199(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. In this appeal challenge is to judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The dispute relate to entitlement of service and retiral benefits of respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the employee').2. Factual background in a nutshell is as follows:Respondent No. 1-employee was employee as Lab. Assistant, a Class IV post, on 1.2.1973. On 8.11.1977 a show-cause notice was served on him detailing eight charges. By order dated 11.2.1978, his services were terminated by the then Principal holding that the charges were fully proved. Against the order of termination an appeal was preferred which was dismissed by the Committee of Management. After about 6 years the employee filed a representation before the prescribed authority under Regulation 21 of Chapter - III framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The same was dismissed by the District Inspector of Schools. A writ petition was filed by the employee which was registered as Civil ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1533; JT2003(2)SC35; 2003(1)SCALE757; (2003)3SCC321; [2003]1SCR975
Leave granted.The question which requires consideration in this bunch of special leave petitions and writ petitions is whether Regulations 5 (e) and (f) framed by National Council for Teachers Education (hereinafter referred to as 'the Council') are ultra vires the provisions of National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). We will briefly refer to the facts of SLP No. 2421 of 2001 which is the leading case. The appellant claims to be a Christian Minority Teacher Training Institute and is run and managed by the Tamilnadu Educational Trust which is engaged in the field of education since 1989. The petitioner made an application to the Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education (Southern Committee) Bangalore, seeking permission for starting a course in Elementary Education Training in the year 1999-2000. The respondents sent a letter dated August 18, 1999 stating that unless the State Government issued a "No Objection Certificate"...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1694; 2003(2)ALLMR(SC)387; 2003(51)BLJR693; (2003)2CompLJ187(SC); 2003(1)CTC574; JT2003(5)SC186; (2003)2MLJ14(SC); 2003(2)SCALE61; (2003)4SCC683; [2003]1SCR971; 20
ORDER1. The appellant before us, having a current account with respondent No. 1 - Canara Bank, took exception to the charging by the Bank a sum of Rs. 50/- for issuance of 50 leaves of MICR cheques. The main ground for the grievance was that this amount had not been charged earlier for issuance of cheque book, but the same has been introduced without any prior information and consent of the appellant. It amounted to unilateral action on the part of the respondent-Bank. 2. The appellant approached the Bombay Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum & Bombay Suburban District (in short 'the District Forum) with the aforesaid complaint. The District Forum allowed the petition preferred by the appellant holding that the bank was not justified in recovering the charges for supply of leaf of cheques as it could not be done unilaterally without the consent of the customer. It has also been observed by the District Forum that no data was provided by the Bank to indicate the cost it incurs in obtainin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1475; 103(2003)DLT20(SC); JT2003(1)SC607; 2003(1)SCALE722; (2003)4SCC147; [2003]1SCR918; 2003(1)LC513(SC)
Bhan, J.1. Leave granted.2. The short point which falls for determination in this appeal is: whether a decree for ejectment passed by a civil court qua a commercial tenancy in the State of Delhi before the declaration of law by the Supreme Court in Gian Devi Anand v. Jeevan Kumar, : AIR1985SC796 , that such a tenancy is heritable, is executable or the judgment-debtors can successfully object to the execution of the decree on the ground that same was passed by a court lacking inherent jurisdiction and therefore inexecutable? 3. Property No. 212/IX, Chawri Bazar, Delhi, was owned by Smt. Sarla Devi, wife of the respondent-landlord (hereinafter referred to as 'the decree-holder'). She let out the suit premises in 1969 at a monthly rent of Rs. 75/- for commercial purposes to late Shri Amar Nath, predecessor-in-interest, of the appellants (hereinafter referred to as 'the judgment-debtors'). Smt. Sarla Devi died on 28th January, 1980. She had executed a will dated 25th April, 1979 in favour ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1484; 2003(86)ECC50; JT2003(1)SC619; 2003(1)SCALE746; (2003)3SCC379; [2003]1SCR934
Shah, J.1. Question requiring determination in these appeals is--whether'cigarette packets' would be 'other packing containers' or 'boxes'within the meaning of Tariff Item No. 17 of Central Excise Tariff Act(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')? It is the contention of theDepartment that cigarette packet is a 'small paper box' and cannot betermed as a 'container' which is relatively a large enclosure. Onbehalf of the respondent--ITC Limited, which manufacturescigarettes, it is submitted that cigarette packet would be 'otherpacking container' and not 'paper box'. 2. The aforesaid question is required to be decided by consideringthe relevant part of Tariff Item No. 17 and Exemption NotificationNo. 66/82-C.E., and dated 28.2.1982. Tariff Item No. 17 reads as under:--Item No.17- PAPER AND PAPER BOARD AND ARTICLES THEREOFItem No.Tariff DescriptionRate of Duty17.Paper and Paper Board, all sorts (including paste-board, millboard, strawboard, cardboard and corrugated board), and articles ther...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1568; [2003(96)FLR1045]; JT2003(10)SC665; 2003(1)SCALE705; (2003)9SCC75; (2003)1UPLBEC812
The first and the third appellants and one Kirity Bhusan Pal while working as 'Rakshaks' in the Railway Protection Force (RPF) were removed from the said service on the ground of serious misconduct and negligence of duty by the Assistant Security Officer, Eastern Railway, exercising the power conferred on him under Rule 47 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959 (the Rules). While passing the said order, the said officer came to the conclusion that he was satisfied that no independent evidence will be available in the departmental enquiry against these appellants in view of the prevailing fear amongst the witnesses and it was not reasonably practicable to hold any fair inquiry, hence, dispensing with the requirement of holding an inquiry, he passed the said order of removal. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that these appellants when they were on duty as Rakshaks (Guards) of 733 UP goods train colluded with other officials in the said train and certain other mi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1772; JT2003(2)SC93; 2003(3)MPHT7; 2003(1)SCALE703; (2003)2SCC564; (2003)1UPLBEC862
Heard learned counsel.Leave grantedThe appellant in this appeal was at the relevant point of time a member of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Service posted as a Commercial Tax Officer. On the ground that there was an evasion of commercial tax, he made an attachment order of certain perishable goods belonging to the respondent-firm consequent to which the property worth about Rs.2.92 lakhs belonging to the respondent was attached and kept in Central Warehousing Corporation, Sheopurkalan. The respondent preferred a revision petition against the said order which was allowed in favour of the respondent directing the release of the goods. But according to the respondent, despite the said order in revision, the goods in question were not released, therefore, the respondent was compelled to file a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench. The learned Single Judge who heard the said writ petition, issued an interim direction on 11.10.1996 directing release of the goods. P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1191; JT2003(1)SC594; 2003(2)MPHT377; 2003MPLJ37(SC); 2003(1)SCALE689; (2003)3SCC1; [2003]1SCR906; 2003(2)LC828(SC)
Dharmadhikari, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh against judgment dated 16.1.2001 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 3603 of 1999. By placing reliance on two Judges Bench decision of this Court in State of U.P. v. Sadhu Saran Shukla : (1994)2SCC445 the High Court has held that Rule 3(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Prisoner's Release on Probation Rules, 1964 is ultra vires Section 2 of Madhya Pradesh Prisoner's Release on Probation Act 1954 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' and 'the Act' respectively].2. The two-Judges Bench of this Court in the case Sadhu Saran (Supra) declared similar Rule 3(a) of U.P. Prisoner's Release on Probation Rules as ultra vires Section 9 and Section 2 of the U.P. Prisoners' Release on Probation Act, 1938 [hereinafter shortly referred to as 'the U.P. Rules' and 'the U.P. Act' respectively].3. This appeal was listed before a two-Judges Bench of this Court on 21.8.2002 and it had referred this case t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1493; 2003(1)ALD(Cri)883; 2003CriLJ1204; JT2003(3)SC466; 2003(1)SCALE719; (2003)3SCC37; 2003(1)LC506(SC)
Santosh Hegde, J.1. In regard to an incident which took place on 8.10.1991 atabout 3. p.m. in the house of one Prabhakar Gawande, 37 accusedpersons were charge-sheeted for offences punishable underSection 302 read with Section 149, Section 427 read with Section149, Section 323 read with Section 149 and Sections 148, 395 and396 IPC. In that case the learned Sessions Judge, Akole whileacquitting 16 of the accused, convicted accused No.1 underSection 302 IPC along with certain other charges and awarded himlife imprisonment. In regard to others, he found them guiltyprincipally under Section 302 read with Section 149 andsurprisingly awarded only 8 years RI. In appeal the High Courtconfirmed the conviction under Section 302 awarded to A-1 and inregard to some of the accused persons who were appellants beforehim it altered the conviction to one under Section 304 Part II readwith Section 149 and awarded 7 years R.I. While in regard to theappellants before us, it altered the conviction to one u...
Tag this Judgment!