Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2372; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)705; 2005(2)ESC288; [2005(105)FLR943]; JT2005(5)SC112; (2005)IILLJ847SC; (2005)5SCC124; 2005(3)SLJ144(SC); (2005)2UPLBEC1405
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Whether the Respondent was entitled to be granted full back wages in the facts and circumstances of this case is the question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 2.7.2003 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.6597 of 2001.2. The basic fact of the matter is not much in dispute. The Respondent herein was appointed purely on a temporary basis on or about 14.10.1985. The appointment letter issued to the Respondent No. 1 stipulates that the said appointment could be terminated at any time without any prior notice. The services of the Respondent No. 1 and others were terminated by the State in terms of an office order dated 24.1.1987. An industrial dispute was raised by the Respondent No. 1 herein. Before the Labour Court the Respondent No. 1 adduced evidence, but the Appellant did not. An ex parte award came to be passed by the Labour Court on or about 11.4.2000 reinstating the Respondent No.1 with full back...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2369; 119(2005)DLT526(SC); JT2005(5)SC117; (2005)5SCC372
A.K. Mathur, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against an order passed by learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Civil Miscellaneous Main No.328 of 2003 on July 23, 2004 whereby the order dated April 24, 2003 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal which dismissed the appeal of the respondent herein arising out of the order of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi who decreed the eviction of the respondent under Section 14(1)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958( hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') was set aside and the case was remitted back to the trial Court. Aggrieved against this order, the present petition by way of special leave petition was filed. It may be relevant to mention here that the plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of the respondent from the premises under his tenancy in the House No. 11/8, Sarvapriya Vihar, New Delhi under Section 14(1)(h) of the Act. The premises in question having one drawing room, one bed-room, kitchen, b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2005)10SCC760; 2005(2)LC945(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.INTRODUCTION1. The extent of bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 80 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the BPT Act') is the question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 21.03.2003 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in S.A. No. 303 of 1986.BACKGROUND FACT:2. The basic fact of the matter is not much in dispute.In or about 1895, some American Missionaries established a religious institution (Church) at Valsad for propagation of protestant faith of Christian religion and to establish and manage the churches for the people professing that faith. The object of the 'Brethren Church' was to propagate the work of the church of the brethren in western India in order to reveal Christ by means of evangelistic, educational, medical, literary, industrial school, social and charitable activities leading to the establishment of the kingdom of God. A Continuation Committee is said to have been ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2857; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)784; 2005(2)AWC1697(SC); 2005(3)BLJR1976; 2006(2)BomCR855; (SCSuppl)2005(4)CHN58; 2005(2)CTC809; [2005(3)JCR153(SC)]; JT2005(5)SC79; (2006)2M
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. A building, as defined in the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), was taken on rent from one Quasim, the predecessor of the respondents, by Ram Babu Jaiswal, the predecessor of the appellants, some time in the year 1958. Rent was enhanced and a fresh rent deed was executed on 7.4.1970. That tenancy continued. Quasim, the landlord died. His rights devolved on his heirs. It is the case of the appellants that they have taken assignment of the rights of certain heirs, being co-owner landlords, on 29.12.1988. The respondents in this appeal, the heirs of Quasim, filed House Control Case No.33 of 1993 under the Act, for fixation of fair rent. By order dated 22.3.1994 the House Controller fixed the fair rent at Rs.4,950/- per month. The plea based on assignment of the reversion by some of the legal representatives of Quasim, the landlord, and the consequential extinguishment of the lease was rejected. An app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(4)ALD106(SC); 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)816; 2005(2)AWC1685(SC); 2005(2)BLJR1316; 2005(5)BomCR605; 100(2005)CLT198(SC); 2005(2)CTC801; JT2005(11)SC8; 2005(3)MhLj747; (2005)5SCC1
S.B. Sinha, J. 1. A two-Judge Bench of this Court by an order dated 6.9.2001 referred the matter for decision by a bench of three Judges in view of the purported conflict recorded in Kartar Singh v. Harjinder Singh and Ors : AIR1990SC854 and Rachakonda Narayana v. Ponthala Parvathamma and Anr. : AIR2001SC3353.2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. 3. Balwant Singh father of the Appellant herein was the owner of the suit land measuring 153 Kanals 19 Marlas. He allegedly entered into an agreement to sell the said land on a consideration of Rs. 500/- per Bigha. The total consideration of Rs. 16,000/- in terms of the said agreement for sale dated 22.7.1964 is said to have been paid. However, for some reason or the other no sale-deed could be executed and registered pursuant to or in furtherance thereof. It is stated that Arjan Singh had paid a further sum of Rs. 14,000/- in addition to the said sum of Rs. 16,000/-. The said Balwant Singh died on 11.2.1968 whereafter the Appella...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2375; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)570; 2005(2)BLJR1285; 2005(5)BomCR198; 2005CriLJ2598; 119(2005)DLT452(SC); I(2005)DMC805SC; [2005(3)JCR170(SC)]; JT2005(5)SC71; (2005)4SCC565
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. The expression 'dowry' in ancient times applied to that which a wife brought her husband in marriage, goods given in marriage or the marriage portion. May be, it was conceived of as a nest-egg or security for the wife in her matrimonial home, especially since, most of the systems regarded a married woman as an addition to her husband's family. But in course of time, it assumed a different shape and degenerated into a subject of barter, acceptance of the woman as a wife depending on what her parents would pay as dowry, varying with the qualification and the status of the bridegroom's family. As felicitously put by Krishnaswami Aiyar, C.J. on behalf of the Full Bench in Sundaram Iyer v. Thandaveswara Iyer, 1946 Tra L.R. 224, 'But an abuse of the situation soon came into view when the bridegroom came to be marketed as a commodity for the value of his accomplishments and future promises and the high standards of the scriptural marriage which was a sacrament came ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : III(2005)BC198(SC); 2005(2)BLJR1269; [2005]125CompCas338(SC); (2006)4CompLJ413(SC); 2005(2)CTC823; (2005)3GLR1884; JT2005(5)SC318; 2005(2)KLT914(SC); 2005(4)MhLj100; 2005MP
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court holding that the proceedings initiated on the basis of a complaint alleging infraction of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (in short the 'Act') was not maintainable. Therefore, the proceedings were quashed, allowing the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code').3. Background facts filtering out unnecessary details are as under:The complaint was filed by the appellant alleging that in the year 1995 respondent No. 1 had issued a cheque for a sum of Rs. 5,15,053.72 representing balance amount payable to the appellant for supply of goods to a partnership firm of which respondents are partners. It was indicated that the total amount payable was Rs. 49,21,482.72 as against which the accused persons had paid Rs. 44,06,429/-, leaving balance of Rs. 5,15,053...
Tag this Judgment!