Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2007(6)SC278; 2007(6)SCALE124; (2007)6SCC407
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. These three appeals relate to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court allowing the writ petition filed by S.P.S. Rajkumar, the appellant in C.A. No. 128 of 2003. The other two appeals have been filed by the Union of India, i.e. Civil Appeal No. 127 of 2003 against the main judgment and Civil Appeal No. 606 of 2003 against the modification order. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:Respondent-Rajkumar joined Air Force as a Commissioned Officer in the Logistics Branch. He rose to the rank of Group Captain in 1998. According to the appellant- Union of India, respondent-Rajkumar committed large scale impropriety in the matter of purchases while he was functioning in the rank of Group Captain. On 12.1.2000, the charge sheet was accordingly issued listing out 9 charges relating to financial impropriety committed by him. The conveying order for the Assembly of the General Court Martial (in short the 'GCM') was issued and Judge Advocate wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC1753; 2007(4)ALD47(SC); 2007(3)AWC2411(SC); (SCSuppl)2007(3)CHN116; JT2007(6)SC86; 2007(4)KarLJ274; 2007(6)MhLj336; (2007)4MLJ912(SC); 2007(6)SCALE95; (2007)6SCC59
S.B. Sinha, J.BACKGROUND FACTS1. One Thippaiah was the owner of 5 acre 23 guntas of land having been recorded in Survey No. 153/1 of Chikkabanavara Village. Nanjapa, adoptive father of Respondent No. 1 purchased a portion thereof measuring 1 acre 21 guntas on 11.09.1933. By reason of two different sale deeds, dated 11.04.1934 and 5.07.1936, the appellants herein purchased 2 acre 15 guntas and 3 acre guntas of land respectively, out of the said plot. Despite the fact that Nanjapa purchased a portion of the said plot, the appellants allegedly took over possession of the entire 5 acre 23 guntas of land after the aforementioned purchases. However, when allegedly their possession was sought to be disturbed by the respondent in the year 1988, they filed a suit in the court of Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore which was marked as O.S. No. 287 of 1989. In the said suit, they clamed title on the basis of adverse possession stating:.The plaintiffs submit that in any event the plaintiffs hav...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC3036; 2007(4)ALLMR(SC)304; 2007(4)ALT21(SC); 2007(3)AWC2409(SC); JT2007(6)SC202; (2007)4MLJ903(SC); (2008)149PLR591; 2007(6)SCALE148; (2007)9SCC521
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellants. 2. A brief reference to the factual aspects would be necessary in view of the order proposed to be passed.3. The suit which forms the subject matter of controversy in the present appeal was one for specific performance of contract filed by respondent No. 1-Raghu Nath Patnaik as the sole plaintiff. In the suit it was contended that on 7.11.1983 defendant No. 1 executed an unregistered plain paper agreement in respect of the suit scheduled house site agreeing to alienate the same in favour of the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 25,000/- and as a part payment Rs. 5,000/- was paid. Violating the terms of the agreement, he entered into another agreement for the same site with defendant Nos. 2 and 3 on 14.3.1984. After coming to know of the said arrangement, plaintiff issued notice to all the defendants on 29...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2007(113)FLR979]; (2007)2LLJ1027SC; 2007(6)SCALE34
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court affirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the said High Court.2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:Questioning decision taken by the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation of India (in short 'LIC') fixing the age of retirement of Development Officer, presently called the Field Officer at 58 years, a suit was filed by respondent- Anwar Khan. The said Anwar Khan has expired in the meantime and his legal representatives are presently the respondents. The suit was filed primarily for declaration that in view of the agreement between the Field Officers Association and the LIC age of retirement is 60 years. The suit was decreed on 30.7.1981 and the appeal by the LIC was dismissed on 27.3.1982. The second appeal filed before the High Court is pending. During the pendency of the second appeal, the respondent-Anwar Khan moved the authorities under the Pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(2)BomCR467; [2007(113)FLR972]; JT2007(6)SC67; (2007)2LLJ1032SC; 2007(6)SCALE110; (2007)5SCC273; 2007IILLJ1032(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in these appeals is to the orders passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court directing reference to the Industrial Tribunal and granting interim protection to the workers in the Civil Appeal relating to SLP(C ) No. 594 of 2004.3. First Respondent-General Employees Association (in short the 'Association') had questioned legality of the Circular dated 8.11.2000 issued by the Central Government conveying its decision refusing to abolish and prohibit contract labour in the Civil Works and Carpentry establishment of Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd.-Respondent No. 1, in W.P. No.7543/2000. It was alleged by the writ petitioner that respondent Nos. 5 to 8 in the writ petition (who are non-official respondent Nos. 4 to 7 in this appeal) were dummy and sham contractors. It was conceded by the writ petitioner that the said issue cannot be considered by the High Court in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(2)BLJR1708; [2007(114)FLR236]; [2008(2)JCR130(SC)]; JT2007(5)SC628; (2007)IILLJ724SC; 2007(6)SCALE45; (2007)4SCC669; 2007AIRSCW2688;
C.K. Thakker, J.1. Leave granted.2. A Public Utility Undertaking (Co-operative Bank) challenges in this appeal an order passed by a Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated September 18, 2000 in Writ Petition No. 11948 of 1993 and modified by the Division Bench of the said Court on November 3, 2004 in Writ Appeal No. 45 of 2001.FACTUAL MATRIX3. To appreciate in its proper perspective an important question raised in the appeal, it is necessary to set out relevant facts.The appellant is Coimbatore District Central Co- operative Bank having its head office at Coimbatore. It is having 17 branches in the Revenue District of Coimbatore. It is the case of the appellant-Bank that the Coimbatore District Central Bank Employees Association ('Union' for short) gave a 'strike notice' on March 31, 1972 which was received by the Management on April 5, 1972 proposing to go on strike from April 14, 1972. The reason for such notice and going on strike was suspension of certain emplo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(117)ECC296; 2007LC296(SC); 2007(211)ELT360(SC); JT2007(8)SC338; 2007(6)SCALE22; (2007)9SCC32; 2007(1)LC605(SC)
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. A short point which arises for determination in this civil appeal is : whether 'puffs' obtained by the swelling or roasting of cereals constitute preparations of cereals under Chapter Heading 19.04. According to the appellant 'puffs' from cereals fall under Chapter Heading 21.07 (Edible preparations).2. The assessee manufactures 'puffs' from cereals namely wheat and soya nuts. The said product is packed in unit containers and supplied to Integrated Child Development Scheme (for short 'ICDS') in Haryana. On 21.3.1997 a show-cause notice was issued by the Department raising a demand on the assessee for mis-declaration of the said products as 'chabena/prasad'. In the said show cause notice it was further alleged that the products were sold under the brand name 'bonton'. Under the said show cause notice it was also alleged that the said 'puffs' were sold in the market as breakfast cereals, high in protein and low in cholesterol. It was further alleged that the said produ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(6)ALLMR(SC)486; [2007(113)FLR1008]; JT2007(6)SC20; 2007(3)KLT171(SC); 2007(6)SCALE17; 2007(1)LC559(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the special appeal filed by the appellant against the order of learned Single Judge. The controversy lies within a very narrow compass i.e. whether the respondent is eligible to disability pension.2. Background facts giving rise to the present dispute is as follows:The respondent was enrolled as Rifleman on 15.11.1976 and was discharged from Army on 18.10.1986. It was found that he was suffering from Schizophrenia and the Medical Board's report indicated his non-suitability for continuance in army. Medical Board opined that the disability did not exist before entering service and it was not connected with service. An appeal was preferred before prescribed appellate authority which was dismissed on 16.4.1989. Respondent filed a writ petition which was allowed by learned Single Judge and as noted above by the impugned judgment the special appeal was dismiss...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC1711; 2007(3)AWC2356(SC); 2007LC(SC)1155; JT2007(6)SC74; 2007(6)SCALE26; 2007(1)LC575(SC); 2007AIRSCW2699; 2007(7)SCC636; 2007(4)AIRKarR9
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. This judgment will dispose of the above three Civil Appeals which have been filed by three Appellants, namely, Tamil Nadu State Electricity Board, Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. and Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. The common question of law is involved in all the three appeals which relates to the interpretation of Regulation 2.7(d)(iv) of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulation, 2001 (hereinafter called the 'CERC Regulations, 2001'). These appeals are filed under Section 125 of The Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003) and against the orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal allowing the appeals filed by the respondents therein. The following factual matrix would be necessary for the proper understanding of the controversy involved in these appeals.2. Before the present Act came in the anvil, the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 was occupying the field and the Central Government norms for fixing tariff fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC1717; 2007(4)ALT13(SC); 2007(3)AWC2348(SC); (SCSuppl)2007(3)CHN47; 2007(5)CTC298; JT2007(6)SC140; 2007(4)MhLj1; (2007)4MLJ508(SC); 2007MPLJ419(SC); RLW2007(3)SC217
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.Leave granted.1. While the judgment debtor challenges the order of the High Court in a petition filed by him under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to the extent it rejects his prayers, the decree holder has also challenged the same order to the extent it upheld an objection of the judgment debtor. The decree holder and the grand father of the judgment debtor among others, were partners in a firm. A notice of dissolution was issued by some of the partners to the grand father of the judgment debtor. Ultimately, the decree holder filed a suit in the District Court of Gwalior for dissolution of the partnership and for rendition of accounts. On 27.4.1981 the court passed a preliminary decree declaring that the partnership firm stood dissolved with effect from 20.6.1978 and directing that accounts be taken to settle mutual rights and liabilities. A receiver who had been appointed pending the suit was directed to continue.2. The father of the judgment debtor p...
Tag this Judgment!