Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(1)AWC218(SC); 2004(3)BLJR2271; (SCSuppl)2005(1)CHN185; I(2005)CPJ1(SC); [2005(2)JCR91(SC)]; JT2005(11)SC78; (2005)141PLR287; 2004(10)SCALE14; (2005)1SCC191
ORDERArijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. The controversy in this appeal lies within a very narrow compass. The respondent No. 1 applied for allotment of a plot in response to an advertisement issued by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (in short 'HUDA'). The application was for allotment of a residential plot measuring 250 square yards, and deposit of Rs. 46,625/- was made on 26.12.2000. The HUDA intimated respondent No. 1 by letter dated 30.10.2001 that plot No. 2205 in Sector 65, Faridabad has been allotted to him. The respondent No. 1 purportedly, on the basis of Clause-4 of the letter, sent a registered letter on 28.11.2001, intimating HUDA that he is not interested in accepting the allotment. The letter was received on 03.12.2001 by HUDA. Referring to Clause-4 of the letter, HUDA directed forfeiture of the earnest money deposited. A complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act') was lodged by respondent No. 1 before the District Consum...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(1)ESC1; [2005(104)FLR53]; (2005)ILLJ578SC; 2004(9)SCALE579; (2005)1SCC639; 2005(3)SLJ71(SC); (2005)1UPLBEC513
S.B. Sinha, J.1. These appeals arising out of a judgment and order dated 26.4.2000 passed in Writ Petition No.1188 of 1997 by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench, involving similar questions of law and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.BACKGROUND FACTS:2. The Appellant Nos.1 and 2 are Degree holders in Civil Engineering and Appellant Nos. 3 and 4 are Diploma holders in Civil Engineering. They having come to learn that certain vacancies exist in the Respondent- Authority, applied therefore although no advertisement in that behalf was issued. The Respondent-Authority appointed the Appellants and posted them to an overseas project known as 'Indore Habitat Project' which was implemented through the agency of 'Overseas Development Authority' (hereinafter referred to as 'the ODA'), on daily wages @ Rs.63/- per day for the Degree holders and Rs.52.50 per day for the Diploma holders. On or about 17.3.1997, however, they began r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC4165; 2005(1)AWC313(SC); 2005(1)CTC76; JT2004(10)SC143; 2004(9)SCALE575; (2005)9SCC123; (2005)1UPLBEC1002
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. State of Orissa issued a notification purported to be under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') on or about 10.12.1980 pursuant whereto or in furtherance whereof inter alia the lands belonging to the Appellant herein were acquired. An award in respect of the said acquisition was passed on 13.09.1981 and possession of the land was taken by the State on 15.09.1981. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation specified in the Award, the Appellant herein filed an application for enhancement thereof in terms of Section 26 of the Act which was referred to Civil Court by the Collector on 5.12.1989. Although the amount of compensation as regard the value of the land was enhanced by an order dated 27.11.1990 by the Reference Court but the other statutory benefits in respect thereof as contemplated under Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act were not granted. An appeal against the said order by the Sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2004)192CTR(SC)492; JT2004(10)SC500; 2005(1)KLT601(SC); (2005)2MLJ129(SC); 2004(9)SCALE604; (2005)1SCC625; [2005]139STC86(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. These two appeals involve identical questions and, therefore, are disposed of by this common judgment after noticing the factual position, so far as they are relevant. The appellants question correctness of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court which held that the withdrawal of benefits extended to the appellants as subsidy was in order. The appellants questioned legality of the G.O.Ms No. 989 dated 1.9.1988 directing discontinuance of purchase tax exemption in case of mills which exceeded the ceiling of Rs. 300 lakhs during the period of five years, and Government letter dated 28.12.1988 which made the aforesaid G.O.Ms. No. 989 of 1.9.1988 operative retrospectively from 1.4.1988. Initially the writ petitions were filed before the High Court, but after constitution of the Tamil Nadu Taxation Special Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') the writ petitions were transferred to the Tribunal which held that on application of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC236; 2005(2)ALD16(SC); 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)135; 2005(1)AWC213(SC); 2005(3)BomCR302; [2005(1)JCR53(SC)]; JT2004(10)SC228; 2004(9)SCALE593; (2005)1SCC471; 2005(1)LC77(SC
A.K. Mathur, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court of Bombay, Panaji Bench, Goa in Second Appeal No. 4 of 1995 on February 13, 1998 whereby learned Single Judge has reversed the order passed by the first appellate Court.2. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that Smt. Bernadette B. Pereira filed a suit seeking declaration that she had acquired easementary right of access through the property of respondents, Shri Justiniano Antao, his wife Smt. Seaman Antao and Shri Diogo Antao (hereinafter referred to as the respondent-defendants) and for permanent injunction against the respondent-defendants for restraining them from obstructing, blocking, interfering with the motorable access.3. The trial court by its order dated February 26, 1991 decreed the suit of the plaintiff against the respondent-defendants holding that the plaintiff had right of motorable access to her house through the property of the responden...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC338; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)478; 2005(1)AWC530(SC); (SCSuppl)2005(1)CHN63; JT2004(10)SC606; 2004(3)KLT1060(SC); 2004(9)SCALE493; (2005)1SCC201
H.K. Sema, J.PREFACE1. 'My son, do not forget my law, but let your heart keep my commands. Let not justice and truth forsake you, bind them around your neck, write them on the tablet of your heart.'2. Writ Petition No. 216/1999 has been filed by a public spirited person in the form of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) inter-alia challenging the allotment of Government land in Salt Lake City, Calcutta from the discretionary quota of the Chief Minister. A writ in the nature of mandamus was specifically prayed for quashing of the allotments of Government Land, stated to be made unconstitutionally, illegally, arbitrarily, whimsically, capriciously with malafide motive and in clandestine manner and/or in colourable and arrogant exercise of power, being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.3. In the original petition, the allottees of the land were not arrayed as party respondents. LA No. 2 was filed for impleadment of respondent Nos. 8 to 38. However, by our order dated 13.11.2003, we...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC240; (SCSuppl)2005(1)CHN76; JT2005(6)SC470; (2005)139PLR293; 2004(9)SCALE568; (2005)1SCC8
ORDER1. This is a desperate attempt on the part of the petitioner, who was unsuccessful throughout, to hold on to the premises of which he is the tenant.2. The petitioner is the tenant of land and building constructed upon a plot in Jalandhar. Sometime in the year 1967 the petitioner was inducted into the premises by a lease agreement dated 25.10.1967. The lease agreement, inter alia, contained a clause which said, 'that the lessees will not make any addition or alteration or change in the building during the period of tenancy'.3. The respondent-landlord moved a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant on two grounds, namely, (1) that the petitioner had not been paying the enhanced rent as per the terms of the agreement; and (2) that though the earlier the petitioner had made a temporary shed over the generator which was placed in the courtyard, the petitioner had now extended and made further construction o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC492; 2005(1)ALT36; 2004(5)CTC506; JT2004(10)SC569; 2004(9)SCALE553; (2005)1SCC558
Shivaraj V. Patil J.CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6546 OF 19991. The State of Andhra Pradesh is in appeal questioning the validity and correctness of the impugned order made by the Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Appeal No. 411 of 1998.2. The few facts which are relevant and necessary for the disposal of this appeal are the following:An extent of 1573 sq. yds. in survey No. 54/2 of Kakaguda village in Hyderabad district was acquired by the State for improvement of Hyderabad-Karimnagar- Ramagundam Road which included the land of the respondent to the extent of 8 guntas (968 sq. yds.). After completing the acquisition proceedings, the possession of the said land was taken. Aggrieved by the amount of compensation determined @ Rs. 1400 per sq. yds., the respondent sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (for short 'the Land Acquisition Act) seeking enhancement of compensation amount and the reference is pending disposal before the Reference Court.3. Out of the land s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(1)AWC296(SC); 2004(9)SCALE571; (2005)9SCC254
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court dismissing writ petition of the appellant which had sought the quashing of order No. 1132/sec-9/Five 477/76 Lucknow dated 22.2.1981 and order No. 1486-Sec-9/V-477/76 Lucknow dated 6.3.1981 made by the State Government whereby the State Government had ordered that the property belonging to the appellant had vested in a Treasurer of Charitable Endowments, U.P.2. The appellant was established and registered under the Societies Registration Act on 27.8.1907. The memorandum of appellant's society, inter alia, includes revival of the study of ancient Sanskrit language as laid down in the Hindu scriptures, imparting of such knowledge along with suitable knowledge of English to students, establishing and maintaining institution for education on old lines as far as practicable for all Hindu boys, establishing and maintaining special classes of education for the sons of Purohits at places of pilgrimage so as to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(3)ARBLR530(SC); 2005(1)CTC62; JT2005(6)SC262; 2004(9)SCALE561; (2005)10SCC425
ORDER1. By this application the applicant has prayed that the Registry of this Court be directed to transfer the arbitral award dated 25.6.1996 made by the learned Arbitrator late Justice A.C. Gupta, filed in this Court to the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Vishakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.2. The circumstances under which the application has been made are as under:The applicant and the respondent entered into an agreement with regard to the hiring of applicant's trawlers Ave Maria I and Ave Maria II. The agreement contains an arbitration clause. Certain disputes arose between the parties pertaining to the subject matter of the agreement the appellant (ITC Limited) terminated the agreement by notice and followed it up with a suit CS No. 736 of 1978 on the original side of the Calcutta High Court seeking a declaration that the agreements dated 21.3.1977 and 2.2.1978 were illegal and for a decree for the sum of Rs. 39.64 lakhs.3. On 24.4.1979 the applicant filed a petition under Section 34...
Tag this Judgment!