Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2190; 2006(4)ALD53(SC); (2006)3CALLT53(SC); 102(2006)CLT452(SC); 2006CriLJ2903; [2007(1)JCR209(SC)]; (2007)1MLJ804(SC); 2006(6)SCALE308; (2006)5SCC399; 2007(1)SLJ1
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. This civil appeal by special leave is against the judgment dated 26.2.2001 in M.A.T. No. 4075 of 1998 passed by the High Court of Calcutta.2. The first respondent was working as Secretary of the Midnapore Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. [Appellant No. 1 herein, for short the 'Bank']. Appellants 2 and 3 are respectively the Chairman and Secretary-in-Charge of the first appellant bank. The first respondent was kept under suspension pending initiation of disciplinary proceedings, in pursuance of a resolution of the Board of Directors of the Bank dated 16.4.1994. The respondent filed a writ petition [C.O. No. 8789(W) of 1995] challenging the suspension, inter alia on the ground that charge-sheet had not been issued. On 27.6.1995, the said writ petition was disposed of recording the submission that the bank was issuing a charge-sheet. The Bank was directed to deliver a copy of the charge-sheet and pay the arrears of subsistence allowance within one week. The first respondent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : III(2006)ACC1; AIR2006SC2331; 2006(3)AWC3070(SC); 2006(1)CTLJ395(SC); 2006(6)MhLj6; 2006MPLJ328(SC); (2006)144PLR76; RLW2006(4)SC2608; 2006(6)SCALE328; (2006)5SCC311; 2006(
B.P. Singh, J.1. These two appeals by special leave have been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order of the Gauhati High Court in MA (F). No. 180 of 1996 dated May 19, 2000 and the order passed in Review Petition No. 85 of 2000 dated July 28, 2000. The High Court by its judgment and order impugned dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant against the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench dated August 30, 1996 in Application No. 915 of 1993. The review petition preferred against the judgment and order of the High Court was also rejected by order dated July 28, 2000.2. The factual background in which the dispute arose is as follows:Two consignments of iodised salt were booked in favour of the appellant. The first consignment consisted of 767 bags and the second 744 bags. These consignments were not delivered. The appellant, therefore, lodged two claims dated April 26, 1991 claiming the value of the said goods, namely Rs. 53,264/- and Rs. 51,686/- i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2446; 2006(3)CTC508; [2006(110)FLR628]; 2006(6)SCALE321; (2006)10SCC207
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The above appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 8.8.2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 14645 of 2000 whereby the High Court disposed of the writ petition filed by the respondent herein with a direction that the Surplus Manpower Cell in Finance Department shall consider the case of the writ petitioner for sponsoring his name to the Transport Commissioner for being appointed as Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector pending any modifications to the Rules, if required. The High Court also directed that this exercise shall be done within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. 2. We have heard Mrs. Bharti Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Vishwanathan, learned Counsel for the respondent. 3. Before proceeding to consider the rival submissions, it is necessary to set out certain background facts of this case:The respondent herein filed the,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2430; 2006(2)ARBLR432(SC); JT2006(7)SC231; 2006(6)SCALE325; (2006)9SCC688
1. Heard Mr. P.N. Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arvind Kumar Tewari, learned Counsel for the respondent. The appellant before us is a contractor. The respondent is the Army Welfare Housing Organisation represented by its Chairman/Managing Director. 2. Both the appellant and respondent entered into an agreement on 8.5.1990 by which the contract was awarded to the appellant for executing certain construction works. Clause 131 of the contract deals with the arbitration which reads as under:131. If any dispute arises and persists between the contractor and Employer, the same shall be referred to the Sole Arbitrator to be appointed by the Chairman, Army Welfare Housing Organisation, whose award shall be final and binding on both parties. The Arbitrator shall submit his award within four months of his entering on the reference. This period may be extended by the Arbitrator with the consent of both the parties.3. On 17.5.2006, after hearing both the parties, we passed a det...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2179; III(2006)BC465; [2006]131CompCas663(SC); 2006CriLJ2897; 2006(3)CTC591; 130(2006)DLT534; [2007(1)JCR377(SC)]; 2006(5)KarLJ32; 2006(3)KLT94(SC); 2006(II)OLR(SC
B.P. Singh, J.1. These seven appeals arise out of seven separate orders passed by a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court on July 19, 2004 dismissing seven criminal petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the orders of the JMFC Medikeri issuing process against the appellant on the complaints filed by the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'Act'). 2. The facts of the cases are similar and the same question arises for consideration in each of the appeals. The only distinction is that whereas in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1256 and 1257 of 2004 the notices sent to the appellant were returned with the endorsement 'addressee always absent during delivery time. Hence returned to sender', in the remaining five cases the notices were returned with the endorsement 'party not in station. Arrival not known.The representative facts are taken from Criminal Appeal No. 1255 of 2004. 3. The case of the compl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2265; 2006(6)SCALE339; (2006)6SCC673; 2006(3)SLJ489(SC); 2006(2)LC843(SC)
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 - Khushi Ram and Gurpal Singh Bhatti are impleaded as parties in I.A. No. 3 as per order dated 18.05.2006.2. The appellant - Arvinder Singh Bains filed the above appeal against the final judgment and order dated 12.12.2000 passed by the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in LPA No. 1705/2000 whereby the High Court has dismissed the LPA filed by him. BACKGROUND FACTS:ADVERTISEMENT OF THE YEAR 19763. State Government issued an advertisement in the year 1976 for 10 vacancies in the cadre of PCS Officers. The 1976- Rules were enforced w.e.f. 02.12.1976. As per the case of the State Government itself requisition for 10 posts meant for direct recruits (Register-B) were sent to Punjab Public Service Commission. ADVERTISEMENT OF THE YEAR 1980:4. State Government issued an advertisement in the year 1980 for direct recruitment to the PCS. With respect to the said advertisement, State Government had issued a corrigendum, inte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2422; 2006(2)ARBLR435(SC); 2006(6)MhLj1; 2006(6)SCALE295; (2006)5SCC275
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 11(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') for appointment of an Arbitral Tribunal for adjudication of its claims and settlement of the disputes between the parties. 2. The facts, in brief, as stated by petitioner are as follows:2.1) Petitioner is a company incorporated under the laws of Tunisia. The respondent placed purchase orders dated 10.11.2000, 17.11.2000, 4.12.2000, 20.12.2000 and 13.7.2001 on the petitioner for supply of various quantities of Phosphoric Acid. Each purchase order stipulated the quantity to he supplied, the price, the payment terms and shipment particulars. All the purchase orders stated that all other terms and conditions are as per FAT terms (that is, the 'Fertilizer Association of India Terms and Conditions for Sale and Purchase of Phosphoric Acid'). Clause 15 of FAT terms provided for settlement of disputes by arbitration. 2.2) The petitioner effected th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2261; 2006(3)AWC3119(SC); (2006)144PLR63; 2006(6)SCALE306; (2006)9SCC708
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Heard Ms. Prashanthi Prasad, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Rachana Joshi Issar, learned Counsel for the respondent Board. 2. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein on the ground of concealment of facts. The appellant applied for allotment of an H.I.G. (End.) flat. Under the Scheme, a person would be eligible for allotment of a dwelling unit in case he/she or his wife/her husband or any of his/her dependent relations including unmarried children does not own on free hold or lease-hold or on hire-purchase basis a residential plot/house in the Union Territory of Chandigarh or in either of the Urban Estates of Mohali and Panchkula. Similarly, in case he/she has acquired a house/residential site anywhere in India through Govt./semi government/Municipal Committee/Corporation/ Improvement Trust at concessional rates, i.e. at reserved/fixed price, in his/her name or in the n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2204; 2006(6)ALD89(SC); RLW2006(3)SC2535; 2006(6)SCALE300; (2006)5SCC296; 2006(2)LC835(SC)
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The unsuccessful tenants are the Appellants before us in this Appeal. The Respondent is the landlord. The premises in question is situated at Station Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan on a monthly rent of Rs. 300/. 2. The Respondent/Plaintiff filed a suit for eviction of the tenants on the grounds of default in payment of rent and for change of user and subletting. It was alleged that the tenants committed default in payment of rent for more than six months. It has further been averred that the tenants have sublet the premises to Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation (in short 'RTDC') for running a Beer Shop at a rent of Rs. 2100/- per month without taking prior permission of the landlord. 3. The Appellants filed written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint. The Appellants contended that they had not committed any default in payment of rent and the same has been deposited in the Court. It was stated that the Respondent-Landlord refused to accept the rent. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : III(2006)BC353(SC); (2006)5CompLJ1(SC); 2006(6)SCALE361; (2006)11SCC771; [2006]69SCL73(SC)
ORDERSpecial leave granted. Heard, learned Counsel for the parties.Having regard to the scope of this appeal and having considered the report of the Special Officer, dated 13th November 1988 made pursuant to the order of this Court, we are of the opinion that the scheme supported by the workers and unsecured creditors of Raj Kumar Nemani, be accepted and a detailed scheme on that basis be formulated. It is desirable that the scheme be implemented as soon as possible and the workers and the creditors should be paid in accordance with the scheme, approved today. Further, the appeal is disposed of with a direction to work out the scheme by the learned Company Judge, Calcutta High Court, who is seized of the matter. It is contended by some of the secured creditors that by the operation of the scheme, the assets of the secured creditors should not be allowed to be affected. This contention of the secured creditors may be agitated before the Company Judge, if they are so entitled. All interv...
Tag this Judgment!