Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2008(117)FLR582]; JT2008(2)SC161; 2008(2)SCALE152; (2008)3SCC571
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants. Challenge before the High Court was to the order passed by the Presiding Labour Court (II) U.P. Kanpur in Adjudication case-Arbitration dispute No. 164 of 1989. 2. The following question was sent to the Labour Court for decision under Section 4(iv) of the U.P. State Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'State Act):Whether 61 labourers mentioned in the Appendix should be declared permanent? If so, then from which date and with what other particulars?3. The Labour Court held that 61 labourers connected with the case do not possess the right to be declared permanent under the employer- respondent No. 1. So far as the question to be made permanent under the contractor, it was found that they did not want to be declared permanent under the contractor.4. Challenge in the writ petition revolved around the quest...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2008(3)JCR37(SC)]; JT2008(2)SC220; 2008(2)SCALE154; 2008(3)KCCRSN206(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court dismissing the Civil Revision filed and the order in the Review Petition. Before the High Court challenge was to the order passed by learned Munsif, Bikramganj in T.S. No. 162 of 1992 by which the Objection Petition, filed by the defendant-Petitioner before the High Court viz. respondent No. 1 in the present appeal, was rejected. His stand was that in view of Section 43 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act') the suit was incompetent.2. Factual position in a nutshell is as follows:Two pre-emption applications under Section 16(3) of the Act were filed by the pre-emptier defendant Respondent No. 1, herein. They were registered as Ceiling Case Nos. 19 and 20 of 1973. The plaintiff i.e. purchaser filed objection. The Deputy Commissioner of Lands Reforms, Sasaram rejected both the Petitions. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(2)AWC1431(SC); (2008)3SCC180; 2008AIRSCW1973; (2008)1SCC(Cri)693
ORDER1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.Leave granted.2. Learned counsel for he parties agree that in the light of the fact that the order of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court dated 4th August, 2006 does not meet the issues raised before him, the matter may be remitted to the Chief Justice for fresh decision. We accordingly set aside the order dated 4th August, 2006 and remit the matter to the Hon'ble Chief Justice with a request that the matter be heard and decided expeditiously.The Civil Appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008AIRSCW1411; 2008(2)ALLMR(SC)795; 2008(5)BomCR426; [2008(118)FLR399]; JT2008(2)SC336; (2008)IILLJ827SC; 2008(2)SCALE259; (2008)3SCC127; 2008LABIC1345
ORDER1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. At the very outset Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent points out that after the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 23rd Janary, 2001, all the workmen had arrived at settlements with the respondent-employer and taken their dues and given affidavits that they had no further claims against the respondent. She has thus urged that in the light of this fact, which has also been brought on record, the present appeal has become infructuous. Mr. Colin Gonsalves, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant-Maharashtra General Kamgar Union, has however pointed out that the issue raised in the present appeal is one of the general importance and as the impugned judgment was being followed by all subordinate courts in Maharashtra, it would be appropriate that the matter be decided here.3. He has pointed out that the question posed i.e. 'Whether for the purposes of computing the number of workmen whi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC1199; 2008(1)ALD(Cri)652; 2008(56)BLJR1010; 2008CriLJ1634; JT2008(1)SC656; 2008(3)KarLJ1; 2008(2)SCALE129; (2008)3SCC94
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.Challenge in this appeal is to the order of a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court holding the appellants guilty of offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and sentencing each of 10 years imprisonment. 2. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:On 24.6.2001 at 9.00 p.m. on Mulbagal-Punganoor road PWs 2 and 3 were going on a Bajaj Scooter. When they were near 'Kirumani Mitta' of 'Buddadoru village', accused persons 2 to 5 intercepted PWs 2 and 3, and robbed the gold chain, golden ear drops, thali and cash of Rs. 400/- by threatening with knife. The accused tied the legs and hands of PW-2 and PW-3 and threatened them not to escape and get out from the place for about ten minutes after their departure. The victims went to Punganoor Police Station and later on lodged First Information Report with Nangali Police (Kolar Dist.) on 25.6.2001. The Traffic Police while checking found A-2, A-3 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(1)AWC772(SC); JT2008(2)SC139; 2008(2)SCALE137; (2008)4SCC131; 2008(1)LC247(SC); 2008AIRSCW2048;
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.Appellant was the owner of a Sea Vessel known as 'Sea Lark'. The vessel was engaged for fishing purposes. Appellant obtained a loan from Canara Bank (Bank). At the time of sanction of loan, the Bank obtained an insurance policy from the respondent No. 1 in respect of the said vessel. It was insured on 12.04.1979 to cover the period from 12.04.1979 to 12.04.1980. It was later on renewed for the period 12.04.1980 and 11.04.1981. The vessel sunk on 21.07.1980. A claim was made in that behalf, which having been repudiated by the respondent No. 1, a civil suit marked as Suit No. 333 of 1983 was filed by the appellant and the Bank before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. Respondent No. 1 in its written statement inter alia contended that the vessel was not seaworthy. Several issues were framed. Issues No. 2 and 4 which are relevant for our purpose are as under:2. Whether the defendant is liable to pay the suit claim?4. Whether the defendant is right in re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC1196; (2008)2CALLT19(SC); (SCSuppl)2008(1)CHN167; 2008(2)SCALE145; (2008)3SCC40; 2008AIRSCW1167
H.K. Sema, J.1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 18th April, 2001 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in M.A.T. Nos. 1746, 1626 and 1627 of 1999. We have heard the parties.2. The undisputed facts are:Premises No. 4H, Panchanantala Road, Calcutta, was originally sanctioned as residential. It is also not disputed that the said building was subsequently converted from residential to commercial (change of land use) unauthorizedly without obtaining sanction from the appropriate authority. In the said building, the major portion of the garage space was being used as commercial and the appellants have started business like M/s. Atithi (Restaurant), M/s. Avinandan (Sweat meats), M/s. Avisar (Furniture) and M/s. Apsara (Ladies Beauty Parlour). It is also not disputed that the appellants have also started another business namely M/s. Aithi Guest House during June, 1990. It is alleged that the said guest house has also been misused for immoral activities. We are no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2008(116)FLR1017]; JT2008(2)SC143; (2008)ILLJ826SC; 2008(2)SCALE141; (2008)3SCC494; 2008(2)SLJ476(SC); 2008(1)LC273(SC); 2008AIRSCW1102
S.B. Sinha, J.1. The short question involved in this appeal, is the interpretation of the provisions of the Punjab National Bank (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979 vis-`-vis Punjab National Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 (in short 'Pension Regulations'), which arises out of a judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi passed in LPA No. 336 of 2002.2. Respondent herein was an employee of the New Bank of India. On or about 4th September, 1993 the said Bank was amalgamated with the appellant bank. A charge sheet was issued against the respondent on 19th August, 1993. He reached the age of superannuation on 30th November, 1994. Appellant, however, relying on or on the basis of Regulation 20 (3) (iii) of the National Bank (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979, continued the departmental proceedings against him. The same was completed after his retirement on 1st August, 1995. An order of punishment was passed by the disciplinary authority dismissing the respon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC1170; 2008(2)ALLMR(SC)797; 2008(3)ALT17(SC); (SCSuppl)2008(3)CHN212; [2008(2)JCR152(SC)]; JT2008(1)SC666; 2008MhLJ547; (2008)151PLR637; RLW2008(2)SC1502; 2008(2)SC1170; 2008AIRSCW1116; 2008(2)CivilLJ876; 2008(3)LH(SC)1777; 2008(2)ICC1
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.Appellants herein were defendant Nos. 4 to 7 in the suit. Plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed the suit against them and four others. They are admittedly partners of defendant No. 1 firm, M/s. AR. AS & P.V.PV , registered under the Partnership Act, 1932. Defendant No. 3 P. Shankar (Respondent No. 4 herein) was also a partner in the said firm. 2. Allegedly, Defendant No. 2, P.V. Purushothaman (Respondent No. 3 herein), who has been described as the Managing Partner of the said firm, fraudulently obtained an advance from the plaintiff where for a personal guarantee was furnished by the defendant No. 2. Indisputably a cheque for a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs was issued in the name of the defendant No. 1. 3. Plaintiff-Respondent filed the aforementioned suit for realisation of a sum of Rs. 70,30,000/- with interest @ 20% per annum inter alia alleging that all the defendants were jointly and severally liable therefore. An application under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008AIRSCW1320; 2008(2)ALLMR(SC)796; 105(2008)CLT511(SC); [2008(116)FLR1016]; JT2008(2)SC155; (2008)ILLJ1006SC; 2008(2)SCALE151; (2008)2SCC588; (2008)1SCC(Cri)516
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent and dismissing the review petition filed by the present appellant.2. The factual scenario need not be referred to in detail. In a nutshell the position is as follows: Respondent aggrieved by an award of the Labour Court dated 20.2.2003 filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short 'Constitution'). The dispute which was referred to before the Labour Court for adjudication read as follows:Whether termination of services by the employers of their workman Shri Vinod Kumar, S/o Shri Shiv Charan Lal, Mandi Assistant w.e.f. 10.01.1998 is legal and/or valid? If not, then to what relief or benefit the workman is entitled to get?3. The Labour Court after issuance of the notice to the parties held that the Subzi Mandi was not an industry and further the workman had been appointed for 89 ...
Tag this Judgment!