Supreme Court Decisions/Judgements Directory

Judges: Lalit Mohan Sharma, S Mohan And N Venkatachala, Jj Act Civil Services Madhya Pradesh State Fundamental Rules F R 56, Sub Rule 1 A And M P Shaskiya Adhiwarshkiya Adhiniyam 1987 Retirement Age Superintendent Deaf Mute And Blind School Whether Teaching Post Duties Of Supervisory Nature Held Respondent Rightly Retired At 58 Years As Post Was Non Teaching Post Headnote The Respondent In The Appeal After Due Selection By The State Public Service Commission Was Appointed In 1965 As A Superintendent In A Deaf Mute And Blind School He Was Thereafter Promoted And Posted As Deputy Director, And In 1989 He Was Further Promoted To The Rank Of Joint Director In The Social Welfare Department He Completed The Age Of 58 Years In January, 1991 When According To The Decision Of The Appellant He Had To Retire According To The Rules Fr 56, Sub Rule 1 A The Age Of Retirement In The Department Was 58 Years Excepting For Teachers Who Were To Continue In Service Till 60 The Respondent Assailed The Order Of Retirement Before The State Administrative Tribunal Relying Upon The Explanation To The Rule Which Allowed His Claim To Continue In Service Upto The Age Of 60 Years And Held That He Cannot Be Retired At 58 Years In The State S Appeal To This Court, It Was Contended That The Post Of Superintendent In Deaf Mute And Blind School To Which The Respondent Was Initially Appointed In 1965 Was Not A Teaching Post And He Could Not Therefore Claim The Benefit Of The Explanation To The Rule Allowing The Appeal, This Court, Held 1 The Parties To The Appeal Have Referred To And Relied Upon The Advertisement No 9 1965 Issued By The State Public Service Commission Inviting Applications For Appointment To The Posts Of Superintendent Deaf Mute And Blind School Paragraph 3 Thereof Mentions The Duties Attached To The Post, And When Examined Closely, Indicate That They Were Supervisory In Nature And Not Teaching The Explanation To The Rule Therefore Does Not Come To The Aid Of The Respondent And He Was Therefore Rightly Retired On 31 1 1992 354 G 355 D 2 The Original Application Filed By The Respondent Before The State Administrative Tribunal Is Therefore Dismissed In Case The Respondent Was Paid For Performing Any Duty After The Date Of His Retirement, He Shall Not Be Asked To Refund

04 November, 1992·PETITIONER:STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. RESPONDENT:HARI DATT SHARMA DATE OF JUDGMENT04/11/1992 BENCH:[LALIT MOHAN SHARMA, S. MOHAN AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] ACT:Civil Services :Madhya Pradesh State Fundamental Rules.F.R.56, Sub-Rule (1-a) and M.P. Shaskiya (Adhiwarshkiya Adhiniyam) 1987-Retirement ag...

Judges: Lalit Mohan Sharma, S Mohan Venkatachala, Jj

04 November, 1992·CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4733 of 1992.From the Judgment and Order dated 28.2.1992 of the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, Gwalior in Original Application No. 2932 of 1991.Sakesh Kumar and S.K. Agnihotri for the Appellant. Vivek Gambhir and S.K. Gambhir for the Resp...

Judges: Lalit Mohan Sharma And K Jayachandra Reddy, Jj Act Constitution Of India, 1950 Article 252 Read With Schedule Vii, List N Entry 18 Legislation By Parliament Requirement Central Law On Ceiling On Urban Immovable Property In Pursuance Of Resolution Of State Legislature State Laws On Other Matters Relating To The Subject Matter Of Resolution Legality Of Constitution Of India, 1950 Article 252, Schedule Vii, List Ii, Entry 18 Urban Land Ceiling And Regulation Act, 1976 And Karnataka Land Reforms Act As Amended In 1974 Object And Application Of Whether Any Conflict Between The Acts Headnote In The Year 1972 The Karnataka Legislature Passed A Resolution Under Article 252 Of The Constitution Imposing A Ceiling On Urban Immovable Property And The Acquisition Of Such Property In Excess Of The Ceiling Is Limit For Public Purposes And All The Matters Connected Therewith Shall Be Regulated In The State By Parliament By Law On 1 4 74 The Karnataka Land Reforms Amendment Act Was Enacted And Under The Act The Tenant Of The Land Covered By The Act Was Entitled To The Grant Of Occupancy Rights After Making An Application Under The Act The Act Came Into Force With Effect From 2 1 85 But For The Purpose Of Grant Of Occupancy Rights, 1 4 74 Was The Relevant Date In The Year 1975 The Karnataka Urban Agglomeration Ordinance Was Passed, Of The Municipal Limits Of Hubli Dharwad Were Declared As Urban Agglomeration Land The Parliament Passed The Urban Land Ceiling And Regulation Act, 1976 For Imposition Of Ceiling On Urban Properties And The Ceiling Act Was Made Applicable To Karnataka Also In View Of The Resolution Passed By The State Government The Lands Involved In The Present Cases Were Covered By The Development Plan By The Belgaum City Town Planning Authority As Per The Master Plan And They Were Included And Declared As Urban Agglomeration In The City Of Hubli Under The Provisions Of The Ceiling Act The Owners Of The Agglomeration

03 November, 1992·PETITIONER:KRISHNA BHIMRAO DESHPANDE Vs. RESPONDENT:LAND TRIBUNAL, DHARWAD AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT03/11/1992 BENCH:[LALIT MOHAN SHARMA AND K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.] ACT:Constitution of India, 1950:Article 252 read with Schedule VII, List n Entry 18-Legislation by Parliament Requirement-Central La...

Judges: J S Verma, Yogeshwar Dayal Venkatachala, Jj

03 November, 1992·CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4649 of 1992.From the Judgment and Order dated 27.5.1991 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh in Regn. No. OA- 139-CH of 1990.Raj Birbal for the appellant.S.S. Nijjar, Bhal Singh Malik and Vishal Malik for the Respondents.The judgment of ...

Judges: A Ahmadi, M Punchhi, K Ramaswamy

03 November, 1992·1. These two appeals arise out of the conviction recorded by both the courts below whereby appellant No. 1, Arbind Singh, was convicted under Section 302 and Section 201 of the Penal Code for causing the death of his wife and destroying her dead body and was sentenced to imprisonment for life on the...

Judges: K J Reddy, G Ray

03 November, 1992·ORDER K. Jayachandra Reddy, J.1. There are six appellants. They alongwith one Khaman were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 302 I.P.C. for committing the murder of Chandra Shekhar and his brother Kamal Kishore. The trial court convicted the appellants herein and sentenced each...

Judges: K J Reddy, G Ray

03 November, 1992·ORDER G.N. Ray, J.1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment passed by the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No.334 of 1980 arising out of the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Indore in Sessions Trial 34 of 1980. The appellan...

Judges: K J Reddy

02 November, 1992·JUDGMENT K. Jayachandra Reddy, J.1. The sole appellant herein was tried along with five others for offences punishable under Sections 254, 255, 258, 259, 467 read with 120B. I.P.C. The gravemen of the charge was that all of them conspired and agreed to do the illegal act of counterfeiting of Governm...

Judges: J S Verma And S P Bharucha, Jj Act Commissions Of Inquiry Act, 1952 Sections 3, 7 And 8 A One Man Commission Replacement Of The Initial Appointee With Another Person Whether Permissible Under The Scheme Of The Act Whether Permissible Under The Scheme Of The Act Whether Section 21 Of The General Clauses Act, 1897 Could Be Invoked To Read Such Power Into The Act Headnote General Clauses Act, 1897 Section 21 Power To Add To Amend Or Vary Or Rescind Any Notification Whether Could Be Invoked To Reconstitute The Commission Of Inquiry By Replacement Of Substitution Of The Existing Members, Though Not Provided In The Scheme Of The Act Pursuant To The Direction Given By The State High Court, The Appellant State By A Notification Dated 24 2 1989, Constituted A Commission Of Inquiry Under The Commission Of Inquiry Act, 1952, To Investigate Into The Affairs Of The Children S Welfare Society, Of Which Respondent No 1 Was An Office Bearer And Appointed A Sitting Judge Of The High Court Of Another State As The Sole Member Of The Commission The Inquiry Was To Be Completed Within A Period Of Six Months, But The Period Was Extended From Time To Time Meanwhile, The Sole Member Became Due To Retire As A Judge Of The High Court On Attaining The Age Of Superannuation And, Therefore, Awing Attention To This Fact And Requesting That The Necessary Modalities Be Worked Out Well In Time For His Continuance As Commission Of Inquiry, In The Light Of The Guidelines Issued By The Government Of India For The Benefits And Emoluments Payable To A Judge On His Retirement In Such A Situation The Judge Also Mentioned Some Of The Facilities He Expected, To Which Be Would Not Be Entitled From The State Government On His Retirement The Chief Secretary Sent A Reply Dated 9 4 1991 To The Judge Promising To Give An Early Reply And Requesting Him To Continue With The Inquiry So That The Same Could Be Completed Early However, Without Further Reference To The

02 November, 1992·PETITIONER:STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. RESPONDENT:AJAY SINGH AND ORS. ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT02/11/1992 BENCH:[J.S. VERMA AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.] ACT:COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY ACT, 1952:Sections 3, 7 and 8-A One-man commission- Replacement of the initial appointee with another person-Whether permissible ...

Judges: Kuldip Singh And Yogeshwar Dayal, Jj Act Indian Penal Code Section 161 Prevention Of Corruption Act, 1947 Sections 5 1 D And 5 2 Demand For Illegal Gratification Statement Of Complainant Not Coroborated Not Supported By Panch Witnesses Complainant Admitting That He Wanted To Teach Accused A Lesson For Harassing Businessmen Held Accused Entitled To Acquittal Headnote The Prosecution Case Was That The Complainant Was Running A Shop And Dealing In Kimam And That On 7 Th January, 1984, The Chief Inspector In The Health Department Accused No 1 And Accused No 2 Appellant In The Appeal, Accused No 3 And Accused No 4 Who Were Working As Food Inspectors Had Approached The Complainant At His Shop And Stated That A They Had Been Inspecting Food Articles For Adulteration, And Took A Bottle Of Kimam And Opened It For Sample And When The Complainant Told Them That It May Be Taken In Sealed Condition, They Refused To Do So And Stated That The Sample Would Not Be Passed And The Complainant Would Be Put To Difficulties, Unless He Paid Rs 5, 000 The Complainant Was Not Wiling To Make Such Payment But He Was Pressurised On The Next Day, 8 Th January, 1984 Accused No 4 Came To The Shop To Enquire Whether The Money Had Been Arranged He Was Given Rs 500 And The Balance Was Promised To Be Given On 30 Th January, 1984 On 30 Th January, 1984 The Complainant Approaehed The Office Of The Anti Corruption Bureau And Gave His Complaint Two Panchas Were Called By The A C B, The Number Of 40 Currency Notes Of Rs 100 Each Were Noted Done In Two Batches Of 20 Each, The Currency Notes Were Treated With Anthracene Powder, A Demonstration Was Made And Shown To The Complainant And The Panchas Panch No 1 Was To Remain With The Complainant And Panch No 2 Was To Remain With The Raiding Party The Complainant And Panch No 1 Went To The Stop At About 6 00 P M And When Accused No 2 Demanded The Money, The Complainant Gave It To Him, When He Was Apprehended By The Raiding Party The Hands Of Accused No 2 Appellant Were Seen In The Ultra Violet Light And The Four Fingers And Thumb Of The Right Hand Showed The Light Blue Colour And White Sparkle The Currency Notes Also Showed The Anthracene Powder In The Ultra Violet Light Thereafter, The Complainant And Panchas Went To The Residence Of Accused No 1 The Complainant Offered Money T

02 November, 1992·PETITIONER:SHANTILAL KASHIBHAI PATEL Vs. RESPONDENT:STATE OF GUJARAT DATE OF JUDGMENT02/11/1992 BENCH:[KULDIP SINGH AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.] ACT:Indian Penal Code: Section 161.Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Sections 5(1) (d) and 5(2).Demand for illegal gratification-Statement of complainant- N...