Court : Supreme Court of India
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.2. Nobody has entered appearance to contest the prayer made in this petition on behalf of the respondent. Leave granted.3. The civil appeal be treated as disposed of in terms of the direction made in Para 19 of the decision of this Court in St. Johns. Teachers Training Institute v. Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education and Anr. : [2003]1SCR975 . The judgement of the High Court shall stand modified to that extent. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2008(118)FLR1]; JT2008(4)SC441; (2008)IILLJ821SC; 2008(4)SCALE841; (2008)5SCC209; 2008(2)Supreme791
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Order dated 12.2.2007 is recalled.2. Leave granted.3. Appellant was an Assistant Grade-III (AG-III) in one of the Food Storage Depots of Food Corporation of India. 295 bags of wheat and 195 bags BTB Class gunny bags were found missing when special physical verification was conducted by the physical verification squad during the period 7.1.1980 and 22.1.1980.4. One Bhoop Singh was the unit in-charge of the godown. Appellant, Rattan Singh and one Kunwar Singh were working thereat as the Assistant Grades Clerk. Shortages in the said depots were suspected. The godowns were sealed. Physical verifications were made by Physical Verification Squad (PVS). Stock checking exercises were carried out in the said godown during the period 7.1.1980 to 22.1.1980. 295 bags of wheat and 195 bags of gunnies in Unit No. 1 of which Bhoop Singh was the in-charge, were found short. The contents of the vigilance report were verified by one Shri Panchhi. Apart from Bhoop Singh, Nahar Singh and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC2096; JT2008(4)SC369; 2008(4)SCALE574; 2008AIRSCW2742; 2008(3)LH(SC)2248
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted in each case. 2. Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed in each case by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in writ petitions filed for quashing the order of detention passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Nellore, under Sections 3(1), 3(2) read with Section 2(a) and (g) of A.P. Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Land Grabbers Act, 1986 (in short the 'Act') in respect of Shri Pralayakaveri Bhaskar. Sri Pamanji Chenna Reddy, Sri Pralayakaveri Gnanaiah, Sri Voila Babu and Sri Pamanji Babu (each described as 'detenu' hereinafter) 3. Respondent claiming to be a friend of the detenu challenged the validity of the order stating it to be illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Article 22 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution'). The main ground of challenge was that the grounds of detention referred to cert...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(1)BLJR1292; 3(2008)CLT39(SC); 2008(3)CTC43; JT2008(4)SC82; (2008)3MLJ1002(SC); 2008(4)SCALE202; (2008)4SCC300; 2008AIRSCW2557; 2008(3)LH(SC)1891; 2008(3)ICC1; 2008(4)KCCRSN313
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted. INTRODUCTION2. What is a caveatable interest within the meaning of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (1925 Act) vis-a-vis the Rules framed by the Calcutta High Court in the year 1940 is the question involved herein. BACKGROUND FACTS3. Smt. Priyamvada Devi Birla (PDB) and her husband Madhav Prasad Birla (MPB) were admittedly very wealthy persons. They owned an industrial empire known as the MP Birla Group of Industries. They were issueless and known for their charitable disposition. They used to run several charitable institutions. 4. Both MPB and PDB are said to have executed mutual wills on identical terms on or about 10th May, 1981 bequeathing his/her respective estate(s) barring certain specific legacies to the other and on the death of the survivor to the 'charities' to be nominated by the executors. However, the said wills were revoked and another set of mutual wills were executed on 13th July, 1982 in terms whereof, four executors were appointed in e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(3)ALLMR(SC)906; 2008(2)AWC2029(SC); JT2008(3)SC620; 2008(4)SCALE839; 2008(3)SLJ254(SC)
Markandey Katju, J.1. These two connected appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 14.12.1999 in Writ Petition No. 25555 of 1998.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. Appellant Nirmal Chandra Sinha belongs to the Indian Railway Service of Mechanical Engineers (IRSME) having been appointed on 2.5.1958. When his turn came for consideration for promotion as General Manager, he was working as Chief Mechanical Engineer of Southern Eastern Railway. He was promoted to the post of General Manager on 29.11.1996. He claimed notional promotion w.e.f. 13.3.1996 with consequential benefits. His O.A. was rejected by the Central Administrative Tribunal, but against that order he filed a writ petition which was partially allowed by the High Court. 4. Against the aforesaid judgment of the High Court appeals were filed both by appellant Nirmal Chandra Sinha as well as the Union of India. 5. In the appeal filed by appellant ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008AIRSCW8078; AIR2009SC792; JT2008(6)SC177; 2008(6)SCALE275; 2008(1)LC611(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. What are the factors which are required to be taken into consideration by the Central Government for determining the price of levy sugar in exercise of its power under Section 3(3C) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (the Act) is the question involved herein.3. Before us, there are various owners of sugar mills who purchased sugarcane from the farmers. 4. Section 3(2)(f) of the Act empowers the Central Government to fix compulsory quota of sugar produced by a sugar producer in the manner prescribed by the Central Government including the price thereof at which the same is to be sold. It is known as 'levy sugar'. The rest of the sugar, however, can be sold by the producers in free market. It is known as 'free sugar'. 5. The factors which are relevant to be taken into consideration by Central Government is contained in Section 3(3C) of the Act which includes:(a) The minimum price, if any fixed for Sugarcane by the Central Government.(b) The manufactu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008ACJ1498; AIR2008SC1837; 2008(2)AWC2039(SC); JT2008(4)SC425; 2008(2)KLT1001(SC); (2008)5MLJ316(SC); 2008(3)MPHT217(SC); (2008)150PLR784; RLW2008(3)SC1947; 2008(4)SCALE75; 2008AIRSCW2534; AIR2008SC1837; 2008ACJ1498; 2008(3)LH(SC)1882; 2008(2)KCCRSN111
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. On 14.11.2000, Ishwar Dutt Bhat was traveling in a three wheeler. It met with an accident having been hit by a truck bearing registreation No. HR 38 9179. The said vehicle was insured with the appellant. Respondents, being the heirs and legal representatives of the said Shri Ishwar Dutt, filed a claim petition. Appellant, in its written statement, raised a contention that the driving licence possessed by the driver of the truck was a fake one.3. In the proceedings before the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal), it prayed for examination of the concerned clerk of the Motor Vehicles Department. The said prayer was allowed. The concerned Clerk of the Licencing Authority, Alwar was summoned. The said summons were served in the office of the Transport Authority. The Transport Authority, however, did not depute any officer to produce the documents called for. Appellant, however, brought on records evidence to the effect that on an investig...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007AIRSCW3656; AIR2007SC2129; 2007(6)SCC694; 2007-III-LLJ-352(SC); JT2007(8)SC581
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Review Petitioners herein have filed this application for review of this Court's judgment and order dated 18.05.2007 passed in Civil Appeal No. 2739 of 2007.2. Respondent was working with the appellant Bank. Almost immediately prior to his retirement, he was asked to show cause as to why action under the UCO Bank (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979 (for short 'the 1979 Regulations') should not be taken against him by notices dated 24.10.1996 and 30.10.1996.3. Respondent reached his age of superannuation on 30.11.1996. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him immediately thereafter. A charge sheet, however, was issued only on 13.11.1998. He was dismissed from service upon initiating a departmental proceedings. 4. A writ petition filed by him was allowed. Petitioner Bank filed an appeal upon grant of special leave thereagainst. One of the questions which arose for consideration before this Court was whether in absence of any chargesheet having been issued, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC1987; JT2008(4)SC635; 2008(6)SCALE44; (2008)11SCC309; 2008AIRSCW2852; JT2008(4)SC635
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court allowing the Writ Petition filed by the respondent. The controversy lies within a very narrow compass. The respondent claimed to be a freedom fighter and claimed freedom fighter's pension. The application in this regard was filed on 28th July, 1981. The application was rejected by the Central Government on 29.1.1993. A Writ Petition was filed before the Calcutta High Court questioning correctness of the order of the Single Judge. The writ petition was allowed and the present appellants were directed to release pension to the respondent. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the said order the Division Bench was moved in a Letters Patent Appeal which was dismissed. A special leave petition was also filed before this Court which was rejected as barred by time. The question that arose was the date from which the respondent was entitled to pension. Appellants released t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2008(117)FLR777]; 2008(6)SCALE103; (2008)5SCC539; 2008AIRSCW2858
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the Civil Writ Petition No. 6622 of 2005. Challenge in the writ petition was to the Award dated 13.1.2005 passed by the labour Court, Jalandhar.3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:Respondent was appointed primarily as a Gardner on 2.2.1989. The order was revoked by the District Welfare Officer since the appointment was found contrary to the instructions of the Government. Accordingly the services were terminated on 25.1.1997. On a complaint being made by the respondent on 11.5.1999. the Labour Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh Bench referred the matter for adjudication to the Labour Court under Section 10(1)(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act'). The Labour Court by Award dated 13.1.2005 held that the termination was illegal and that the workman was entitled to reinstatement with 50% back wages, c...
Tag this Judgment!