Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(1)ALLMR(SC)416; 2008(1)AWC476(SC); [2007(115)FLR1006]; 2008(3)JKJ89[SC]; 2007(12)SCALE642; (2008)1SCC233; 2008(2)SLJ136(SC); 2007AIRSCW7169; 2008LabIC247
Markandey Katju, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 23.05.2001 in Special Appeal No. 445 of 2001. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The appellant is a blind man. He appeared in the recruitment test held in the year 1992 for selecting candidates for Class-III Posts in Bulandshahr Judgeship in U.P. However, he was not selected and hence he filed a writ petition which was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court by his judgment dated 25.09.1997. Against that judgment the State Government filed a letters patent appeal which has been allowed by the impugned judgment by the Division Bench. Hence this appeal.3. The appellant has relied on G.O. dated 26.08.1993 which is Annexure P-I to this appeal. That G.O. states that the U.P. Government has reserved 2 per cent posts for physically handicapped persons for direct recruitment in all groups of Government services. The physically handi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC490; 2008(1)AWC103(SC); 2008(1)CTC430; (2008)2MLJ1056(SC); (2008)149PLR226; 2007(12)SCALE718; 2007AIRSCW7352; AIR2008SC490; 2008(2)CivilLJ232
P. Sathasivam, J1. Leave granted.2. Questioning the orders of the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital dated 24.08.2004 in A.O. No. 436 of 2001 and dated 27.10.2005 in R.A. No.8 of 2005, New India Assurance Company Ltd. through its Regional Manager, New Delhi has filed the above appeal.3. Brief facts are as follows:Smt. Kendra Devi, respondent No.1 herein, filed Claim Petition - M.A.C. No.4 of 1994, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Uttarkashi, claiming compensation of Rs.4,67,000/- on account of death of her husband in a motor vehicle accident. According to respondent No.1 herein, her husband, Prakash Singh Parmar, was the owner and driver of Taxi No. UMX 491. On 10.11.1993 while her husband was going from Matali to Uttarkashi, he lost control over the vehicle and met with an accident due to which the vehicle rolled into the river Bhagirathi near Barrthi. Her husband sustained fatal injuries in the accident and succumbed to the injuries at the spot. According to respondent N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC643; 2008(1)AWC325(SC); 2007(4)KLT1007(SC); (2008)1MLJ144(SC); 2007(12)SCALE631; (2007)10SCC53; 2007AIRSCW7738
Markandey Katju, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 09.10.2006 passed by the Uttaranchal High Court in Writ Petition No. 337 of 2004 (M/S). Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.2. The appellants before us are the tenants of the premises in dispute while the respondents are the landlords. The landlady filed the petition under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The grounds mentioned in the release application of the landlady was that she is a retired teacher getting only a pension of Rs. 538/- per month which is insufficient for her needs. Hence to augment her income she wants to run tuition/coaching classes in the premises in question. The said petition was rejected by the Prescribed Authority, but in appeal the appellate authority (ADJ Dehradun) by his judgment dated 16.03.2004 reversed the order of the Prescribed Authority and allowed the release application. The said judgm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC416; 2008(1)ALLMR(SC)415; 2008(1)AWC432(SC); I(2008)BC263(SC); 2008(1)KarLJ161; 2007(4)KLT985(SC); (2008)3MLJ541(SC); 2007(12)SCALE640
Markandey Katju, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Karnataka High Court dated 25.03.2000 in R.F.A. No. 531 of 1997. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The plaintiff-appellant has alleged that he was carrying the business of commission agent. The defendant was having an areca nut (supari) garden and he used to supply the areca nuts to the plaintiff. The defendant used to receive money from the plaintiff off and on, which the plaintiff used to advance him to secure regular supply of the areca nuts. It was alleged by the plaintiff that defendant had borrowed Rs.72,044.43 paise as per the ledger account regularly maintained by the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of this amount with interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum.3. The defendant denied the plaintiffs case and advanced the plea that plaintiff was a money-lender and he did not have a licence as required by the Karnataka Money Lende...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(122)ECC317; 2007(148)LC317(SC); 2007(218)ELT170(SC); 2007(12)SCALE714
Ashok Bhan, J. 1. Leave granted in special leave petition No. 17577 of 2006. 2. This judgment shall dispose of Civil Appeal No.7284 of 2005 and the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP) No. 17577 of 2006. 3. C.A. No.7284/2005 is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in CWP No. 2613 of 2004 dated 17th December, 2004 whereby the High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. 4. The Civil Appeal arising out of SLP) No. 17577 is directed against the order dated 21st September, 2006 passed by the same High Court in Writ Petition No. 5594/2006. 5. The latter case has been dismissed by the High Court on the basis of the findings recorded in the order dated 17th of December, 2004 passed in WP No. 2613/2004 M/s. Jaslok Hospital and Research center v. Union of India and Ors. 6. As the point involved in both the appeals is identical, the appeals are taken up for disposal together by this common Judgment. 7. For the convenience of r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC441; 2007(12)SCALE728; 2007AIRSCW7213
B. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with provisions of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 impugning the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 25-DBA of 1995 whereby the High Court reversed the judgment of acquittal against the appellant, who was tried along with three other co-accused, recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur in Sessions Case No. 44 of 1989. The High Court accordingly convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused Mukhtiar Singh (A-1) and Gurdial Singh (A-2) and deceased Harnek Singh were real brothers. The family consist...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2007(115)FLR1091]; 2007(12)SCALE633; 2008(2)SLJ121(SC); 2007AIRSCW7221
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Leave granted. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 25.03.2004 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in C.W.P. No. 6126 of 2003 whereby the High Court allowed the writ petition of the 1st respondent herein.2. The brief facts in nutshell are as under:Respondent No.1 herein, who was a matriculate, joined as Sepoy in the Indian Army on 13.09.1961. Respondent No.1 improved his qualification and after obtaining one year teacher's training at AEC Training College & center, Panchmari, Madhya Pradesh, appointed as Education Instructor (Hawaldar) on 12.10.1967. He retired on 30.9.1987 as Naib Subedar. His date of birth is 16.01.1944. He was 43= years old at the time of his retirement. On 10.5.1988, respondent's name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange for the post of JBT Teachers in the Punjab Education Department. He appeared for the interview but the selection Committee refused to consider his case on the ground that he was not fulf...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC417; 2008(2)ALLMR(SC)308; 2008(56)BLJR267; 2008(2)CTC416; 2008(3)JKJ90[SC]; 2007(12)SCALE738; (2008)2SCC65; 2008(2)SLJ113(SC); 2007AIRSCW7170
P. Sathasivam, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Whether the abolition of the post has been done in good faith or whether it is a camouflage to cover up and conceal the real intention of weeding out the respondent from service is the only question to be decided in this appeal.BRIEF FACTS:3. The respondent-herein was appointed as Accounts Executive in the Haryana Bureau of Pubic Enterprises (in short 'the HBPE') on 16.07.1993. While continuing so, his services were terminated on 31.12.1994 on the ground that the post of Accounts Executive has been abolished. According to the respondent-herein, the third appellant applied for the post of Financial Adviser. Even though she did not fulfill the prescribed requirement of three years experience after doing chartered accountancy, she had been appointed as Financial Adviser and the respondent-herein who was appointed as Accounts Executive was required to report to her due to which she wanted him to work as her personal staff. He did not carry out petty d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(12)SCALE747
P. Sathasivam, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 02.09.2004 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 3120 of 2003 whereby the High Court dismissed the regular second appeal of the appellants herein.2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under:Land measuring 277 canals 6 marlas comprised in Khewat No.302 Khatoni No. 449 to 552 situated in village Daroli Jat was in cultivating possession of Bohat Ram, Ram Rattan, Chhaju, Cheema and Nathu in the year 1957 B.K. i.e. in the year 1900 A.D. The said land belonged to the proprietary body of Village Daroli Jat prior to the commencement of the Pepsu Village Common Lands Act, 1954. The proprietors orally mortgaged the said land to Moola for a consideration of Rs.500/-. Possession was also delivered to mortgagee. Mutation was also entered regarding the said mortgage in favour of Moola. Moola died and his legal representatives came into possession of the suit land as mortgagees....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC491; 2008(1)AWC424(SC); 2007(13)SCALE1; 2007AIRSCW7353; 2008(2)CivilLJ338
P. Sathasivam, J.1. The plaintiffs who succeeded before the trial Court, lower appellate Court and lost their suit before the High Court filed the above appeal.2. Brief facts required for the disposal of this appeal are as follows: According to the plaintiffs-appellants, they were in possession of the suit land for more than 40 years. The suit was filed in 1989 for declaration of title on the ground of adverse possession and for injunction. The trial Court decreed the suit and the appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed by the first appellate Court. When the second appeal was filed before the High Court, the High Court, after finding that there is no evidence, remanded the matter to the trial Court for taking further evidence. The said order of the High Court was challenged before this Court by way of C.A. No. 1348 of 1999. By judgment dated 8.3.1999, this Court, after recording a finding that the High Court was in error and not justified in sending the matter back to cure any lac...
Tag this Judgment!