Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2007(112)FLR700]; 2006(13)SCALE658
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant's father expired on 10.2.2001 while in office. In terms of the Rule, as it was existing then, the appellant was entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds. An application for such an appointment was filed within two weeks by the appellant from the date of his father's death. Not only the appellant was denied appointment in District Yamuna Nagar although his deceased father had been employed as a Kammgo in District Yamuna Nagar when he was sought to be appointed in the District of Karnal, the same was denied to him by the District Magistrate, Kamal Inter alia on the plea that there does not exist any vacancy.3. The appellant filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Before the said Court, the respondents raised a contention that in the meanwhile the State of Haryana had issued a notification on 23.2.2003 known as 'the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 200...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(1)AWC434(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Both these appeals involving common questions of law and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. The dispute between the parties arise in respect of a land situated at village Nardu, Tehsil Rajpura butted and bounded as follows:North : house and compound of Avtar Singh and Jatinder defendants.South : Kacha PassageEast : Kacha passage and shamlat landWest : House and compound of Gurdial SinghSuit No. 283-T93/12.9.91 was filed by the respondents herein. Suit No. 28T/98/8.10.91 was filed by the appellants herein. Whereas the respondents filed a Suit for permanent and mandatory injunction, the appellants herein filed a Suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering or dies-possessing them from the suit land, the description whereof was given and whereafter a site plan was filed Whereas the suits of the respondents were dismissed by the learned trial Judge, the Suit of the appel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(1)SCC623; (2007)1SCC(Cri)399; (2007)1Crimes248(SC); 2007(1)KCCRSN24(SC).
Arijit Pasayat, J. 1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. By the impugned judgment the High Court while setting aside the conviction of the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 468, 477A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and Section 5(1) (d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (in short the 'PC Act') maintained the conviction for offence punishable under Section 409 IPC. The trial court had convicted the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 409, 468, 477A IPC, Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the PC Act. Different custodial sentences were imposed along with fine.3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:The appellant was working as Junior Engineer and was in-charge of execution of construction of tanks at Kudwa, Dhakni and Mundipar in Gondia Sub Division. This work was to be executed under the Employme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2007(114)FLR104]; 2008(3)JKJ14[SC]; 2006(13)SCALE246; 2006AIRSCW6371; 2007(1)SCC683; 2007(1)KCCRSN32; 2007LawHerald(SC)101
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Leave granted.2. This civil appeal is preferred against the final order and judgment of the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital, which held that, it was appropriate to consider the grant of discretionary relief to the Respondent in his promotion and consequential benefits. The brief facts of the present matter are enumerated below.3. On 25.10.1977, the respondent, Mr. Dinesh Kumar Sharma was appointed as Subordinate Agriculture Services Group-I on the post of Senior Chemical Assistant, Research (Chemistry) Branch through the Public Service Commission, U.P. Allahabad. Fifteen years service in Subordinate Agriculture Service Group-I is the eligibility criteria for being considered for next higher promotion. In the year 1992-93, respondent became eligible for the said promotion.4. On 31.03.1995, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh promulgated U.P. Agricultural Group II Service Rules 1995 providing for the selection, appointments, probation, seniority, promotion etc. Rule ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC516; 2007(2)ALD117(SC); 2007(2)ALT40(SC); 2007(2)AWC1108(SC); 2007(2)CTC820; [2007(2)JCR207(SC)]; 2007(1)KLT100(SC); RLW2007(2)SC1642; 2006(13)SCALE289
Arijit Pasayat, J. 1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court allowing the appeal filed by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 while dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants and the State.3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:An extent of 2.81.20 Hectares of land comprised in Survey No. 1780/1, 1780/4, 1780/9, 1781/1,8,9, 1889/1,2 of the Kadakampally Village was acquired for the purpose of establishment of E.E.C. market at Anayara. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the 'Act') was published on 29.5.1992. The possession of the land was taken on 23.7.1992 and an award was passed on 13.7.1992 fixing a total compensation of Rs. 45,08,111/-. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, applications were filed before the Land Acquisition Officer for referring the matter for adjudication to the Reference Court. 4. The District Collector by his letter dated 18.7.1994 forwarded the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC900; 2007(3)ALLMR(SC)371; [2007(2)JCR236(SC)]; 2006(13)SCALE328
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. Leave granted.2. Plaintiff (appellant no. 1 herein) instituted Civil Suit NO. 202/77 for permanent injunction in the court of Additional Munsif Magistrate-VII, Ballia, against defendants-respondents. In the said suit appellant sought permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the land in dispute or from raising boundary wall. In the suit it was alleged that the appellants owned a house from the time of their ancestors; that their sehan was towards the south of the said house; that the said sehan was in their possession even prior to the enactment of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950; and that their cattle, palanis and troughs etc. existed on the said land which was utilized by the appellants for different household purposes. The appellants further alleged that the disputed land was unbounded and that they had started construction of the boundary wall after leaving a small passage between their house and the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(207)ELT168(SC); 2007(1)KLT88(SC); (2007)2MLJ295(SC); 2007[5]STR3
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Whether the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would interfere with a demand directing payment of cess is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 8.07.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 4338 of 2005.3. The appellant is a multi location company. It has a factory and godown at Kalwe. It pays cess for the goods supplied from the said factory in terms of the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. It also owns a factory at Aurangabad. Its office is at Kharghar. The said factory at Aurangabad and the office at Kharghar are outside the jurisdiction of the city limits of Navi Mumbai and, thus, outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay Municipal Corporation. Supplies are made to dealers directly from the appellant's factory situated at Aurangabad and office at Kharghar. Howeve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(1)ALT23(SC); 2007(1)AWC627(SC); 2006(5)CTC874; (2007)145PLR332; 2006(13)SCALE332; 2006(2)LC1557(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellant -Bank filed a suit against the respondent. The suit related to ownership of a plot admeasuring 610 ft. x 250 ft. situated in the town Yadgir. It was purchased by the plaintiff in a public auction. Allegedly, the respondent is now claiming back the said amount. The suit was initially filed for a decree for injunction. The respondent filed another suit in the same court also for a suit for permanent injunction restraining the Bank from constructing any building. The suit of the appellant was dismissed whereas the suit of the respondent was decreed. Appeals were preferred there against by both the parties. In the said appeals, an application was filed for grant of leave to amend the plaint. The said application for grant of leave to amend the plaint was allowed by the appellate court by an order dated 7.04.2003. The appellate court remanded both the suits to the trial court for their disposal afresh on merits. Second Appeals were filed by the re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC519; 2007(1)ALLMR(SC)918; [2007(112)FLR865]; 2006(13)SCALE195; (2007)1SCC491; 2007(3)SLJ88(SC); 2007AIRSCW58; 2007-I-LLJ801(SC)
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The appellant in the present matter is Muir Mills a subsidiary of the National Textile Corporation Ltd. of State of Uttar Pradesh. The respondent No.1 was offered appointment as Legal Assistant in the litigation section on a probation period of 1 year (in the pay scale of Rs. 330-560) on 04.06.1982. The appointment letter stated that the said appointment was on a probationary basis. The period of probation was set at one year from the date of joining. On 12.06.1982, the respondent No.1 joined his duties.2. On 23.11.1982, a letter was written by the Senior Legal Assistant to the General Manager of the Mill stating that respondent No.1 had completed 6 months of probation but was not able to understand fully the work of his post and stated that 'His work is not up to the mark; therefore he is of no use to us'. However, it was decided to give the respondent No.1 an opportunity to improve his performance. It is the case of the appellants that the respondent No.1 was ora...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007CriLJ798; [2007(2)JCR263(SC)]; 2006(12)SCALE635; 2006(3)ShimLC398; 2006AIRSCW6216; (2007)2Crimes74(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Appellant herein has questioned a judgment of conviction and sentence dated 25.03.2005 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench, Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 157 of 1997, wherein Appellant was found guilty for commission of an offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for eight years. The High Court by reason of the said judgment, however, set aside the conviction and sentence of Appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.2. The incident in question took place on 30.10.1991. At about 01.00 p.m. Badrilal, co-accused, Appellant and Ramprasad (deceased), quarreled on account of damage to the crops by cattles. Allegedly, Badrilal was assaulted by Ramprasad. On the same day at about 05.30 p.m. the deceased was going to the market. When he came near a gate known as 'badi phatak', Appellant together with the said Badrilal and Dinesh chased him with la...
Tag this Judgment!