Court : Supreme Court of India
J.M. Panchal, J.1. By filing this petition under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the petitioners who are original respondent Nos. 6 and 7 before the High Court in PIL Writ Petition No. 403 of 2007 have prayed to transfer the proceedings of PIL Writ Petition No. 403 of 2007 titled as People's Movement for Civic Action and Anr. v. Goa Coastal Management Authority and Ors. pending before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Goa, Panaji to this Court and be heard along with Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 16728 of 2008. This Court has heard the learned Counsel for the parties. It may be mentioned that the petitioner had filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 329 of 2008 which has been disposed of by a separate judgment. On leave being granted in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 16778 of 2008, Civil Appeal No. 5281 of 2008 was registered. The said appeal was disposed of by judgment dated August 28, 2008 while disposing of the appeal, the petitioners were permitted...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2010(3)SC432
ORDER1. Heard Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, learned Addl. Solicitor General appearing for the appellants.2. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent today.3. This appeal by special leave is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 11.12.2003 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent herein (writ petitioner before the High Court) has been allowed and the appellants herein (respondents before the High Court) have been directed to count the entire period of full pay commissioned service of the respondent from 22.06.1968 to 23.06.1978 as qualifying service and calculate his disability pension in accordance with pension scales as on 23.6.1978 and give him all other benefits inuring therefrom.4. The facts in detail have been given in the impugned judgment and order. Hence, we are not repeating the same here.5. The question involved in this appeal is whether the full pay commissioned service rendered by the r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2010(3)SC450
R.V. Raveendran, J.Facts in CA No. 1886/2007:1. The appellant is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The respondent - S.P. Padhye - (also referred to as `the employee') was employed as a Telephone Operator by the appellant for more than two decades. The respondent's service was terminated by the appellant with effect from 31.12.2000 on the ground that he had become deaf (85% reduction in ability to hear). The respondent complained to the Disability Commissioner, Pune, in regard to such termination, alleging that he was fit, able and normal when he joined service of the appellant and as he acquired the hearing impairment during the period of service, he should have been continued in employment in some suitable post. The Disability Commissioner made an order dated 12.10.2001 suggesting to the employer to undertake a social responsibility, by re- employing the respondent to discharge any other work. The suggestion was not accepted by the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2010(3)SC531
J.M. Panchal, J.1. By filing this Interlocutory Application, M/s. Maruti Clean Coal & Power Limited which has established a coal washery of 10 M.T.Y. capacity on Khasra Nos. 850/30, 850/24, 850/31, 850/28, 850/27 and 850/32 of Village Ratija, District Korba leased by the State of Chhattisgarh through Chhattisgarh State Industrial Development Corporation (`CSIDC' for short), has prayed to direct M/s. South Eastern Coal Field Limited (`SECL' for short) to start supply of coal immediately and issue Transit Passes/Delivery Orders through the washery of the petitioner on behalf of linked and other customers on instructions/requests from all such customers/purchasers of coal.2. In order to understand the scope and ambit of the prayer made by the petitioner, it would be relevant to notice certain facts. M/s. Maruti Clean Coal & Power Limited is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act. It applied for the allotment of about 15 hectares (37.91 acres) of land of village Naw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2010(3)SC462
J.M. Panchal, J.1. By filing this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioners have prayed to declare that the building plans sanctioned and constructions made and on- going constructions pursuant to the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification dated February 19, 1991 as amended by the Notification dated August 16, 1994 issued by the Central Government are valid.2. The relevant facts emerging from the records of the case are as under:The Petitioner No. 1 is owner of the land situated near river Zuari at Goa. It submitted plans in the year 1993 for construction of a hotel and residential complex. The Central Government, through Ministry of Environment and Forests (`MOEF', for short), issued Coastal Regulation Zone Notification dated February 19, 1991 in exercise of powers under Rule 5(d) of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986. As per the said notification, the area upto 100 meters from the High Tide Line was earmarked as `No Development Zone' and no construction was p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. The issue that falls for consideration in the present appeal is whether the confessional statements recorded in a case relating to offences under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act, 1987 [for short TADA Act'] would be admissible in evidence against the accused in prosecution for offences other than those under the TADA Act. In order to answer the aforesaid issue arising for our consideration, some background facts are required to be stated so as to make it easier to appreciate the issues urged.2. The private respondent No. 4 was arrested in TADA Case No. 114 of 1991 and 114-A of 1991. In the said case, there was a confessional statement made by the private respondent No. 4 which was recorded on 17.03.1991 along with another co-accused. The said confessional statements so recorded by the police were used by the prosecution as substantive evidence in the aforesaid TADA case. The aforesaid TADA case resulted in the conviction of the private respondent No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2010(3)SC365
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. Leave granted.2. This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court wherein the High Court has awarded the land acquisition compensation @ Rs. 39,300/- per bigha. The High Court relied on its earlier judgment without citing the same wherein it had fixed the land acquisition compensation @ Rs. 34,150/- per bigha in respect of the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 19.08.1976. On that basis, the High Court, considering the difference of 1-1/2 years, enhanced the amount at the rate of 10 per cent per year and thus granted compensation @ Rs. 39,300/- per bigha.3. The concerned lands are from village Dallupura which have been acquired by the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 22.03.1978 which ripened into the Notification under Section 6 dated 27.09.1978. The High Court, however, specifically ordered that the appellants would not be entitled to the benefit under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act (her...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2010(3)SC536
Mukundakam Sharma1. These two appeals arise out of a common judgment and order dated 08.11.2006 passed by the High Court of Allahabad dismissing the appeals filed by the appellants herein against their conviction and sentence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the 'IPC').2. Shri Prithvi Pal Singh alias Chandra Prakash Singh, son of the deceased had lodged a report at the Police Station Maharajpur, District Kanpur contending, inter alia, that on 29.07.1977 while he alongwith his father, Vikramaditya Singh and one Sri Jagannath Dubey were coming back to their village by Kanpur Allahabad Passenger Train from the Court of Munsif Hawali, Kanpur where a litigation was pending between his father Vikramaditya Singh and Sri Ganesh Singh and others, they alighted at the Rooma Halt Station for the purpose of going to their house. Further allegation was that the accused Sri Shrawan Kumar, Sri Patai @ Krishna Kumar and Brij Kishore, who were armed with countr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2010(3)SC380
Surinder Singh Nijjar, J.1. These appeals have been filed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur rendered in DB Civil Writ Petition No. 5193/04 and DB Civil Writ Petition No. 5638/04 dated 3.5.2005. By the aforesaid common judgment the High Court had held that the instructions dated 23.07.2002 had not superseded the qualifications laid down by Central Government in its letter dated 24.6.2002. By virtue of the aforesaid decision of the High Court the appellants have lost the opportunity for being absorbed in the service of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL). Civil Appeal No. 4351/2007 has been filed against the order of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 17.11.2005 in O.A. No. 116/2005 whereby the CAT has dismissed the O.A. following the decision of the Rajasthan High Court which is the subject matter of the two above noted appeals. We propose to dispose of all the aforesaid appeals by this common judgment.2. The appellants had challenged...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2010(3)SC328
Surinder Singh Nijjar, J.1. Leave granted.2. By this judgment, we shall dispose of the above three appeals as the facts and the legal issues involved in all the appeals are common. The writ petitioners before the High Court have been impleaded as respondent No. 1 before this Court.3. The appellant herein, TANMAG, is a company fully owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu. By G.O.Ms. No. 41 Industries Department, dated 10.1.1979, it was decided to implement the policy decision taken by the Government of Tamil Nadu to reserve the mineral prone areas of magnesite for State exploitation. TANMAG was accordingly formed for implementing the policy. It is the common case of the parties that the respondents were duly selected and appointed, on the respective posts, in the aforesaid company. They were appointed as Assistant Project Engineer (Mechanical), Junior Foreman (Mechanical) and Deputy Manager (Mechanical) respectively by orders dated 12.9.1983, 23.11.1988 and 18.8.1989. At the time of join...
Tag this Judgment!