Court : Supreme Court of India
J U D G M E N T1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 13.9.2004 in C.W.P. No.20447 of 2002 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. The appellant is an ex-captain in the Indian Army, who was commissioned on 12.1.1969. During the course of his service, the appellant suffered serious injuries of a permanent nature and was invalided out of service. The Release Medical Board held on 3.1.1979 viewed his injury `gun shot wound left elbow' as attributable to military service and assessed the degree of disability at 50% and the appellant was released from service in Low Medical Category on 10.4.1979. Accordingly, the appellant was granted Disability Pension w.e.f. 26.7.1979.4. The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court claiming following benefits under Circular and Notification issued by the Ministry of Defence, Union of India from time to time : "a) War Injury Pension w.e.f. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. Leave granted.2. In November, 1990, when militancy was at its height in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Appellant was selected for the post of Sub- Inspector in the Jammu and Kashmir Police. In February, 1995, he was posted as the Station House Officer of Chadoora Police Station, adjacent to the town of Charare Sharif in the district of Budgam, which is the convergence point for pilgrims and other visitors to the shrine of Hazrat Shaikh Nooruddin Noorani, situated in Charare Sharif in order to reach the shrine, people have to travel through Chadoora which is the gateway to the shrine. At the time of the Appellant's posting at Chadoora Police Station, his batch-mate, Shaikh Hamidulla, was already serving as the Station House Officer, Charare Sharif.3. In between the months of February and May, 1995, armed militants laid siege to the aforesaid shrine prompting the Government to send two units of the army backed by the Border Security Force to flush out the militants from the shrin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
J U D G M E N T1. Leave granted.2. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 18th July, 2003 delivered in CWP No.14328 of 2000 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, the appellant has filed this appeal. 3. The grievance of the appellant before the High Court was that he was wrongly not appointed as an Art and Craft teacher. It was the case of the appellant that certain candidates belonging to backward class `A' category had been given appointment against the posts of general category and had it not been done so, the appellant would have got the appointment.4. It was also the case of the appellant that certain candidates, who had secured same marks as secured by the appellant, were given appointment whereas he was not appointed to the post in question.5. After hearing the learned counsel and on perusal of record, the High Court rejected the petition by the Judgment dated 18th July, 2003.6. In the impugned Judgment it has been observed that some backward class `A' c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
J U D G M E N T1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 16th April, 2002, dismissing the writ petition challenging the Notification dated 17th May, 1999, wherein the appellants had been rendered ineligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Excise Commissioner (DEC) and the Notification dated 26th May, 1999, promoting respondents No. 3 to 9 as Deputy Excise Commissioner, and further to consider and promote the appellants as Deputy Excise Commissioner, on the vacancies that arose before 17th May, 1999.2. Old vacancies have to be filled under the old rules is the mantra, sought to be invoked by the appellants in support of their claim that the vacancies arising prior to 17th May, 1999, ought to be filled under the 1983 Rules as they existed prior to the amendment dated 17th May, 1999. The claim is based on the principle enunciated by this Court in Y.V.Rangaiah & Ors. v. J.Sreenivasa Rao & Ors..3. The appellants were recruited thr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
J U D G M E N T1. Leave granted.2. The first defendant had two wives- the third plaintiff (the first wife) and the fourth defendant (the second wife). The first defendant had two children from the first wife, the third plaintiff, namely, the first and second plaintiffs; and another two children from his second wife, the fourth defendant namely, the second and third defendant.3. The plaintiffs (first wife and her two children) had filed a suit for partition and separate possession against the defendants for their 1/4th share each with respect to ancestral property which had been given to the first defendant by way of grant. The plaintiffs contended that the first defendant had married the fourth defendant while his first marriage was subsisting and, therefore, the children born in the said second marriage would not be entitled to any share in the ancestral property of the first defendant as they were not coparceners.4. However, the defendants contended that the properties were not ances...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
J U D G M E N T1. The present appeal is directed by the State of U.P. against the final order and judgment dated 23rd March, 2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 577 of 1981 whereby the High Court allowed the criminal appeal by setting aside the order of conviction recorded by the trial court against the respondents.2. We may now briefly note the background facts, necessary for the adjudication of the present matter. It is the case of the prosecution that on 20th August, 1977 at around 3.30 p.m., Gulab and his nephew Chhatrapal were grazing their cattle in Dhadhai Haar. Preetam (hereinafter referred to as `respondent No.1'), who is a collateral of the above two, came there and asked Chhatrapal and Gulab, as to why they were grazing their cattle in his field. Chhatrapal and Gulab told him that they were not grazing in his field. Respondent No. 1 then abused and started beating them. Chhatrapal and Gulab retaliated and started beating Preetam. O...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
J U D G M E N T1. Leave granted.2. The first respondent was the owner of lands bearing Gata Nos.106, 118, 119, 123, 126 and 145 in village Kakrahi, District Auraiya, Uttar Pradesh. The said lands, among others, were acquired for a special railway project, that is, the Dedicated Freight Corridor at Kanpur (Rural), Auraiya and Etava Districts. The acquisition was under chapter IVA of the Railways Act, 1989 (`Act' for short) which dealt with land acquisitions for special railway projects. A notification dated 10.6.2008 (gazetted on 10.6.2008) under section 20A(1) of the Act was published by the Central Government declaring its intention to acquire lands in question for execution of a special railway project. This was followed by a declaration dated 12.12.2008 (gazetted on 16.12.2008) under section 20E(1) of the Act declaring that the lands mentioned therein should be acquired for the purpose mentioned in the notification under section 20A(1) of the Act. On such declaration, the land veste...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
J U D G M E N T1) The issues that arise for our consideration and decision in this appeal are :-i) Whether the Central Govt. was justified in issuing a demand based on Drug Prices fixed on 02.01.1989, instead of drug prices fixed on 20.11.1986.ii) Whether the Central Government was justified in directing Glaxo India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as, "Respondent- Company") to deposit an amount of `71.21 crores in the Drug Prices Equalization Account (in short, "DPEA"). iii) What is the effect of `supersession' of a notification and when such supersession is made, would it have the prospective or retrospective effect.Factual Background2) The Respondent-Company is engaged in manufacture and sale of three bulk drugs, namely, Betamethasone Alcohol (B.A.), Betamethasone 17 valerate (B.V.) and Betamethasone di Sodium Phosphate (B.P.), and various formulations based on these bulk drugs. They were sold at the price that was declared by the Respondent-Company under the Drugs (Price Control) Orde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. Leave granted.2. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 19.5.2010 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 1711-SB/2005, by which the High Court has affirmed the judgment and order dated 2.9.2005 passed by learned Special Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, in Sessions Case No. 72T/5.9.03/7.10.04, by which the appellant stood convicted for the offence punishable under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as NDPS Act) and was sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default whereof, to undergo further RI for 6 months.3. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that on 4.7.2003, a police party was proceeding from Focal Point, Mandi Gobindgarh to G.T. Road on patrol duty in a government vehicle. When the police party reached near the culvert of minor in the area of village Ambe Majra, the police party spotted the appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.09.2010 whereby the Delhi High Court partly allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein by issuing a direction to the appellants to pass a speaking order by giving reasons for imposing the penalty of dismissal from service in exercise of powers under Article 311(2)(c) of the Constitution and not any other penalty.4. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the parties hereto some basic facts leading to filing of the aforesaid writ petition in the High Court must be stated.5. The respondent was posted as First Secretary w.e.f. 02.07.2007 to 03.05.2008 in the Embassy of India, Beijing, China. While on special assignment, the respondent came under adverse notice and was found to be involved in an unauthorized and undesirable liaison with foreign nationals of the host country. The conduct of the respondent was enquired into by the Intelligence Bureau (IB). The D...
Tag this Judgment!