Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(5)ALD18(SC); [2007(113)FLR353]; (2007)IILLJ14SC; 2007(3)SCALE703; (2007)2SCC616; 2007AIRSCW4811
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in these appeals is to the legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. By the impugned judgment several writ appeals and writ petitions, filed by the appellants, were dismissed. The core question that arose for consideration in the cases before the High Court was whether the provisions of Sales Promotion Employees (Conditions of Service) Act, 1976 (in short the 'Act') oust the jurisdiction of the authorities constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishment Act, 1988 (in short the 'Shops Act') and consequently the Authorities under the Shops Act are excluded from entertaining appeals preferred by the aggrieved sales promotion employees challenging the termination of their services. The further question was whether the Authorities constituted under the Shops Act have no jurisdiction to entertain any appeal preferred by the sales promotion employees challenging action of the employees in terminating the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2007(113)FLR197]; (2007)2LLJ543SC; 2007(3)SCALE701; (2007)10SCC721
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Delay condoned. Leave granted. Heard Mr. T.S. Doabia, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. G. Prakash, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.2. The above appeal is directed against the judgment and order dt. 25.01.2005 passed by the High Court of Kerala in O.P. No. 19374 of 2002 affirming the order passed by the Tribunal ordering reinstatement with 50% of the back allowances. Our attention was drawn to the charges framed against the respondent herein. The charges reads thus:Article 1That Sri P.K. Kuttappan while working as EDDA Parakkadavu failed either to deliver or return to the Branch Postmaster 38 ordinary postal Articles entrusted to him for delivery on 16.3.1996, 18.3.1996 and 19.3.1996 and thereby failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty violating the provisions of Rule 17 of the P&T; ED Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964.Article 2That Sri P.K. Kuttappan while working as EDDA Parakkadavu did not deliv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC2480; 2007(5)ALLMR(SC)917; 2007(5)KarLJ471; (2007)6MLJ748(SC); 2007(3)SCALE674; (2007)9SCC558; 2007AIRSCW4417; 2007(5)AIRKarR127
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court allowing the writ appeal filed by the respondents setting aside the order of dismissal by learned Single Judge in the writ petition filed. 3. The background facts in a nutshell are as follows:An examination was held by the appellant-Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') for the purpose of selecting persons for the post of Assistant Accounts Officers. The said examination was held on two dates i.e. on 29.08.1991 and 30.08.1991. The result was declared on 19.12.1991. Twelve persons were declared successful in the said examination and by a circular dated 19.12.1991 respondent M.R. Somashekhar was promoted to the post of Assistant Accounts Officer. Similar was the case with respondent A.T. Chandrashekhar. Some time after the date of promotion, allegations were made that the Chief Examiner had allowed some of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC1491; 2007(1)ARBLR377(SC); 2007(3)AWC2232(SC); [2007]138CompCas1(SC); (2007)5CompLJ83(SC); 138(2007)DLT435(SC); JT2007(4)SC202; 2007(3)SCALE657; (2007)4SCC451
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. I respectfully agree with the reasoning and conclusion of my learned brother. I am inclined to add a few words in view of the significance of the question and the frequency with which it may arise.2. Before the Arbitral Tribunal, Seimens, the contractor, made a claim for compensation for the delay on the part of the N.T.P.C. for whom a works contract was executed by Seimens. N.T.P.C. not only resisted the claim but also made a counter claim. The counter claim was sought to be resisted by Seimens by contending that all outstanding claims between the parties other than the one it had put forward in the claim before the Arbitral Tribunal had been settled between the parties as evidenced by a Memorandum of Understanding arrived at between them described in the proceedings as Minutes of the Meeting (M.O.M.). Seimens, therefore, contended that the claims made by N.T.P.C. before the Arbitral Tribunal by way of counter claim was not maintainable or did not survive th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(1)ALD8(SC); 2007(1)ARBLR399(SC); 2007(3)AWC2266(SC); (2007)2CALLT31(SC); JT2007(4)SC118; 2007(3)SCALE576; (2007)10SCC742
A.K. Mathur, J.1. Leave granted in both the Special Leave Petitions.2. Since the question of law involved in both the appeals is common, they are disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the facts stated in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P.(c) No.14804 of 2005 are taken into consideration.3. This appeal is directed against the order passed by learned Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court, Tanager Bench in Writ Petition No.408 of 2004 whereby learned Single Judge set aside the order dated 15.9.2004 passed by the Deputy Commissioner cum District Judge, Papum Pare, District, Yupia in Miscellaneous Application No.10 of 2004 condoning the delay in making application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act' ), being not maintainable. Hence, the order dated 15.9.2004 was set aside and the writ petition was allowed. Aggrieved against this order passed by the High Court of Gauhati, Tanager Bench, State ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC2402; 2007(2)AWC1563(SC); RLW2007(4)SC2733; 2007(4)SCALE186; (2007)4SCC306; 2007(2)KCCR1265(SC); 2007AIRSCW4263
1. The appellant in these appeals by special leave is the landlord who filed a suit for eviction of the respondent tenant from the premises in question. The tenancy was created in favour of the respondent firm which consisted of four partners.2. The eviction of the respondent was sought on the ground that the defendant had sub-let, assigned and/or transferred possession of the said premises and/or part thereof to Dhillon Transport Quick Service and Dhillon Roadways Corporation and others without consent in writing of the plaintiff landlord. In its written statement the tenant denied the allegation of sub tenancy and submitted that M/s Dhillon Transport Agency, a partnership firm was originally the tenant. The partnership had four partners who carried on business in the name and style of Dhillon Transport Agency. Since disputes and differences arose amongst the partners. Title Suit No. 19 of 1991 was filed in the Court of the 1st Subordinate Judge at Patna and all matters were settled b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC1447; 2007(2)AWC1571(SC); 2007(2)CTC508; (2007)3MLJ366(SC); 2007(4)SCALE81; (2007)10SCC727
ORDER1. Leave granted. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is directed against the order passed by learned Single Judge of the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, dated 23.5.2005 whereby the learned Single Judge had set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Addl. District & Session Judge-VI, Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 29/95 (271/76) dated 23.1.1996 and held that parties shall approach the Wakf Tribunal for further relief in the matter.3. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the Appeal are that a suit being Civil Suit No. 29/95 (271/76) was filed by the Plaintiffs (Respondents-herein) in the Court of Addl. District & Session Judge-VI, Jaipur, which was dismissed. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order dismissing the suit, an appeal was filed by the Plaintiffs (Respondents-herein) before the High Court taking the plea that by virtue of Section 85 of The Wakf Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act'), the Civil Court ceased to have any juri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(209)ELT326(SC); JT2007(8)SC437; 2007(3)SCALE732; (2007)3SCC93
S.H. Kapadia, J.Civil Appeal No. 4498/20061. This is an appeal under Section 130 E of the Customs Act, 1962 against judgment and order No. M-299/Kol /06 dated 6.7.2006 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellant Tribunal, Kolkata ('the Tribunal'). It is an appeal filed by the assessee.2. A short question which arises for determination in this civil appeal is whether the Department, in the facts and circumstances, was justified in invoking Rule 7A of Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 framed under Section 156 of the said 1962 Act.Appellant-assessee purchased two consignments of Refined Soyabean Oil from M/s United Edible Oils Ltd., Bangladesh. The goods imported were accompanied with Invoice dated 4.10.2003 and Invoice dated 30.10.2003. The C & F value of the Soyabean Oil (final product) showed the price to be Rs. 24.50 per kg. calculated at the prevailing rate of US $. The Department called upon the appellant to give the cost break-up of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC1421; 2007(3)AWC2857(SC); 2007(2)CTLJ479(SC); [2007(113)FLR251]; 2007(1)JKJ33[SC]; JT2007(4)SC1; 2007(4)SCALE24; (2007)9SCC531; 2008(1)SLJ7(SC); 2007AIRSCW1792
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. This appeal by special leave is filed against the judgment dated 19.9.2005 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No. 615 of 2005 affirming the judgment dated 29.3.2005 of a learned Single Judge in CMWP No. 13032 of 2003. 2. The Appellant - Food Corporation of India (for short 'FCI'), introduced a scheme for granting compassionate appointment to dependants of departmental workers, who died while in service or who were retired by FCI on medical grounds, vide Circular dated 2.2.1977. By a subsequent circular dated 3.7.1996, the said benefit of compassionate appointment was extended to dependants of departmental workers who sought voluntary retirement on medical grounds at their own request, subject to the conditions stipulated in the said circular. The conditions, in brief, are:a) The worker should seek voluntary retirement on medical grounds before completing the age of 55 years. b) Such request should be accompanied by a medical certificate issued by an Aut...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2007(113)FLR451]; JT2007(8)SC430; (2007)IILLJ234SC; 2007(3)SCALE676; (2007)9SCC141; 2008(3)SLJ113(SC)
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. Leave granted.2. A short question which arises for determination in these civil appeals filed by the employer is : whether Clause 49 of 1956 Settlement stood replaced by Clause 19 of 1985 Settlement and by Resolution No.8856 dated 31.8.78 passed by the appellant-Corporation.3. Appellant-Corporation is a State Road Transport Undertaking incorporated under Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. Apart from State Transport Employees Service Regulations framed under Section 45 of Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, the service conditions of the employees are also regulated by Industrial Settlement signed between the Corporation and various trade Unions representing employees. Several demands were raised in 1956 on behalf of the workmen. One such demand was under Item No.49 of the Demand Notice for abolition of Daily Wage System. It appears that large number of workmen were continued for several years in the Corporation on ad-hoc basis. They were paid daily-wages. Therefo...
Tag this Judgment!