Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2008(116)FLR728]; JT2008(1)SC508; (2008)2MLJ658(SC); 2008(1)SCALE396; (2008)3SCC481; 2008(3)SLJ32(SC); 2008AIRSCW1224; 2008(3)SCC481; 2008LABIC1354; 2008(1)SCALE396; 2008AIRSCW1224; 2008LABIC1354
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Respondent No. 1 was appointed as a Headmaster in a recognised school. Recruitment to the post of Headmaster concededly is governed by the statutory rules framed under Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Services of Teachers) Rules, 1978. Rule 6 of the said Rules reads:6. Disqualification.- (1) No person who is related to any member of the Management shall be appointed as Headmaster or Assistant Teacher of a recognised school.(2) For the purposes of this rule, a person shall be deemed to be related if he is related to such member in any one of the following ways, namely-(i) Father or mother;(ii)Grandfather, Grandmother;(iii) Father-in-law, mother-in-law;(iv) Uncle, aunt, maternal uncle, maternal aunt;(v) Son, daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law;(vi) Brother, sister;(vii) Grandson, grand-daughter;(viii) Husband, wife;(ix) Nephew, niece;(x) Cousin;(xi) Wife's brother, or wife's sister, wife's brot...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC777; 2008(1)ALLMR(SC)973; 2008(1)AWC1(SC); [2008(2)JCR156(SC)]; (2008)1MLJ1005(SC); 2007AIRSCW7965; 2008(4)KCCR2253
Markandey Katju, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 22.2.2000 in Writ Petition No.23662 of 1999.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. The respondent in this appeal, which is a Union of cane growers and looks after the interest of sugarcane farmers in Meerut District, was the petitioner in the writ petition before the Allahabad High Court. It was alleged in the writ petition that cane growers of the area require implements and other equipments for agriculture. For this purpose it purchases Animal Driven Vehicles (hereinafter called 'ADV carts') in order to transport the sugarcane from the agriculture fields to the sugar factories or other places where it is required to be sent. The State Government from time to time has provided a subsidy on the purchase of ADV carts and other agricultural implements.4. It appears that the State Government issued an order dated 20.11.1996 stating that all kinds of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC714; JT2008(1)SC91; 2007(14)SCALE27; (2008)2SCC578; (2008)12VST14(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Chhatisgarh High Court. Respondent filed a writ petition before the Chhatisgarh High Court questioning constitutional validity of Section 35 of Chhattisgarh Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Adhiniyam'). It corresponds to the Chhatisgarh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 (in short the 'Act'). The respondent hereinafter is described as the 'assessee'.3. Background facts highlighted by the respondent are as follows:The writ petitioner is a proprietary concern of one Shri Krishana Mudliar and it has been executing works contracts for various Departments of the Chhattisgarh State Government and others and was holding sales-tax registration No.061/RDN/14,'2739/02. During the assessment year 2001- 2002, the writ petitioner had executed works contracts awarded by Executive Engineer, P.W.D. (B&R;), Division Khairagarh, for which it received payment of Rs.1,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC716; 2008(1)BomCR523; 105(2008)CLT673(SC); 2008CriLJ805; 2008(1)KLT1(SC); 2008(3)MhLj394; (2008)149PLR194; (2008)2SCC305; 2007AIRSCW7844; AIR2008SC716; 2008(2)SCC305; (2008)1SCC(Cri)351; 2008CriLJ805; 2008(2)CivilLJ225; ILR2007(2)Kar1387; 2008(3)KCCR1281; 2008(1)AIRKarR478
C.K. Thakker, J.1. Delay Condoned. Leave granted.2. The present appeal is filed against an order passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ankola on April 12, 2004 in Criminal Case No.73 of 2001, confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Karwar on March 24, 2005 in Criminal Appeal No.50 of 2004 as also confirmed by the High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore on December 20, 2005 in Criminal Revision Petition No.1003 of 2005.3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant herein was a member of Ryot Sewa Sahakari Bank Ltd., Basgod, Taluka Ankola ('Complainant Bank' for short). He had obtained a loan of Rs.20,000/- from the Complainant-Bank on April 3, 1998 for business. The amount was not paid by the appellant. The appellant issued a cheque of Rs.24,000/- on October 13, 2000 in favour of the Complainant-Bank and assured the Bank that it would be honoured. But when the cheque was submitted for clearance, it was dishonored and returned to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC907; 2008(1)KLT724(SC); 2008(1)MPHT429(SC); 2008(1)OLR(SC)105; RLW2007(1)SC136; (2008)2SCC409; 2007(8)Supreme226; 2008AIRSCW309; (2008)1SCC(Cri)440; 2008(1)AICLR478; 2008(3)KCCRSN208.
Markandey Katju, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 13.7.2007 passed by the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 9308 of 2007.3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.4. The son of the appellant was a Major in the Indian Army. His dead body was found on 23.8.2003 at Mathura Railway Station. The G.R.P, Mathura investigated the matter and gave a detailed report on 29.8.2003 stating that the death was due to an accident or suicide.5. The Army officials at Mathura also held two Courts of Inquiry and both times submitted the report that the deceased Major S. Ravishankar had committed suicide at the railway track at Mathura junction. The Court of Inquiry relied on the statement of the Sahayak (domestic servant) Pradeep Kumar who made a statement that 'deceased Major Ravishankar never looked cheerful; he used to sit on a chair in the verandah gazing at the roof with blank eyes and deeply involv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC709; 2008(1)AWC81(SC); (2008)3MLJ806(SC); 2007(14)SCALE109; (2008)2SCC568
G.P. Mathur, J.1. These appeals, by special leave, have been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 4.1.1989 of High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, by which 17 appeals preferred by claimant- appellants (landowners) against the common judgment and award of the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, dated 31.8.1985 had been decided. The claimant-appellants had sought enhancement of the amount of compensation for acquisition of their land. 2. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was issued for acquisition of 89 acres and 3 marlas of land for construction of a cooperative sugar mill. The land was situate as one compact unit in four villages viz. Kankar Shahbad, Chhapra, Jandheri and Jhambara and belonged to 17 families. In response to the notice issued by the Collector under Section 9 of the Act, landowners filed objections claiming compensation for their land which had been acquired. The Land Acquisition Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2008(116)FLR178]; (2008)ILLJ694SC; 2007(14)SCALE104; 2008-I-LLJ-694; 2008LabIC419; 2007AIRSCW7956
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the learned single judge of the Uttranchal High Court at Nainital allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent.3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:Respondent raised dispute stating that his alleged removal from service without any prior notice was in violation of the provisions of Section 6(N) of the UP Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act'). A reference was made to the Labour Court to adjudicate the following question.Whether the termination of the services of Sri Kripal Singh s/o Sri Udal Singh, Beldar by the employers from 4.6.1992 is justified and/or legal? If no, to which benefit/compensation the concerned workmen is entitled and to what extent?4. It is to be noted that the stand of respondent was that he had worked as a Beldar on muster roll from 1.2.1991 to 3.6.1992 in the H-2 Division and he was removed from service with effect from 4.6.1992 without notice. The La...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC911; 2008(2)ALT18(SC); 2008(1)AWC886(SC); (2008)3MLJ748(SC); RLW2008(2)SC1571; 2007(14)SCALE635; 2008AIRSCW340; 2008(1)LH(SC)272
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 3.1.2007 passed by the Gauhati High Court in MC No.3398/2004 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the appellants herein from a judgment and decree dated 19.4.1990 passed in Suit No.2/89, was dismissed on the premise that the appellants had not shown sufficient cause for condonation of 10 months' delay in filing the said appeal. 2. The parties herein were on business terms. Appellants were to supply 22,000 Kgs. of 'made tea' for 1984 season and 50,000 Kgs. of 'made tea' for 1985 season to the respondent. However, the appellants supplied only 5,547 Kgs. of 'made tea' for 1984 season and 18.245 Kgs. of 'made tea' for 1985 season. Respondent filed a suit for a decree for a sum of Rs.5,22,69.66 paise together with interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum. A suit was filed towards the price of the remaining amount for terminal tea supply. In paragraph 5 of the plaint, the respondent int...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC725; 2008(1)AWC890(SC); [2008(3)JCR39(SC)]; JT2008(1)SC26; 2007AIRSCW7857
P. Sathasivam, J.1. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 23.09.1999 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37862 of 1999, whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant-herein. BACKGROUND FACTS:2. The appellant-Modi Tele Fibres Ltd. was carrying on business of manufacturing threads at Modinagar, Dist. Ghaziabad. However, the appellant-Company started suffering huge losses on account of various factors such as fall in production, non-availability of capital funds for meeting operational expenses etc. which were beyond the control of the appellant. The appellant, on 16.06.1994, wrote a letter to respondent No.1-U.P. State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'UPSEB') to provide electric supply directly to the residential colonies as the appellant was unable to continue the payment directly on account of lack of funds. It is pertinent to mention her...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007AIRSCW7761; AIR2008SC655; 2008(1)ALT17(SC); 2008(1)AWC139(SC); 147(2008)DLT24(SC); (2008)1MLJ1062(SC); (2008)2SCC390; 2008(4)KCCRSN269
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. A short but interesting question, as to how conflict in two constitutional rights should be balanced, is involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 11.08.2004 passed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1076 of 2003.3. Respondent No. 1 is an unaided school. It is governed by the provisions of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (for short, 'the Act') and the rules framed thereunder. It filed a writ petition in public interest, questioning the action of the appellant and the respondents Nos. 2 to 5 herein as regards utilizing the services of the teachers of the Government schools for various purposes during school timings, as a result whereof the students reading in the said schools are deprived of obtaining instructions from their teachers during such period. In the writ petition it was pointed out that the absence of teachers occur due to their deployment for non- educational purposes; a...
Tag this Judgment!