Supreme Court Decisions/Judgements Directory

Judges: K Jayachandra Reddy And S C Agrawal, Jj Act Constitution Of India, 1950 Article 136 Special Leave Petition Whether Entertainable, When Petitioner Tenant Avails Protection From Eviction On The Basis Of Undertaking East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 Section 13 A Eviction Of Tenant High Court S Order Protection From Eviction Availed By Tenant Under An Undertaking Invoking Supreme Court Under Article 136 Of The Constitution Assailing High Court S Judgment Legality Of Headnote A Residential House Was Let Out To The Petitioner By The Respondent The Respondent Was Initially Employed As Accounts Officer With The Finance Department Of The Government In 1969, He Went On Deputation With The Haryana Agricultural University While He Was Employed On The Post Of Comptroller In The University He Retired From Service With Effect From February 28, 1991 Claiming To Be A Specified Landlord Within The Meaning Of Section 2 Hh Of The East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, The Respondent Moved A Petition Seeking Eviction Of The Petitioner Under Section 13 A Of The Act Before The Rent Controller The Petition Was Dismissed By The Rent Controller On The View That The Respondent Did Not Fall Within The Ambit Of The Definition Of Specified Landlord, Since He Failed To Show That He Was Holding Or Had Held An Appointment In A Public Service Or Post In Connection With The Affairs Of The Union Or Of The State The Respondent Filed A Revision Petition Before The High Court Under Section 18 A 8 Of The Act, Which Was Allowed By The High Court On March, 1992 The High Court Held That The Respondent, At The Time Of His Retirement From The Post Of Comptroller In The University, Was Holding An Appointment In Connection With The Affairs Of The State And Hence He Was A Specified Landlord Within The Meaning Of Section 2 Hh Of The Act And That The Respondent Had Fully Satisfied The Conditions As Contained In Section 13 A Of The Act And He Was Entitled To Recover The Possession Of The Premises In Dispute From The Petitioner The High Court Allowed One Month S Time For The Petitioner To Vacate The Premises Subject To His Paying The Entire Arrears Of Rent Within 15 Days From The Date Of The Order And Filing An Undertaking That He Would Hand Over The Vacant Possession Of The Premises On The Expiry Of The Aforesaid Period On March 16, 1992, The Petitioner Moved A Petition In The High Court Under Section 151 Cpc Seeking Three Months

23 October, 1992·PETITIONER:R. TAMILMANI Vs. RESPONDENT:UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT26/02/1992 BENCH:KANIA, M.H. (CJ) BENCH:KANIA, M.H. (CJ) SAHAI, R.M. (J) RAY, G.N. (J) CITATION:1992 AIR 1120 1992 SCR (1)1072 1992 SCC (2) 410 JT 1992 (2) 425 1992 SCALE (1)570 ACT:Indian Administrative Service...

Judges: K Jayachandra Reddy And S C Agrawal, Jj Act Constitution Of India, 1950 Article 136 Special Leave Petition Whether Entertainable, When Petitioner Tenant Avails Protection From Eviction On The Basis Of Undertaking East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 Section 13 A Eviction Of Tenant High Court S Order Protection From Eviction Availed By Tenant Under An Undertaking Invoking Supreme Court Under Article 136 Of The Constitution Assailing High Court S Judgment Legality Of Headnote A Residential House Was Let Out To The Petitioner By The Respondent The Respondent Was Initially Employed As Accounts Officer With The Finance Department Of The Government In 1969, He Went On Deputation With The Haryana Agricultural University While He Was Employed On The Post Of Comptroller In The University He Retired From Service With Effect From February 28, 1991 Claiming To Be A Specified Landlord Within The Meaning Of Section 2 Hh Of The East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, The Respondent Moved A Petition Seeking Eviction Of The Petitioner Under Section 13 A Of The Act Before The Rent Controller The Petition Was Dismissed By The Rent Controller On The View That The Respondent Did Not Fall Within The Ambit Of The Definition Of Specified Landlord, Since He Failed To Show That He Was Holding Or Had Held An Appointment In A Public Service Or Post In Connection With The Affairs Of The Union Or Of The State The Respondent Filed A Revision Petition Before The High Court Under Section 18 A 8 Of The Act, Which Was Allowed By The High Court On March, 1992 The High Court Held That The Respondent, At The Time Of His Retirement From The Post Of Comptroller In The University, Was Holding An Appointment In Connection With The Affairs Of The State And Hence He Was A Specified Landlord Within The Meaning Of Section 2 Hh Of The Act And That The Respondent Had Fully Satisfied The Conditions As Contained In Section 13 A Of The Act And He Was Entitled To Recover The Possession Of The Premises In Dispute From The Petitioner The High Court Allowed One Month S Time For The Petitioner To Vacate The Premises Subject To His Paying The Entire Arrears Of Rent Within 15 Days From The Date Of The Order And Filing An Undertaking That He Would Hand Over The Vacant Possession Of The Premises On The Expiry Of The Aforesaid Period On March 16, 1992, The Petitioner Moved A Petition In The High Court Under Section 151 Cpc Seeking Three Months

23 October, 1992·PETITIONER:DEVENDRA BHAI SHANKAR MEHTA Vs. RESPONDENT:RAMESHCHANDRA VITHALDAS SHETH AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT22/04/1992 BENCH:RAY, G.N. (J) BENCH:RAY, G.N. (J) KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) CITATION:1992 AIR 1398 1992 SCR (2) 687 1992 SCC (3) 473 JT 1992 (3) 560 1992 SCALE (1)875 ACT:Advocates Act, 196...

Judges: S Ranganathan Singh, Jj

23 October, 1992·CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No 3244 of 1988.From the Judgement and Order dated 8.7.1988 of the Karnataka High Court in W.A. No.560 of 1983.K.N. Bhat S.K. Kulkarni and Ms. Kiran Suri for the Appellant S.N Bhat M.Veerappa and K.H Nobin Singh for the respondents.The Judgment of the Court...

Judges: S Mohan, B J Reddy

23 October, 1992·JUDGMENT S. Mohan and B.P. Jeevan Reddy, JJ.1. The appellant took trial under Section 5 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (for short TADA) read with Section 25 of the Arms Act.2. The case of the prosecution is on 27-1-89 a police party headed by ASI Dilbagh Singh con...

Judges: S Ranganathan And N P Singh, Jj Act Civil Services Termination Of Service During Probation Period Overall Performance Consideration Of Termination Whether Amounts To Punishment Finding Out The Real Nature Of Order Tearing Of The Veil Applicability Of Preliminary Inquiry Or Examination Of Allegation Whether Vitiates Order Of Termination Of Service Headnote The Respondent Was Appointed As A Lecturer In The Appellant Institute And Was Put On Probation For One Year During The Probation Period His Services Were Terminated The Respondent Challenged The Same Before The High Court By Way Of A Writ Petition Contending That Actually Order Of Dismissal Has Been Passed In The Garb Of An Order Of Termination And That The Director Of The Institute Instead Of Initiating A Departmental Proceeding On The Basis Of Some Charges Levelled Against Him, Placed The Matter Before The Governing Council Of The Institute Termination Of His Services The High Court Gave Its Finding That Since The Service Of The Petitioner Had Been Terminated Because Of The Complaints Made Against Him, It Really Amounted To His Removal For Alleged Misconduct And So The Institute Should Have Initiated A Departmental Proceeding And Only After Due Enquiry Any Action Should Have Been Taken Being Aggrieved By The High Courts Order, The Appellant Institute Has Preferred The Present Appeal Allowing The Appeal, This Court, Held 1 1 When An Appointment Is Made On Probation, It Pre Supposes That The Conduct, Performance, Ability And The Capacity Of The Employee Concerned Have To Be Watched And Examined During The Period Of Probation He Is To Be Confirmed After The Expiry Of Probation Only When His Service During The Period Of Probation Is Found To Be Satisfactory And He Is Considered Suitable For The Post Against Which He Has Been Appointed The Principle Of Tearing Of The Veil For Finding Out The Real Nature Of The Order Shall Be Applicable Only In A Case Where The Court Is Satisfied That There Is A Direct Nexus Between The Charge So Levelled And The Action Taken If The Decision Is Taken To Terminate The Service Of An Employee During The Period Of Probation, After Taking Into Consideration The Overall Performance And Some Action Or Inaction On The Part Of Such Employee Then It Cannot Be Said That It Amounts To His Removal From Service As Punishment The Appointing Authorit

23 October, 1992·PETITIONER:B. HANUMANTHA RAO Vs. RESPONDENT:STATE OF A.P.DATE OF JUDGMENT26/03/1992 BENCH:KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) BENCH:KASLIWAL, N.M. (J)<table cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse:collapse"><tbody><tr style="height:12pt"><td style="width:150pt"><p class="s1" style="padding-left: 2pt;text-indent: 0pt;...

Judges: S Ranganathan And N P Singh, Jj Act Civil Services Termination Of Service During Probation Period Overall Performance Consideration Of Termination Whether Amounts To Punishment Finding Out The Real Nature Of Order Tearing Of The Veil Applicability Of Preliminary Inquiry Or Examination Of Allegation Whether Vitiates Order Of Termination Of Service Headnote The Respondent Was Appointed As A Lecturer In The Appellant Institute And Was Put On Probation For One Year During The Probation Period His Services Were Terminated The Respondent Challenged The Same Before The High Court By Way Of A Writ Petition Contending That Actually Order Of Dismissal Has Been Passed In The Garb Of An Order Of Termination And That The Director Of The Institute Instead Of Initiating A Departmental Proceeding On The Basis Of Some Charges Levelled Against Him, Placed The Matter Before The Governing Council Of The Institute Termination Of His Services The High Court Gave Its Finding That Since The Service Of The Petitioner Had Been Terminated Because Of The Complaints Made Against Him, It Really Amounted To His Removal For Alleged Misconduct And So The Institute Should Have Initiated A Departmental Proceeding And Only After Due Enquiry Any Action Should Have Been Taken Being Aggrieved By The High Courts Order, The Appellant Institute Has Preferred The Present Appeal Allowing The Appeal, This Court, Held 1 1 When An Appointment Is Made On Probation, It Pre Supposes That The Conduct, Performance, Ability And The Capacity Of The Employee Concerned Have To Be Watched And Examined During The Period Of Probation He Is To Be Confirmed After The Expiry Of Probation Only When His Service During The Period Of Probation Is Found To Be Satisfactory And He Is Considered Suitable For The Post Against Which He Has Been Appointed The Principle Of Tearing Of The Veil For Finding Out The Real Nature Of The Order Shall Be Applicable Only In A Case Where The Court Is Satisfied That There Is A Direct Nexus Between The Charge So Levelled And The Action Taken If The Decision Is Taken To Terminate The Service Of An Employee During The Period Of Probation, After Taking Into Consideration The Overall Performance And Some Action Or Inaction On The Part Of Such Employee Then It Cannot Be Said That It Amounts To His Removal From Service As Punishment The Appointing Authorit

23 October, 1992·PETITIONER:COMMON CAUSE REGISTERED SOCIETY Vs. RESPONDENT:UNION OF INDIA & ORS.DATE OF JUDGMENT18/08/1987 BENCH:MISRA RANGNATH BENCH:MISRA RANGNATH DUTT, M.M. (J) CITATION:1987 AIR 2211 1987 SCR (3) 996 1987 SCC (4) 44 JT 1987 (3) 352 1987 SCALE (2)254 ACT:Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 19...

Judges: S Ranganathan And N P Singh, Jj Act Civil Services Termination Of Service During Probation Period Overall Performance Consideration Of Termination Whether Amounts To Punishment Finding Out The Real Nature Of Order Tearing Of The Veil Applicability Of Preliminary Inquiry Or Examination Of Allegation Whether Vitiates Order Of Termination Of Service Headnote The Respondent Was Appointed As A Lecturer In The Appellant Institute And Was Put On Probation For One Year During The Probation Period His Services Were Terminated The Respondent Challenged The Same Before The High Court By Way Of A Writ Petition Contending That Actually Order Of Dismissal Has Been Passed In The Garb Of An Order Of Termination And That The Director Of The Institute Instead Of Initiating A Departmental Proceeding On The Basis Of Some Charges Levelled Against Him, Placed The Matter Before The Governing Council Of The Institute Termination Of His Services The High Court Gave Its Finding That Since The Service Of The Petitioner Had Been Terminated Because Of The Complaints Made Against Him, It Really Amounted To His Removal For Alleged Misconduct And So The Institute Should Have Initiated A Departmental Proceeding And Only After Due Enquiry Any Action Should Have Been Taken Being Aggrieved By The High Courts Order, The Appellant Institute Has Preferred The Present Appeal Allowing The Appeal, This Court, Held 1 1 When An Appointment Is Made On Probation, It Pre Supposes That The Conduct, Performance, Ability And The Capacity Of The Employee Concerned Have To Be Watched And Examined During The Period Of Probation He Is To Be Confirmed After The Expiry Of Probation Only When His Service During The Period Of Probation Is Found To Be Satisfactory And He Is Considered Suitable For The Post Against Which He Has Been Appointed The Principle Of Tearing Of The Veil For Finding Out The Real Nature Of The Order Shall Be Applicable Only In A Case Where The Court Is Satisfied That There Is A Direct Nexus Between The Charge So Levelled And The Action Taken If The Decision Is Taken To Terminate The Service Of An Employee During The Period Of Probation, After Taking Into Consideration The Overall Performance And Some Action Or Inaction On The Part Of Such Employee Then It Cannot Be Said That It Amounts To His Removal From Service As Punishment The Appointing Authorit

23 October, 1992·PETITIONER:MADAN GOPAL KAKKAD Vs. RESPONDENT:NAVAL DUBEY AND ANR.DATE OF JUDGMENT29/04/1992 BENCH:PANDIAN, S.R. (J) BENCH:PANDIAN, S.R. (J) FATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J) CITATION:1992 SCR (2) 921 1992 SCC (3) 204 JT 1992 (3) 270 1992 SCALE (1)957 ACT:Indian Penal Code, 1860 :Ss. 375, 376-Rape-Accuse...

Judges: S Ranganathan And N P Singh, Jj Act Civil Services Termination Of Service During Probation Period Overall Performance Consideration Of Termination Whether Amounts To Punishment Finding Out The Real Nature Of Order Tearing Of The Veil Applicability Of Preliminary Inquiry Or Examination Of Allegation Whether Vitiates Order Of Termination Of Service Headnote The Respondent Was Appointed As A Lecturer In The Appellant Institute And Was Put On Probation For One Year During The Probation Period His Services Were Terminated The Respondent Challenged The Same Before The High Court By Way Of A Writ Petition Contending That Actually Order Of Dismissal Has Been Passed In The Garb Of An Order Of Termination And That The Director Of The Institute Instead Of Initiating A Departmental Proceeding On The Basis Of Some Charges Levelled Against Him, Placed The Matter Before The Governing Council Of The Institute Termination Of His Services The High Court Gave Its Finding That Since The Service Of The Petitioner Had Been Terminated Because Of The Complaints Made Against Him, It Really Amounted To His Removal For Alleged Misconduct And So The Institute Should Have Initiated A Departmental Proceeding And Only After Due Enquiry Any Action Should Have Been Taken Being Aggrieved By The High Courts Order, The Appellant Institute Has Preferred The Present Appeal Allowing The Appeal, This Court, Held 1 1 When An Appointment Is Made On Probation, It Pre Supposes That The Conduct, Performance, Ability And The Capacity Of The Employee Concerned Have To Be Watched And Examined During The Period Of Probation He Is To Be Confirmed After The Expiry Of Probation Only When His Service During The Period Of Probation Is Found To Be Satisfactory And He Is Considered Suitable For The Post Against Which He Has Been Appointed The Principle Of Tearing Of The Veil For Finding Out The Real Nature Of The Order Shall Be Applicable Only In A Case Where The Court Is Satisfied That There Is A Direct Nexus Between The Charge So Levelled And The Action Taken If The Decision Is Taken To Terminate The Service Of An Employee During The Period Of Probation, After Taking Into Consideration The Overall Performance And Some Action Or Inaction On The Part Of Such Employee Then It Cannot Be Said That It Amounts To His Removal From Service As Punishment The Appointing Authorit

23 October, 1992·PETITIONER:GOVERNING COUNCIL OF KIDWAI MEMORIAL INSTITUTE OF ONCOLOGY, Vs. RESPONDENT:DR PANDURANG GODWALKAR AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT23/10/1992 BENCH:[S. RANGANATHAN AND N.P SINGH, JJ.] ACT:Civil Services :Termination of service during probation period-Overall performance-Consideration of-Terminat...

Judges: S Ranganathan And N P Singh, Jj Act Civil Services Termination Of Service During Probation Period Overall Performance Consideration Of Termination Whether Amounts To Punishment Finding Out The Real Nature Of Order Tearing Of The Veil Applicability Of Preliminary Inquiry Or Examination Of Allegation Whether Vitiates Order Of Termination Of Service Headnote The Respondent Was Appointed As A Lecturer In The Appellant Institute And Was Put On Probation For One Year During The Probation Period His Services Were Terminated The Respondent Challenged The Same Before The High Court By Way Of A Writ Petition Contending That Actually Order Of Dismissal Has Been Passed In The Garb Of An Order Of Termination And That The Director Of The Institute Instead Of Initiating A Departmental Proceeding On The Basis Of Some Charges Levelled Against Him, Placed The Matter Before The Governing Council Of The Institute Termination Of His Services The High Court Gave Its Finding That Since The Service Of The Petitioner Had Been Terminated Because Of The Complaints Made Against Him, It Really Amounted To His Removal For Alleged Misconduct And So The Institute Should Have Initiated A Departmental Proceeding And Only After Due Enquiry Any Action Should Have Been Taken Being Aggrieved By The High Courts Order, The Appellant Institute Has Preferred The Present Appeal Allowing The Appeal, This Court, Held 1 1 When An Appointment Is Made On Probation, It Pre Supposes That The Conduct, Performance, Ability And The Capacity Of The Employee Concerned Have To Be Watched And Examined During The Period Of Probation He Is To Be Confirmed After The Expiry Of Probation Only When His Service During The Period Of Probation Is Found To Be Satisfactory And He Is Considered Suitable For The Post Against Which He Has Been Appointed The Principle Of Tearing Of The Veil For Finding Out The Real Nature Of The Order Shall Be Applicable Only In A Case Where The Court Is Satisfied That There Is A Direct Nexus Between The Charge So Levelled And The Action Taken If The Decision Is Taken To Terminate The Service Of An Employee During The Period Of Probation, After Taking Into Consideration The Overall Performance And Some Action Or Inaction On The Part Of Such Employee Then It Cannot Be Said That It Amounts To His Removal From Service As Punishment The Appointing Authorit

23 October, 1992·PETITIONER:OFFICIAL TRUSTEE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. RESPONDENT:UDAVUMKARANKAL AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT29/01/1993 BENCH:SAWANT, P.B. BENCH:SAWANT, P.B. KULDIP SINGH (J) CITATION:1993 AIR 1472 1993 SCR (1) 380 1993 SCC Supl. (3) 509 JT 1993 (1) 592 1993 SCALE (1)566 ACT:Official Trustees Act, 1913 :Se...

Judges: S Ranganathan And N P Singh, Jj Act Civil Services Termination Of Service During Probation Period Overall Performance Consideration Of Termination Whether Amounts To Punishment Finding Out The Real Nature Of Order Tearing Of The Veil Applicability Of Preliminary Inquiry Or Examination Of Allegation Whether Vitiates Order Of Termination Of Service Headnote The Respondent Was Appointed As A Lecturer In The Appellant Institute And Was Put On Probation For One Year During The Probation Period His Services Were Terminated The Respondent Challenged The Same Before The High Court By Way Of A Writ Petition Contending That Actually Order Of Dismissal Has Been Passed In The Garb Of An Order Of Termination And That The Director Of The Institute Instead Of Initiating A Departmental Proceeding On The Basis Of Some Charges Levelled Against Him, Placed The Matter Before The Governing Council Of The Institute Termination Of His Services The High Court Gave Its Finding That Since The Service Of The Petitioner Had Been Terminated Because Of The Complaints Made Against Him, It Really Amounted To His Removal For Alleged Misconduct And So The Institute Should Have Initiated A Departmental Proceeding And Only After Due Enquiry Any Action Should Have Been Taken Being Aggrieved By The High Courts Order, The Appellant Institute Has Preferred The Present Appeal Allowing The Appeal, This Court, Held 1 1 When An Appointment Is Made On Probation, It Pre Supposes That The Conduct, Performance, Ability And The Capacity Of The Employee Concerned Have To Be Watched And Examined During The Period Of Probation He Is To Be Confirmed After The Expiry Of Probation Only When His Service During The Period Of Probation Is Found To Be Satisfactory And He Is Considered Suitable For The Post Against Which He Has Been Appointed The Principle Of Tearing Of The Veil For Finding Out The Real Nature Of The Order Shall Be Applicable Only In A Case Where The Court Is Satisfied That There Is A Direct Nexus Between The Charge So Levelled And The Action Taken If The Decision Is Taken To Terminate The Service Of An Employee During The Period Of Probation, After Taking Into Consideration The Overall Performance And Some Action Or Inaction On The Part Of Such Employee Then It Cannot Be Said That It Amounts To His Removal From Service As Punishment The Appointing Authorit

23 October, 1992·PETITIONER:K.M. SINGH Vs. RESPONDENT:SECRETARY, ASSOCIATION OF INDIAN UNIVERSITIESAND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT21/04/1992 BENCH:YOGESHWAR DAYAL (J) BENCH:YOGESHWAR DAYAL (J) PANDIAN, S.R. (J) REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J) CITATION:1992 AIR 1356 1992 SCR (2) 630 1992 SCC (3) 129 JT 1992 (4) 12 1992...