Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(3)ALLMR(SC)327; [2007(112)FLR920]; JT2007(2)SC359; 2007(2)SCALE206; 2007(1)LC0207(SC)
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 02.04.2002 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 567 of 2002 whereby and whereunder Venkatesh Gopal Mahishi has been held entitled for pension under the Union Bank of India (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995.2. The facts, in brief, are that Venkatesh Gopal Mahishi, respondent No. 1 herein, joined the services of the Union Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as `the appellant-bank') as a Peon on 02.05.1960. On 19.02.1991, the respondent No. 1 had submitted an application to the authority seeking retirement on medical grounds with further request to give employment to his dependent son on compassionate ground. The request of the respondent No. 1 was accepted by the appellant-bank and he was retired as Daftary from the service w.e.f. 01.11.1993 and later on his son has been given employment. 3. The appellant-bank, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (f)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(2)SCALE120; (2007)3SCC124; 2008[12]STR660; 2007(1)LC0255(SC); 2007AIRSCW757; 2007(2)KCCRSN68
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Leave granted.2. The above appeal filed by the Commercial Taxation Officer Circle-B, Udaipur raises a very interesting question of law of general public importance, as to the parameters for the test for the determination of raw materials and in addition to whether the use of articles or commodities not generally used in the manufacturing process can still be categorized as raw materials for the purpose of concession in the levy of taxes, for consideration by this Court.In other words;Whether diesel can be called raw material in the manufacture of polyester yarn.3. In the present case, the respondent is engaged in the business of manufacture of polyester yarn and for the said purpose, it purchased diesel and used it for manufacturing electricity by D.G.-sets. The respondent has claimed a benefit under Section 10(1) of Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') claiming that diesel purchased is a raw material for the manufacture of the ultim...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2007(2)SC411; 2007(2)SCALE333; (2007)2SCC468; 2007AIRSCW1093; AIR2007SC1122; 007(2)KCCRSN43.
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. Leave granted.2. The Government of Rajasthan issued a public notice advertising sale by auction of a plot of land measuring 10,490 square metres. The purchaser was to use the plot for construction of a hotel. The auction took place on 14.2.1996. The first respondent, acting through its Director, the second Respondent, entered the highest bid. The said bid was accepted. The bid amount was deposited by the respondent on 4.5.1996. The State of Rajasthan - the appellant herein, executed a sale deed in favour of the second respondent in his capacity as the Director of the first respondent on 26.3.1997. The sale deed stipulated that out of the total extent, an extent of 1,510 square metres will be surrendered by the purchaser free of cost for widening of an existing road and that the purchaser will be given the benefit of the floor area ratio calculated on the basis of the original plot size of 10,490 square metres. The parameters of construction were set out and t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC989; 2007(3)ALLMR(SC)379; 2007(2)AWC1675(SC); (SCSuppl)2007(2)CHN88; [2007]135CompCas664(SC); [2007(3)JCR218(SC)]; JT2007(2)SC500; 2007(2)KLT369(SC); (2007)5MLJ768; 2007AIRSCW766; 2007(3)CivilLJ235; JT2007(2)SC500; 2007LawHerald(SC)353; ILR2007(1)Kar1007; 2007(2)KLJ260; 2007(2)KCCRSN49; 2007(2)AIRKarR443(SC); (2007)11SCC75
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. Leave granted.2. Defendant No. 1, the appellant, borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- from the plaintiff Bank for the purchase of a bus. He secured repayment of that loan by hypothecating the bus and further by equitably mortgaging two items of immovable properties. The Bank first filed O.S. No. 131 of 1984 for recovery of the money due. The said suit was decreed. The Bank, in execution, sought to proceed against the hypothecated bus. The bus could not be traced and the money could not be recovered. The Bank tried to proceed against the mortgaged properties in execution. The appellant resisted by pointing out that there was no decree on the mortgage and the bank could, if at all, only attach the properties and could not sell it straightaway. That objection was upheld. The Bank thereupon instituted the present suit, O.S. No. 35 of 1993, for enforcement of the equitable mortgage. The appellant resisted the suit by pleading that the suit was barred by Order II Rule ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC861; 2007(1)ALLMR(SC)944; 2007(1)AWC689(SC); [2007(2)JCR148(SC)]; JT2007(2)SC292; 2007(1)KLT623(SC); (2007)3MLJ423(SC); 2007(1)SCALE197; (2007)2SCC1; 2007AIRSCW611; 2007(3)CivilLJ589; 2007(1)LawHerald(SC)480; 2007(2)KCCRSN44(SC)
Y.K. Sabharwal, C.J.1. In these matters we are confronted with a very important yet not very easy task of determining the nature and character of protection provided by Article 31-B of the Constitution of India, 1950 (for short, the 'Constitution') to the laws added to the Ninth Schedule by amendments made after 24th April, 1973. The relevance of this date is for the reason that on this date judgment in His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati, Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala and Anr. : AIR1973SC1461 was pronounced propounding the doctrine of Basic Structure of the Constitution to test the validity of constitutional amendments.Re : Order of Reference2. The order of reference made more than seven years ago by a Constitution Bench of Five Judges is reported in I.R. Coelho (Dead) by LRs. v. State of Tamil Nadu : AIR1999SC3179 (14.9.1999) . The Gudalur Janmam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1969 (the Janmam Act), insofar as it vested forest lands in the Janmam estates in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC2230; [2007(112)FLR847]; JT2007(2)SC458; 2007(2)SCALE138; (2007)2SCC513; 2007AIRSCW3901; 2007ILLJ773(SC)
A.K. Mathur, J.1. These appeals are directed against the order passed by the Allahabad High Court dated May 21, 2004 whereby the Full Bench of the High Court has disposed of all the writ petitions filed by the workmen against Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as Company) and the Regional Manager, IRCON, Rihand Nagar, Sonbhadra. The Full Bench held that the petitioners are not entitled to benefit of continuation of service or regularization as the project stood closed on 6.2.1998. It was held that project stood completed in all respect except necessary electric or other odd works left over. It was also held that petitioners did not apply for recruitment in service of the Company as per the Service Rules and those who appeared and were found suitable were selected and appointed under the service rules of the Company but others who could not appear, their services were terminated in accordance with law. Hence, in total analysis, it was held that sentiments must ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007ACJ782; 2007CriLJ1451; 2007(2)SCALE108; (2007)3SCC474; 2007AIRSCW988; AIR2007SC1064; (2007)2SCC(Cri)84; (2007)2Crimes51(SC); 2007ACJ-II-782; 2007LawHerald(SC)372; ILR2007(2)Kar1799; 2007(2)KarLJ158(SC).
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the criminal revision filed by the appellant questioning correctness of the judgment of learned Second Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & JMFC, Hassan. The appellant was convicted for offences punishable under Section 304A, 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). He was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 700/- for the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC, Rs. 300/- for the offence punishable under Section 337 IPC and simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 304A IPC. Default stipulations were provided in respect of the fines imposed. An appeal was preferred which was partially allowed by leaned Additional Sessions Judge, Hassan. The conviction in terms of Section 279 was set aside. However, in respect of Sections 337 and 304A IPC the conviction was maintained along...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(1)ALD124(SC); 2007(2)AWC1377(SC); 2007(3)CTC691; (2007)2MLJ657(SC); 2007(2)SCALE309; (2007)3SCC114
S.B. Sinha, J.1. The Plaintiff is in appeal before us from a judgment and decree dated 16.2.1999 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Second Appeal No. 671/87 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the respondents herein from a judgment and order dated 25.11.1986 of the Subordinate Judge. Tiruvailur, Tamil Nadu which in turn reversed the judgment and decree dated 10.0.1984 dismissing the Suit of the appellant was allowed. The plaintiff claimed title over the suit property by reason of a deed of sale dated 19.8.1978. The 'respondents, admittedly, are in possession of the said property. As the respondents refused to vacate the suit land, the aforementioned suit was filed. The respondents in their written statement, inter alia, contended as follows:.The Plaintiff is not the owner of the suit items. These defendants are living in the Cherinatham and the defendants are in continuous, open and uninterrupted possession of the house site and the backyard in the backyard,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC1167; [2007(113)FLR323]; 2007(2)SCALE312; (2007)2SCC216
ORDERS.B. Sinha, J.1. The U.P. High School and Intermediate Education Board, Allahabad is before us questioning a judgment and order dated 20.5.1999 passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the Special Appeal filed by the appellants herein against a judgment and order dated 14.10.1998 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33278 of 1998.2. The respondent was Principal in a College known as C.N.J. Boys Inter College, Dehradun. In his matriculation certificate granted by the appellants his date of birth was recorded as 25.6.1938. In the year 1994 a writ petition being writ petition No. 12027/1991 was filed praying for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of (sic) directing the appellants to alter his date of birth to 17.8.1940. The said writ petition was disposed of by a judgment, and order dated 29.2.1996 directing the Board to pass an appropriate order thereupon. Pursuant to and in furtherance of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2007(2)SC1; (2007)3SCC184
ORDER OF EXPULSION AND JUDICIAL REVIEW374. The history of relationship between Parliament and Courts at Westminister is also marked with conflict and controversy. Sir Erskine May rightly comments; 'After some three and a half centuries, the boundary between the competence of the law courts and the jurisdiction of the either House in matters of privilege is still not entirely determined'. According to the learned author, the earliest conflicts between Parliament and the Courts were about the relationship between the lex parliamenti and the common law of England. Both Houses argued that under the former, they alone were the judges of the extent and application of their own privileges, not examinable by any court or subject to any appeal. The courts, on the other hand, professed judicial ignorance of the lex parliamenti. After some time, however, they recognized it, but as a part of the Law of England and, therefore, wholly within the judicial notice. In the middle of the nineteenth centu...
Tag this Judgment!