Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3272; [2005(107)FLR258]; JT2005(8)SC96; (2005)IIILLJ721SC; (2005)7SCC435; 2005(3)SLJ454(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. The State Bank of India and its Regional Manager, Region-II, Calcutta, Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office and Branch Manager, Berhampore Branch, question correctness of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court holding that continuation of the proceedings initiated against Shri Snigdha Kanti Bagchi (hereinafter referred to as 'the 'employee') after the date of his superannuation was illegal without jurisdiction.' The said employee had filed a writ petition where the present appellants and the Union of India, Secretary, Ministry of Finance (Banking), proforma respondent were impleaded as opposite parties. In the writ petition prayer was made to quash order passed in the disciplinary proceedings initiated which was continued after the alleged date of superannuation. A learned Single Judge of the High Court held that under the Service Rules of the Bank it was not permissible to continue the proceedings beyond the date of s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3476; [2005(107)FLR256]; JT2005(8)SC290; (2006)2MLJ169(SC); RLW2006(2)SC948; (2005)7SCC406; 2006(1)SLJ145(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench.2. Factual position in a nutshell is as follows:Challenging the order of termination passed by the appellant-Corporation, the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the Employee') filed a suit for declaration that the termination is bad. The suit was decreed on 03.05.1987. It was held that the order of termination was void ab-initio and non est and that the plaintiff-respondent is in continuity of service of the Corporation. The respondent-employee filed two execution applications. The first one was for salary for the period from January, 1982 to Hay, 1987. The subsequent execution application was for salary from July, 1987 to March, 1988. It is only the legality of the execution proceedings for the period from April, 1988 to March, 1997 which is in dispute. According to the appellant-Corporation, there was no direction for back wages and mer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2007(115)FLR280]
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. The appellant-State calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of the Uttaranchal High Court. A brief reference to the factual background will be necessary:The respondent (hereinafter referred to as the employee) was a work-charged employee in Irrigation Research Institute, Roorkee. The project was completed on 28 February, 1982 land like other similarly work-charged employees his services came to an end. Order in this regard was passed on 25 February, 1982. The respondent-employee raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer, Saharanpur in 1988 who after examining the claim dismissed it on 25 January, 1990 and no reference was made under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act). A writ petition was filed by the respondent-employee before the Allahabad High Court which was dismissed. However, the respondent-employee was permitted to make a representation or to approach the Government for a fresh consideration. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3759; 2006(1)ALD(Cri)148; 2005CriLJ4111; JT2005(8)SC68; 2005(4)MhLj1178; 2005MPLJ439(SC); (2005)7SCC408
A.K. Mathur, J.1. This Criminal Appeal filed by the State of Punjab is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated April 18, 1996 whereby the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court has acquitted the respondent- accused Hakam Singh from the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'I.P.C.') for committing the murder of the deceased Harbans Singh. Learned Sessions Judge, Bhatinda convicted the respondent- Hakam Singh under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. In default of payment of fine the respondent was directed to undergo a further imprisonment for four months. Learned Sessions Judge also convicted the respondent under section 302/34 I.P.C. in respect of the death of Mohinder Singh and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.2000/-, the respondent was also convicted under Section 307/34 I.P.C for causing injuries to Sadhu ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3275; [2005(107)FLR153]; [2006(2)JCR59(SC)]; JT2005(8)SC33; 2005(5)KarLJ467; (2005)IIILLJ850SC; (2005)7SCC206
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. The appellant-State and its functionaries call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court holding that the respondent was entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds. By the impugned judgment the view expressed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal (in short 'Tribunal') about such entitlement of the respondent was upheld.2. Factual position is almost undisputed and needs to be noted in brief:Respondent's father Ramachandra Narayan Bhat who was a government servant died on 21.12.1977. The respondent was born on 20.10.1977 and was hardly two months old at the time when his father expired. He attained majority on 20.10.1995. He submitted an application on 2.12.1996 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds purportedly under the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1990 (in short the 'Rules'). The said application on 11/13.11.1997 was rejected on the ground that the applica...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC4292; 2005(5)ALD103(SC); [2005(107)FLR157]; [2005(4)JCR162(SC)]; JT2005(8)SC23; 2006(1)MhLj845; (2005)7SCC177; 2005(3)SLJ407(SC)
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal by special leave is brought by the A.P. Public Service Commission to impugn a judgment of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad directing the appellant commission to give employment to the First Respondent by accommodating him in the next available vacancy.3. The facts leading to the present appeal fall within a limited matrix and they are as follows.On 2.7.1999 the appellant commission published an advertisement inviting applications for filling up various categories of posts including four posts of Women Child and Welfare Officers by direct recruitment from candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The application form given out to the candidates, required by Column 11 and Annexure III, that the candidates should furnish full information with regard to their appointments in Government / private sectors, if any. The notification issued by the commission specifically informed the candidates that giving of any false/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3434; 2005(4)AWC3869N(SC); IV(2005)BC13(SC); 2006(1)BomCR760; 2005(4)CTC408; [2006(2)JCR155(SC)]; JT2005(8)SC58; 2005(4)KLT264(SC); (2005)7SCC308
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Leave granted.2. The unsuccessful appellant in S.B. Civil Execution First Appeal No. 2 of 1998 before the High Court of Rajasthan is the appellant before us by special leave. The appeal is preferred against the judgment and final order dated 12.11.2003 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan in S.B. Civil Execution First Appeal No. 2 of 1998 whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed.3. Briefly stated, the facts are that a decree for Rs. 37,255.07 was passed against the State of Rajasthan on 6.6.1970 in respect of the construction work of irrigation department under Arbitration Act in case No. 4 of 1969 entitled Sharma & Co. v. State of Rajasthan. The said company filed execution and recovered Rs. 37,592.57. As against the said amount, two securities were furnished, one by Shri Gurbachan Singh for Rs. 2927.57 and another by Smt. Kamla for Rs. 37,592.57. Along with the aforesaid surety bonds, House No. 79B Block Sri Ganganagar was also furnished again...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3753; 123(2005)DLT127(SC); 2005(85)DRJ244; JT2005(8)SC104; RLW2005(4)SC2469; (2005)7SCC211
B.P. Singh, J.1. This appeal by Special Leave impugns the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi dated October 31, 2002 in CMM No. 800 of 2000. The High Court by its impugned judgment and order allowed the petition filed by the respondent/landlady and setting aside the judgment and orders of the Additional Rent Controller dated November 15, 1999 and the Rent Control Tribunal dated August 28, 2000 passed an order of eviction against the appellant herein. The High Court recorded a finding that the appellant/tenant had defaulted in payment of rent for the period February 1, 1992 to January 31, 1995. It may be noticed at the threshold that this is a case of second default, and the appellant having availed of the benefit under Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is not entitled to such benefit in case of second default.2. The facts are not in dispute. The appellant is a tenant of the respondent and the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)970; 2005(4)AWC3870D(SC); 2006(1)BomCR416; (SCSuppl)2006(1)CHN29; [2005(4)JCR268(SC)]; JT2005(12)SC376; RLW2006(2)SC1097; (2005)7SCC279
ORDER1. In the maze of IAs, we are concerned with facts briefly stated in Civil Appeal No. 417 of 1997 and Civil Appeal No. 4948 of 2001 disposed of by this Court vide its judgment dated 31.7.2001, with a number of connected matters.I.A. No. 5 OF 2004 IN I.A. No. 3 OF 2001 IN CIVIL APPEAL No. 417 OF 1997:2. On 6.9.1988, Savitri Devi (vendor) sold lands measuring 76 kanals 9 marlas of distinct killa numbers. Ram Kanwar (plaintiff-appellant) filed a suit for possession of the above lands on the plea that he was co-sharer at all material times and as such he had a preferential right to acquire it. The said suit was contested by the vendees (defendants - respondents). On 15.1.1993, the suit was dismissed by the trial court holding that the plaintiff-appellant was not a co-sharer in the suit land. On appeal from the judgment and decree of dismissal of the suit, the first appellate court, by order dated 22.2.1995, reversed the findings of the trial court holding that the plaintiff-appellant ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : III(2005)ACC811; 2005ACJ2116; AIR2005SC3279; 2005(6)BomCR927; IV(2005)CPJ28(SC); 2005(4)CTC703; [2005(4)JCR227(SC)]; JT2005(8)SC56; (2005)4MLJ131(SC); (2005)141PLR795; RLW2
R.C. Lahoti, C.J.1. Leave granted in SLP (C) No. 3106/2004.2. In all these appeals, it is not necessary to notice the facts of individual cases. It would suffice to state that in all these cases, the plaintiff, a woman, had undergone a sterilization operation performed by a surgeon in the employment of the State of Haryana. Subsequent to the performance of the surgery, the woman became pregnant and delivered a child. Suit was filed against the doctor who had performed the surgery, claiming compensation based on the cause of action of 'unwanted pregnancy' and 'unwanted child', attributable to the failure of the surgery. State of Haryana was impleaded, claiming decree against it on the principle of vicarious liability. The suits have been decreed and such decrees have been put in issue by filing these appeals by special leave.3. A 3-Judge Bench of this Court has held in State of Punjab v. Shiv Ram and Ors. : AIR2005SC3280, (decided on August 25, 2005) that child birth in spite of a steri...
Tag this Judgment!