Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : III(2008)CPJ84(SC); JT2008(9)SC584; 2008(12)SCALE110; [2008]86SCL275(SC); 2008(2)LC1238(SC); 2008AIRSCW6277; 2008(8)SCC652; 2008(5)LH(SC)3260
Tarun Chatterjee, J.1. These two appeals at the instance of Mrs. Manjul Srivastava (appellant herein) have been filed against the orders dated 9th of May, 2001 and 7th of December, 2001 passed by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, New Delhi (in short 'the Commission') in C.A. No. 154 of 1998 and R.A. No. 37 of 2001, which also arose out of C.A. No. 154 of 1998, whereby the Commission had held that the Ghaziabad Development Authority (in short 'the GDA') had not resorted to any 'unfair trade practice' inasmuch as the appellant was unsuccessful in the draw for allotment of a plot in Govindpuram area of District Ghaziabad in the State of Uttar Pradesh and, therefore, she could not be termed as an 'allottee' of the residential plot in that area.2. The facts leading to the filing of these appeals, as emerged from the complaint filed by the appellant before the Commission, may be narrated in a nutshell as under:The dispute in these appeals pertains to allotment of a c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(6)ALLMR(SC)929; 106(2008)CLT904(SC); (2008)8MLJ641(SC); 2008(12)SCALE150; (2008)9SCC169; 2009(1)SLJ103(SC); 2008AIRSCW6450
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. The appellant was promoted as a lineman, a group `C' post, in the Lakshadweep Electricity department, on 2.2.1985. The pay scale of lineman was initially Rs. 85-2-95-3-110 which was revised to Rs. 210-4-226-EB-4- 250-EB-5-290. The pay scale was further revised to Rs. 800-15-1010-EB- 20-1150 as per Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986 (for short `Revised Pay Rules'). The appellant gave a representation dated 1.10.1994 requesting a higher pay scale. He contended that as the post of lineman was classified as a group C post, he should be given the benefit of the minimum of the pay scales prescribed for group `C' posts under the Revised Pay Rules, that is Rs. 825-15-900-EB-20-1200.2. By Office Memorandum dated 9.8.1995 the respondent rejected the representation of appellant for grant of the higher pay scale of Rs. 825-1200. The said memorandum stated that though the post of lineman was a group `C' post, the revised pay scale applicable to the said post was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2008)10SCC697
1. Application for substitution is allowed. Leave granted.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By the impugned order, High Court has dismissed the second appeal on the ground that no substantial question of law was involved therein. Having heard the parties and perused the records, we are of the view that High Court was not justified in observing that no substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. In our view, the following substantial questions of law do arise in the second appeal:"(2) Whether the findings of the trial court on issue No. (VII) that Pokhani inherited the property as her husband Bifan Ram was the last male holder in the branch of Rucha Ram is based on error of record in appreciating averments made in paragraph 18 of the written statement which read with the averment made in paragraph 10 of the written statement makes out a clear case that Bifan Ram predeceased his father Rucha Ram, therefore inadvertently using the words that Bifan was the last male heir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(4)AWC3951(SC); 2008(56)BLJR2851; JT2008(9)SC445; (2008)8MLJ47(SC); 2008(12)SCALE252; (2008)9SCC54; 2008(2)LC1057(SC); 2008(5)LH(SC)3645; 2008AIRSCW6184
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Whether a co-employee of the respondent No. 1 who was working as a Field Officer with the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board can maintain an independent special leave questioning the judgment of a High Court setting aside an order of the Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate (sic) Committee is the question involved herein.3. Before, however, we advert thereto, we may notice the admitted factual matrix of the matter.Respondent No. 1 claims himself to be a member of Schedule Tribe being belonging to 'Halba' tribe notified in terms of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. Respondent No. 1 and his family members are highly educated. The caste of his father in the school records was shown as 'Koshti' whereas the caste of his uncle was also shown as 'Koshti' which was, however, later on corrected as 'Halba'. One of his cousins Ku. Sandhya Manohar Bhivapurkar, daughter of the uncle of the respondent No. 1, was also granted a certificate as belonging to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008ACJ2697; 2008(6)ALT29(SC); 2008(4)AWC3826(SC); 106(2008)CLT800(SC); (2009)1GLR306(SC); JT2008(9)SC493; 2008(4)KLT657(SC); 2009(1)MhLj19; (2008)8MLJ796(SC); (2008)152PLR; 2008AIRSCW6178; 2008(9)SCC133; 2008ACJ2697; 2008AIRSCW6178; 2008(9)SCC133; 2008ACJ2697
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. What would the effect of dishonour of a cheque when subsequently the amount of premium has been accepted in cash by the insurer is the question involved herein.3. First respondent was driving a moped on 27.1.1995. An accident took place on the said date as the said vehicle was hit by a truck bearing registration No. GJ 6T 7000 which was allegedly being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The said truck first dashed against an Ambassador car and then hit the moped which was being driven by the respondent as a result whereof he suffered severe injuries.4. For the purpose of getting the said truck insured, a cheque was tendered to the officers of the appellant company on 23.1.1995. As noticed hereinbefore the accident took place on 27.1.1995. The cheque when presented to the bank for clearance was allegedly dishonoured. On 30.1.1995, however, the amount of premium was paid in cash and received.5. The Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal as also the H...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (SCSuppl)2009(1)CHN11; JT2008(10)SC371; 2008(12)SCALE1; (2008)10SCC161; 2008AIRSCW6472
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Respondent joined the Indian Air Force on 22.2.1978. He rendered more than 15 years' of service in the said organization having worked till 28.2.1993.3. The Department of Personnel and Training issued a notification dated 12.2.1986 in terms whereof, those candidates who were matriculate and having put in not less than 15 years' of service in Armed Forces etc. were to be considered for appointment to any Group - C post to which essential qualification is graduation and where experience in technical or professional nature is not essential.4. Appellant herein -National Survey Organization is established under the Department of Statistics of the Government of India. The service conditions of its employees are governed by the Rules framed by the President of India in exercise of his power under the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. In terms of the said notification, amendment had been carried out in Ex-Servicemen (Re-employment i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2008)10SCC714
Delay condoned.1. Leave granted.2. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. In spite of service of notice, nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent to contest the prayer made in these appeals. By the impugned order, the High Court, after re-appreciating the evidence set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court and restored that of the trial court without framing any substantial question of law. It is well- settled that, in a second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, if the High Court is of the opinion that a substantial question of law arises, then such question of law is required to be framed and decided. In this case, the High Court upset the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court without framing any substantial question of law. Therefore, on this ground alone the impugned order is liable to be set aside.3. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed, impugned judgment and order are set aside and the second...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC51; IV(2008)BC171(SC); 2008(3)JKJ14(1)[SC]; JT2008(9)SC473; 2008(12)SCALE117; 2008(2)LC1223(SC); 2008AIRSCW6917; 2008(50LH(SC)3332.
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Civil Appeal Nos. 4817-4851 of 2002, by special leave, are directed against the final judgment and order dated 3.11.2000 passed by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu in CSA Nos. 30, 44, 56, 50, 46, 72, 74, 47, 55, 51, 71, 66, 45, 78, 61, 73, 49, 63, 62, 76, 53, 69, 64, 68, 57, 41, 67, 65, 43, 42, 58, 54, 52, 48 and 40 of 1999 and Civil Appeal Nos. 4852-4854 of 2002 are directed against CSA Nos. 34, 35 and 77 of 1999.2. The facts in Civil Appeal Nos. 4817-4851 of 2002 and Civil Appeal Nos. 4852-4854 of 2002 are as follows:The respondents, in these appeals, borrowed loans ranging from Rs. 3000/- to 10,000/- in most of the cases and in some cases it ranges from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- from the Jammu Rural Bank and Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. for different purposes. The loans remained unpaid and as a result, Banks filed suits against the respondents herein before sub-Judge, Rajouri. On 26.5.1997, Debt Relief Scheme for the borrowers in the State of Jammu an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC31; 2008(56)BLJR2872; 2009CriLJ346; JT2008(9)SC488; 2008(3)KLT969(SC); RLW2009(1)SC372; 2008(12)SCALE102; 2008(2)LC1051(SC); 2008AIRSCW6882; 2008(4)Crimes236; 2008(5)LH(SC)3626
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur confirming the conviction of the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') as recorded by learned Sessions Judge Mandla in Sessions Case No. 66 of 1995 who imposed sentences of imprisonment for life and three years respectively.2. Background facts, as projected by the prosecution, during trial are as follows:Harilal Gond (hereinafter referred to as the `deceased') was the maternal grandfather in law of the accused and in the night of incident accused, deceased and his samdhi Motilal were sleeping in the same house. Shyamlal (PW1), son in law of the deceased brought his son in law accused Hari Singh on 23.2.1995 to Mohda from Singanpuri for treatment. On 25.2.1995 in the evening Motilal (PW2) the father of Shyamlal and his samdhi i.e. deceased and son in law i.e. accused Hari Singh were sl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC1100; JT2008(9)SC499; 2008(12)SCALE90; 2009(1)SLJ98(SC)
ORDER AND AIR FORCEDISCIPLINEIn that heAt New Delhi on the night of 28/29 Apr. 05, improperlyintroduced himself as husband of Mrs. Ambika Singhania to Head ConstableRanbir and Constable Dharmendeer, Police Personnel of Delhi Police, knowingsuch statement to be false.SECOND CHARGE SECTION 45 AIR FORCE ACT, 1950BEHAVING IN A MANNER UNBECOMING THE POSITION ANDCHARACTER OF AN OFFICERIn that he,At New Delhi on the night of 28/29 Apr 05, usedoffensive language to Sh. Dependra Pathak, Deputy Commissioner of Police,South West District, New Delhi and behaved in a riotous manner.THIRD CHARGE SECTION 48 AIR FORCE ACT, 1950INTOXICATIONIn that heAT New Delhi on the night of 28/29 Apr 05, was foundin a state of intoxication.FOURTH CHARGE SECTION 48 AIR FORCE ACT, 1950INTOXICATIONIn that he,at Gandhinagar (Gujarat) on 06 Jan. 06, was found in a state of intoxicationFIFTH CHARGE SECTION 40(a) AIR FORCE ACT, 1950ASSAULTING HIS SUPERIOR OFFICERIn that he,At Gandhinagar (Gujarat), on 06 Jan.06, assaulted...
Tag this Judgment!