Supreme Court Decisions/Judgements Directory

Judges: Kuldip Singh Kasliwal, Jj

15 October, 1992·CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 483 of 1980.From the Judgment and Order dated 6.11.79 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Crl. A. No. 789 of 1979. T.V.S.R. Krishna Sastry, Vishnu Mathur and V.B. Saharya, Amicus curiee (NP) for the Appellants.G. Prabhakar for the Respondent.The J...

Judges: Kuldip Singh And N M Kasliwal, Jj Act Limitation Act, 1963 Article 137 Excess Land Beyond Terms Of Decree In Execution Proceedings By Mistake Recorded By Way Of Symbolical Possession Application For Rectifying Mistake And Restitution Date Of Commencement Of Limitation Headnote In Execution Of Decree For Pre Emption Obtained By The Respondent He Was Delivered Actual Possession As Well As Symbolic Possession Of Lands According To The Decree, The Respondent Was Only Entitle To Actual Possession, And So Far As The Delivery Of Symbolic Possession Was Concerned, It Was Beyond The Terms Of The Decree The Father Of The Appellants Having Come To Know About The Aforesaid Mistake, Filed A Suit For Declaration And For Permanent Injunction In The Year 1965, Which Was Decreed In His Favour, And The Said Declaratory Decree Was Affirmed In Appeal By The Additional District Judge On 12 5 1969, But The Relief Of Injunction Was Denied As He Was In Actual Possession Of The Portion Over Which Symbolic Possession Was Recorded In Execution Proceedings This Order Became Final The Respondent In The Appeal Filed A Suit For Partition In The Year 1973 Claiming Not Only The Lands In Which He Had Obtained Actual Physical Possession, But Also The Lands On Which He Was Granted Symbolic Possession In The Execution Proceedings In 1963 After The Filing Of The Suit For Partition, The Appellants Filed An Objection Petition Under Sections 47, 151 And 152 Of The Code Of Civil Procedure Praying That Necessary Correction May Be Made In Revenue Record By Restitution Of Excessive Area Wrongly Delivered To The Decree Holder The Respondent Decree Holder Contested The Application And One Of The Ground Raised Was That The Objection Petition Was Barred By Limitation As The Same Was That The Objection Petition Was Barred By Limitation As The Same Was Not Filed Within Three Years Of The Order Dated 13 6 1963, Under Which Symbolic Possession Was Given To The Decree Holder The Sub Judge Held That The Limitation Will Only Start To Run When The Respondent Decree Holder Tried To Interfere In The Possession Of The Petitioners By Filing The Partition Proceedings In The Year 1973 It Was Also Held That The Decree Holder Had Already Obtained Possession Of The Land To Which He Was Entitled Under The Decree And He Was Not Entitled To Retain The Possession Of The Excessive Area Of Which

15 October, 1992·PETITIONER:MANGALBHAI AND ORS.Vs. RESPONDENT:DR. RADHYSHYAM S/O PARISCHANDRA AGARWAL DATE OF JUDGMENT17/07/1992 BENCH:KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) BENCH:KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) RAMASWAMY, K.CITATION:1992 SCR (3) 537 1992 SCC (3) 448 JT 1992 (4) 208 1992 SCALE (2)36 ACT:C.P. and Berar Letting of Houses and R...

Judges: Kuldip Singh And N M Kasliwal, Jj Act Limitation Act, 1963 Article 137 Excess Land Beyond Terms Of Decree In Execution Proceedings By Mistake Recorded By Way Of Symbolical Possession Application For Rectifying Mistake And Restitution Date Of Commencement Of Limitation Headnote In Execution Of Decree For Pre Emption Obtained By The Respondent He Was Delivered Actual Possession As Well As Symbolic Possession Of Lands According To The Decree, The Respondent Was Only Entitle To Actual Possession, And So Far As The Delivery Of Symbolic Possession Was Concerned, It Was Beyond The Terms Of The Decree The Father Of The Appellants Having Come To Know About The Aforesaid Mistake, Filed A Suit For Declaration And For Permanent Injunction In The Year 1965, Which Was Decreed In His Favour, And The Said Declaratory Decree Was Affirmed In Appeal By The Additional District Judge On 12 5 1969, But The Relief Of Injunction Was Denied As He Was In Actual Possession Of The Portion Over Which Symbolic Possession Was Recorded In Execution Proceedings This Order Became Final The Respondent In The Appeal Filed A Suit For Partition In The Year 1973 Claiming Not Only The Lands In Which He Had Obtained Actual Physical Possession, But Also The Lands On Which He Was Granted Symbolic Possession In The Execution Proceedings In 1963 After The Filing Of The Suit For Partition, The Appellants Filed An Objection Petition Under Sections 47, 151 And 152 Of The Code Of Civil Procedure Praying That Necessary Correction May Be Made In Revenue Record By Restitution Of Excessive Area Wrongly Delivered To The Decree Holder The Respondent Decree Holder Contested The Application And One Of The Ground Raised Was That The Objection Petition Was Barred By Limitation As The Same Was That The Objection Petition Was Barred By Limitation As The Same Was Not Filed Within Three Years Of The Order Dated 13 6 1963, Under Which Symbolic Possession Was Given To The Decree Holder The Sub Judge Held That The Limitation Will Only Start To Run When The Respondent Decree Holder Tried To Interfere In The Possession Of The Petitioners By Filing The Partition Proceedings In The Year 1973 It Was Also Held That The Decree Holder Had Already Obtained Possession Of The Land To Which He Was Entitled Under The Decree And He Was Not Entitled To Retain The Possession Of The Excessive Area Of Which

15 October, 1992·PETITIONER:MOHAN PANDEY AND ANOTHER Vs. RESPONDENT:SMT. USHA RANI RAJGARIA AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT19/08/1992 BENCH:SHARMA, L.M. (J) BENCH:SHARMA, L.M. (J) RANGNATHAN, S.CITATION:1993 AIR 1225 1992 SCR (3) 904 1992 SCC (4) 61 JT 1992 (4) 572 1992 SCALE (2)220 ACT:Constitution of India, 1950...

Judges: Kuldip Singh And N M Kasliwal, Jj Act Limitation Act, 1963 Article 137 Excess Land Beyond Terms Of Decree In Execution Proceedings By Mistake Recorded By Way Of Symbolical Possession Application For Rectifying Mistake And Restitution Date Of Commencement Of Limitation Headnote In Execution Of Decree For Pre Emption Obtained By The Respondent He Was Delivered Actual Possession As Well As Symbolic Possession Of Lands According To The Decree, The Respondent Was Only Entitle To Actual Possession, And So Far As The Delivery Of Symbolic Possession Was Concerned, It Was Beyond The Terms Of The Decree The Father Of The Appellants Having Come To Know About The Aforesaid Mistake, Filed A Suit For Declaration And For Permanent Injunction In The Year 1965, Which Was Decreed In His Favour, And The Said Declaratory Decree Was Affirmed In Appeal By The Additional District Judge On 12 5 1969, But The Relief Of Injunction Was Denied As He Was In Actual Possession Of The Portion Over Which Symbolic Possession Was Recorded In Execution Proceedings This Order Became Final The Respondent In The Appeal Filed A Suit For Partition In The Year 1973 Claiming Not Only The Lands In Which He Had Obtained Actual Physical Possession, But Also The Lands On Which He Was Granted Symbolic Possession In The Execution Proceedings In 1963 After The Filing Of The Suit For Partition, The Appellants Filed An Objection Petition Under Sections 47, 151 And 152 Of The Code Of Civil Procedure Praying That Necessary Correction May Be Made In Revenue Record By Restitution Of Excessive Area Wrongly Delivered To The Decree Holder The Respondent Decree Holder Contested The Application And One Of The Ground Raised Was That The Objection Petition Was Barred By Limitation As The Same Was That The Objection Petition Was Barred By Limitation As The Same Was Not Filed Within Three Years Of The Order Dated 13 6 1963, Under Which Symbolic Possession Was Given To The Decree Holder The Sub Judge Held That The Limitation Will Only Start To Run When The Respondent Decree Holder Tried To Interfere In The Possession Of The Petitioners By Filing The Partition Proceedings In The Year 1973 It Was Also Held That The Decree Holder Had Already Obtained Possession Of The Land To Which He Was Entitled Under The Decree And He Was Not Entitled To Retain The Possession Of The Excessive Area Of Which

15 October, 1992·PETITIONER:S. RAJAN Vs.RESPONDENT:STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER DATE OF JUDGMENT29/07/1992 BENCH:JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) BENCH:JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) SAWANT, P.B.CITATION:1992 AIR 1918 1992 SCR (3) 649 1992 SCC (3) 608 JT 1992 (4) 312 1992 SCALE (2)86 ACT:Arbitration Act, 1940-Section 20(1) rea...

Judges: Kuldip Singh And N M Kasliwal, Jj Act Limitation Act, 1963 Article 137 Excess Land Beyond Terms Of Decree In Execution Proceedings By Mistake Recorded By Way Of Symbolical Possession Application For Rectifying Mistake And Restitution Date Of Commencement Of Limitation Headnote In Execution Of Decree For Pre Emption Obtained By The Respondent He Was Delivered Actual Possession As Well As Symbolic Possession Of Lands According To The Decree, The Respondent Was Only Entitle To Actual Possession, And So Far As The Delivery Of Symbolic Possession Was Concerned, It Was Beyond The Terms Of The Decree The Father Of The Appellants Having Come To Know About The Aforesaid Mistake, Filed A Suit For Declaration And For Permanent Injunction In The Year 1965, Which Was Decreed In His Favour, And The Said Declaratory Decree Was Affirmed In Appeal By The Additional District Judge On 12 5 1969, But The Relief Of Injunction Was Denied As He Was In Actual Possession Of The Portion Over Which Symbolic Possession Was Recorded In Execution Proceedings This Order Became Final The Respondent In The Appeal Filed A Suit For Partition In The Year 1973 Claiming Not Only The Lands In Which He Had Obtained Actual Physical Possession, But Also The Lands On Which He Was Granted Symbolic Possession In The Execution Proceedings In 1963 After The Filing Of The Suit For Partition, The Appellants Filed An Objection Petition Under Sections 47, 151 And 152 Of The Code Of Civil Procedure Praying That Necessary Correction May Be Made In Revenue Record By Restitution Of Excessive Area Wrongly Delivered To The Decree Holder The Respondent Decree Holder Contested The Application And One Of The Ground Raised Was That The Objection Petition Was Barred By Limitation As The Same Was That The Objection Petition Was Barred By Limitation As The Same Was Not Filed Within Three Years Of The Order Dated 13 6 1963, Under Which Symbolic Possession Was Given To The Decree Holder The Sub Judge Held That The Limitation Will Only Start To Run When The Respondent Decree Holder Tried To Interfere In The Possession Of The Petitioners By Filing The Partition Proceedings In The Year 1973 It Was Also Held That The Decree Holder Had Already Obtained Possession Of The Land To Which He Was Entitled Under The Decree And He Was Not Entitled To Retain The Possession Of The Excessive Area Of Which

15 October, 1992·PETITIONER:STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. RESPONDENT:VIKAS SAHEBRAO ROUNDALE AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT11/08/1992 BENCH:RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH:RAMASWAMY, K. KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) RAY, G.N. (J) CITATION:1992 AIR 1926 1992 SCR (3) 792 1992 SCC (4) 435 JT 1992 (5) 175 1992 SCALE (2)163 ACT:Article 226-III e...

Judges: Kuldip Singh And N M Kasliwal, Jj Act Civil Service Madhya Pradesh Public Health Engineering Gazetted Service Rules, 1980 Schedule Iv Post Of Assistant Engineer Promotion Eligibility Counting Of 8 Years Of Service Whether From The Date Of Acquiring Degree Of Engineering Or On The Basis Of Length Of Service Madhya Pradesh Public Health Engineering Gazetted Service Rules, 1980 Schedule Iv Post Of Assistant Engineer Promotion Eligibility Counting Of 8 Years Of Service Procedure In The Absence Of Provisions In The Rules Whether On The Basis Of Length Of Service C A No 4225 1992 Arising Out Of Slp No 2507 1992 Headnote The Appellants And The Private Respondents Were Sub Engineers In Public Health Engineering Department Of The Government The Minimum Period For Sub Engineer To Qualify For Promotion To The Post Of Assistant Engineer Was 12 Years For Diploma Holders And 8 Years For Such Sub Engineers Who Obtained The Degree Of Graduation In The Course Of Service By An Executive Order Dated 7 2 1989, Quota Of Direct Recruitment Was Reduced To 50 Per Cent And The Quota By Promotion From The Sub Engineers, Aftsman, Increased To 50 Per Cent The 50 Per Cent Quota By Promotion Was Sub Divided The Promotion Quota For Category Of The Graduate Sub Engineers Completing 8 Years Of Service Was 10 The Principle Of Counting The Seniority Was From The Date Of Their Continuous Officiation Irrespective Of The Date On Which Such Diploma Holder Sub Engineer Acquired Degree Of Graduation In Engineering The Departmental Promotion Committee Considered The Cases Of 30 Graduate Sub Engineers For Promotion To The Post Of Assistant Engineers And By Order Dated 4 12 1989 It Prepared A Panel Of 18 Graduate Sub Engineers Found Suitable For Promotion To The Post Of Assistant Engineer On 6 12 1989 The Government Promoted One M B Joshi And Six Others As Assistant Engineer, Who Are Appellants In Appeal Arising Out Of Special Leave Petition No 2507 Of 1992 The Private Respondents In The Appeal, Filed And Application In The State Administrative Tribunal Challenging The Orders Dated 4 12 1989 And 6 12 1989 They Contended That The Seniority For The Purpose Of Promotion To The Post Of Assistant Engineers In 10 Per Cent Quota Of Graduate Sub

15 October, 1992·PETITIONER:M.B. JOSHI AND ORS. ETC. ETC.Vs. RESPONDENT:SATISH KUMAR PANDEY AND ORS. ETC. ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT15/10/1992 BENCH:KULDIP SINGH AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.ACT:Civil Service:Madhya Pradesh Public Health Engineering (Gazetted) Service Rules, 1980:Schedule IV-Post of Assistant Engineer-Promoti...

Judges: L Sharma, A Anand

15 October, 1992·1. This civil appeal arises out of an application made by the respondent under Section 11(1) of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953 (Act No. 15 of 1954) for acquiring the right, title and interest of the owner in the property in question. It has been alleg...

Judges: K J Reddy, G Ray

15 October, 1992·ORDER K. Jayachandra Reddy, J.1. The sole appellant herein was convicted by the trial court under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life for causing the death of his wife. The appeal preferred by him was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal.2. The prosecution case...

Judges: K J Reddy, G Ray

15 October, 1992·ORDER K. Jayachandra Reddy, J.1. This appeal is filed under Section 379 Cr.P.C. read with Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 350 DBA of 1980. There are two appellants. T...

Judges: Kuldip Singh And N M Kasliwal, Jj Act Limitation Act, 1963 Article 137 Excess Land Beyond Terms Of Decree In Execution Proceedings By Mistake Recorded By Way Of Symbolical Possession Application For Rectifying Mistake And Restitution Date Of Commencement Of Limitation Headnote In Execution Of Decree For Pre Emption Obtained By The Respondent He Was Delivered Actual Possession As Well As Symbolic Possession Of Lands According To The Decree, The Respondent Was Only Entitle To Actual Possession, And So Far As The Delivery Of Symbolic Possession Was Concerned, It Was Beyond The Terms Of The Decree The Father Of The Appellants Having Come To Know About The Aforesaid Mistake, Filed A Suit For Declaration And For Permanent Injunction In The Year 1965, Which Was Decreed In His Favour, And The Said Declaratory Decree Was Affirmed In Appeal By The Additional District Judge On 12 5 1969, But The Relief Of Injunction Was Denied As He Was In Actual Possession Of The Portion Over Which Symbolic Possession Was Recorded In Execution Proceedings This Order Became Final The Respondent In The Appeal Filed A Suit For Partition In The Year 1973 Claiming Not Only The Lands In Which He Had Obtained Actual Physical Possession, But Also The Lands On Which He Was Granted Symbolic Possession In The Execution Proceedings In 1963 After The Filing Of The Suit For Partition, The Appellants Filed An Objection Petition Under Sections 47, 151 And 152 Of The Code Of Civil Procedure Praying That Necessary Correction May Be Made In Revenue Record By Restitution Of Excessive Area Wrongly Delivered To The Decree Holder The Respondent Decree Holder Contested The Application And One Of The Ground Raised Was That The Objection Petition Was Barred By Limitation As The Same Was That The Objection Petition Was Barred By Limitation As The Same Was Not Filed Within Three Years Of The Order Dated 13 6 1963, Under Which Symbolic Possession Was Given To The Decree Holder The Sub Judge Held That The Limitation Will Only Start To Run When The Respondent Decree Holder Tried To Interfere In The Possession Of The Petitioners By Filing The Partition Proceedings In The Year 1973 It Was Also Held That The Decree Holder Had Already Obtained Possession Of The Land To Which He Was Entitled Under The Decree And He Was Not Entitled To Retain The Possession Of The Excessive Area Of Which

15 October, 1992·PETITIONER:B. LAKSHMIPATHI NAIDU Vs. RESPONDENT:DISTT. EDUCATIONAL OFFICER AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT11/08/1992 BENCH:SHARMA, L.M. (J) BENCH:SHARMA, L.M. (J) MOHAN, S. (J) VENKATACHALA N. (J) CITATION:1992 AIR 2003 1992 SCR (3) 782 1992 SCC (4) 8 JT 1992 (4) 494 1992 SCALE (2)182 ACT:Special...