Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2006(2)SC121; (2006)ILLJ1113SC; 2006(2)SCALE18; (2006)2SCC473; 2006(2)SLJ144(SC)
ORDERIn the G.O. read above the Government has approved the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu State Transport Department Operation Sub- Ordinate Service. According to Rule 12 of the said Rules, all the members of the services are eligible for the benefits of gratuity and they will be governed by the Special Gratuity Rules and will not be entitled to pension or provident Fund benefits as applicable to the regular government servants. The Government have since decided to extent the benefits of the Madras Liberalised Pension Rules, 1960 to the workers of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Department in lieu of Tamil Nadu State Transport Department Operation Subordinate Retiring. In valid and compassionate Gratuity (Non-Pensionable Establishment) Rules.02. The Government accordingly direct that the workers of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Department be entitled to the Pension and Provident Fund and the Family Pension benefits as applicable to the regular Government servants under the Madras Li...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC3542; (SCSuppl)2006(2)CHN114; [2006(108)FLR1043]; JT2006(2)SC73; 2006(2)KarLJ205; (2006)ILLJ988SC; 2006(2)SCALE101; (2006)3SCC150; 2006(2)SLJ285(SC)
H.K. Sema, J.1. This appeal, preferred by Syndicate Bank is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 16th April, 2004 passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 7997 of 1999 affirming the order dated 14th June, 1999 of the learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No. 12594 of 1991 allowing the Writ Petition filed by the respondent herein. 2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:The respondent was working as Manager of the appellant's bank at Horti Branch (Karnataka) between 30.12.1976 and 22.7.1981. It is alleged that during the said period the respondent in collusion with certain staff members got necessary documents signed and arranged loans in the name of poor illiterate villagers under the Integrated Rural Development Program and misappropriated the proceeds of such loans. The allegations are:a) On 20.06.1979 he obtained loan application and other documents from one Sri. S.M. Desai with Sr. N.C. Yelasangi as the proposed surety/co-obligate without informing them th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC1104; 2006(4)BomCR469; 2006(3)MhLj324; 2006(2)SCALE97; (2006)2SCC505; 2006(1)LC606(SC)
ORDER1. The petitioners herein before the High Court, inter alia, sought for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus declaring Section 37(1AA) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short, 'the MRTP Act') as violative of the Constitution of India and Items (1) and (2) of Twelfth Schedule thereof.2. The High Court refused to enter into the aforementioned question holding, inter alia, that in absence of a comprehensive challenge by laving proper foundation therefor in the pleadings, as to how merely challenging the said provision would suffice when power to issue directions is conferred under the MRTP Act and other provisions of use Maharashtra Metropolitan Planning, Committee Act, it would not be proper to go thereinto.It was furthermore observed:.Section 37(1) read properly and as a whole confers an independent power on the State government to issue directions to the planning authority to set in motion the procedure for effecting modification of any par...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2006(108)FLR1051]; JT2006(2)SC322; (2006)IILLJ93SC; 2006(2)SCALE73; (2006)2SCC747; 2006(2)SLJ151(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Construction of an inter-parties order of this Court is in question in this appeal wherein the validity of an amendment of the reservation policy of the State which was the subject matter of a decision of this Court in N.T. Devin Katti and Ors. v. Karnataka Public Service Commission and Ors. : (1990)IILLJ456SC , had been raised. This Court therein declared that the revised reservation policy was not applicable to selection initiated prior thereto and consequently directed:15... In this view, we direct the State Government to appoint the appellants on the posts of Tehsildars with retrospective effect, but if no vacancies are available the State Government will create supernumerary posts of Tehsildars for appointing the appellants against those posts. We further direct that for purposes of seniority the appellants should be placed below last candidate appointed in 1976, but they will not be entitled to any back wages. The appellants will be entitled to promotion if other...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC1132; 2006(2)AWC1339(SC); JT2006(2)SC108; 2006(2)KarLJ129; 2006(3)MhLj331; (2006)2MLJ262(SC); 2006(2)SCALE62; (2006)2SCC416
B.P. Singh, J.1. These appeals by special leave are directed against the Judgment and Order of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore dated February 12, 1998 in Writ Appeal No. 2079 of 1993, Writ Appeal Nos. 2080-2081 of 1993 and Writ Appeal Nos. 2090-94 of 1993. Civil Appeal Nos. 2073-2077of 2000 are directed against the judgment and order of the High Court dated September 21, 1999 dismissing the Writ Appeals following the judgment of the High Court in the earlier batch of Writ Appeals. The High Court by its impugned judgment and order upheld the award made by the Collector holding that the requirements of Section 11 and 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act') were met if the award was made and signed by the Collector and approved by the Government within a period of two years from the date of last publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act. In the instant case the Collector signed his award after an enquiry as contemplated by the Act ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC1214; [2006(108)FLR1108]; JT2006(2)SC82; (2006)ILLJ1108SC; 2006(2)SCALE12; (2006)2SCC373; 2006(2)SLJ294(SC)
H.K. Sema, J.1. This appeal, preferred by the State of Andhra Pradesh, is directed against the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 9.12.2003 in Writ Petition No. 14146 of 2003 quashing the order of dismissal dated 21.9.2000 of the respondent herein and the order of the appellate authority dated 20.10.2001 confirming the order of dismissal. The Division Bench of the High Court directed that the respondent herein be reinstated into service forthwith with all back wages and all attendant benefits, which he could have received, had he not been dismissed from service. The High Court further directed that the respondent be reinstated into service within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order. This Court on 16.7.2004, while issuing notice granted interim stay of the impugned order. Further, on 18.7.2005, on the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent that the respondent has been reinstated pursuant to the High C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC975; [2006(108)FLR1101]; JT2006(2)SC99; (2006)ILLJ1074SC; (2006)142PLR838; 2006(2)SCALE90; (2006)2SCC269; 2006(2)SLJ350(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. The Appellant was employed by the Respondent herein as a Safety Officer. On an allegation that he had committed acts of misconduct, he was placed under suspension. He preferred an appeal before the Labour Commissioner in terms of Rule 14 of the U.P. Factories (Safety Officers) Rules, 1984 (for short 'the Rules').3. A writ petition was filed by him which was disposed of directing that the appeal preferred by him against the order of suspension be disposed of by the Labour Commissioner within the period specified therein. On completion of enquiry, a show cause notice was issued to him on 8.01.1998 as to why punishment of dismissal be not awarded. 4. In the meanwhile, the Labour Commissioner issued notice to the Respondent directing it to appear on 2.4.1998. A prayer for adjournment made by the Respondent herein that the matter be posted after 15.4.1998 as the officers were busy in relation to closing of financial year, was refused. 9.4.1998 was the date ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC963; 2006(3)ALT7(SC); 2006(1)ARBLR286(SC); 2006(2)AWC1259(SC); (2006)2CompLJ417(SC); JT2006(2)SC89; 2006(2)SCALE53; (2006)2SCC628
C.K. Thakker, J.1. This Arbitration Petition is filed by the petitioner, Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd. against the respondent, M/s Jain Studios Ltd. under Sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is prayed in the application that Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. L. Pendse (Retired) be appointed as Sole Arbitrator, or in the alternative, any other retired Judge of a High Court may be appointed as an Arbitrator. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India has nominated me to exercise power under Sub-section (6) of Section 11 of the Act and that is how the matter has been placed before me for passing an appropriate order.2. It is the case of the petitioner that it is a Company registered under the laws of Thailand, having its principal office in Thailand. The petitioner carries on the satellite business and has got three satellites in the orbit, viz., Thaicom-1, Thaicom-2 and Thaicom-3. The petitioner, through above satellite...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC1218; 2006(3)BomCR166; JT2006(2)SC129; 2006(2)MhLj762; 2006(2)SCALE81; (2006)2SCC300
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.Leave granted.1. Elections to the Pune Municipal Corporation were held on 10.02.2002 and 03.03.2002. Election to the ward Prabhag 7A Pashan was held on 03.03.2002. The appellant and respondent No.1 before us were the main candidates. On 5.3.2002 the counting took place. The appellant was declared elected by a majority of 13 votes. At the counting it was announced that the total number of votes polled were 15,288; 828 votes were invalid, 5 were tendered votes and the total valid votes polled were 14,455. The appellant was declared to have secured 5,607 votes whereas respondent no.1 was declared to have secured 5,594 votes. Consequently, the appellant was declared elected.2. On 15.3.2002, respondent no.1 filed EP 21/2002 under Section 16 read with Section 403 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 in the Court of Small Causes, Pune challenging the election of the appellant. According to the election petition, the scrutiny and counting of votes w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC971; 2006(2)ALD62(SC); [2006(108)FLR805]; [2006(2)JCR121(SC)]; JT2006(2)SC45; 2006(2)KarLJ287; (2006)ILLJ995SC; 2006(2)SCALE8; (2006)2SCC381; 2006(2)SLJ171(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court affirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench held that 45 persons who were selected as trainees were not covered by Employees Provident Fund & Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 (in short the 'Act') as they cannot be called as 'employees' as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:The respondent invited applications from the intending applicants for undergoing training at its Chocolate Factory, Puttur on a stipend of Rs. 600/- per month which may be increased to Rs. 800/- per month after six months. It was also provided that the successful candidates may be considered for regular posting in the factory. By its resolution dated 21.1.1990 after interviewing 270 applicants, 45 persons were selected. By a combined order dated 3.2.1990, Managing Director notified the 45 persons who...
Tag this Judgment!