Supreme Court Decisions/Judgements Directory

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:N.K. BAPNA Vs. RESPONDENT:UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT14/05/1992 BENCH:RANGNATHAN, S. BENCH:RANGNATHAN, S. RAMASWAMI, V. (J) II YOGESHWAR DAYAL (J) CITATION:1992 SCR (3) 267 1992 SCC (3) 512 JT 1992 (4) 49 1992 SCALE (1)1135 ACT:Constitution of India, 1950:Articles 21, ...

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.N. GOSAIN A Vs. RESPONDENT:YASHPAL DHIR DATE OF JUDGMENT23/10/1992 BENCH:[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 und...

Judges: S Mohan, B J Reddy

23 October, 1992·1. The appellant was charged under Section 5 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act of 1987 (for short TADA).2. The allegations on which he came to be punished under the said section are as under:On 25th August, 1988 when Balkar Sing, ASI with other police officials including M...

Judges: Kuldip Singh And N M Kasliwal, Jj Act Constitution Of India 1950 Article 136 Appeal Execution Of Promissory Note, Equitable Mortgage Etc For Loans For Bank Proof Statutory Presumption U S 118 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Liability Of Defendants To Pay The Amount Claimed By Bank Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 118 Promissory Note Consideration Presumption Of Proof Of Execution Of Pronote, Equitable Mortgage Etc For Bank Loans Liability Of Defendant To Pay The Amount Claimed By Bank Headnote The Appellant Bank Filed A Suit For The Recovery Of An Amount Of Rs 1, 21, 006 98 Due Under An Equitable Mortgage And Pronote Against The Defendant No 1, His Wife And His Son, The Defendant Nos 2 And 3 Respectively Accordingly To The Bank, The Defendant Nos 1 To 3 Executed A Promissory Note For Rs 1, 00, 000 On 26 8 1971 In Favour Of The Bank And Two Hypothecation Deeds In Respect Of A Schedule Properties They Also Executed And Equitable Mortgage On 28 8 1971 For B Schedule Properties The Consideration For The Transaction Also Included An Amount Of Rs 71, 000 Granted By The Bank In Favour Of 37 Persons By Way Of Short Term Loans The Defendant No 1 Has Executed A Guarantee Agreement On 14 6 1971 In Favour Of The Bank In Respect Of The Short Term Loan In Favour Of 37 Persons The Defendant No 1 Denied The Execution Of Guarantee Agreement As Well As The Promissory Note He Also Denied The Furnishing Of Any Guarantee With Regard To The Repayment Of Loans Amounting To Rs 71, 000 To 37 Persons He Contended That The Agent Of The Bank In Order To Ward Off His Own Prosecution And Arrest For Having Advanced Large Amounts As Loans To Landless Persons In An Irregular Manner, Obtained The Signatures Of The Defendant On A Printed Promissory Note Without The Details Having Been Filled Up And That The Documents Were Got Executed By Exercise Of Fraud, Undue Influence, Coercion And Misrepresentation The Defendant Nos 2 And 3 In Their Separate Written Statements Took The Same Stand As Taken By The Defendant No 1 The Defendant No 3 Also Filed A Separate Additional Written Statement Taking The Ground That As He Was Born On 12 11 1953, He Being Minor On The Date Of The Alleged Execution Of The Promissory Note, The Same Was Void As Against Him The Trial Court Decreed The Suit In Favour Of The Ban

22 October, 1992·PETITIONER:GENGABAI CHARITIES Vs. RESPONDENT:COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT24/07/1992 BENCH:KULDIP SINGH (J) BENCH:KULDIP SINGH (J) YOGESHWAR DAYAL (J) CITATION:1992 AIR 1765 1992 SCR (3) 626 1992 SCC (3) 690 JT 1992 (4) 216 1992 SCALE (2)79 ACT:Income tax Act, 1961-Sec...

Judges: S Ranganathan, V Ramaswami Reddy, Jj

22 October, 1992·ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 90 of 1981 etc. etc, (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India). Dr. Devi Prasad Pal, Dinesh Vyas, P.H. Parekh, B.N. Aggarwal, A.S. Rao, Ravinder Narain, S. Ganesh, A.K. Verma, Amrita Mitra, Ms. Priya Hingorani, S. Sukumaran, Ms. Amrita Mitra, Ms. S.Bagg...

Judges: S Ranganathan, V Ramaswami Reddy, Jj

22 October, 1992·ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (c) Nos. 655-69 of 1983.(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).WITH W.P. (C) 8131-33/82, 8125-30/82, 8349-8368/52, 8146- 8166/82, 9610 9630/82, 3756-87/83, 3698-3755/83, 947-960/83, 250/86, C.A. Nos. 4099 4103/82, 10753-57/83, 10758-60/83, 10761/83, W.P....

Judges: M Venkatachaliah, S Agrawal, A Anand

22 October, 1992·1. We have heard Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner under the "Supreme Court Senior Advocates Free Legal Aid Scheme" and Shri B.B. Singh, learned Counsel for the State of Bihar.2. The petitioner-Shri Nalini Kant Sinha-retired from service as Deputy Secretary to the Govern...

Judges: S Ranganathan, V Ramaswami Reddy, Jj

22 October, 1992·Engineers. It has tow factories, the latter at Maneja and the former at Pratapnagar. The dispute between two group P.P. & J.P on the one hand, and B.P. & G.P. on the other, was in regard to the equal division of the assets and liabilities for the two businesses o the retirement of P.P & J.P. from th...

Judges: L Sharma, S Mohan, N Venkatachala

22 October, 1992·1. Leave granted.2. The appellant K. Gopinathan was working as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. He was taken on deputation in the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short CBI) on 1.2.65. On such deputation he was paid his pay pertaining to the post of his parent office, as modified from time to t...

Judges: K Singh, N Kasliwal

22 October, 1992·ORDER N.M. Kasliwal, J.1. This is a tenant's appeal by grant of special leave against the judgment of the Madras High Court dated 16.2.1982.2. The respondent-landlords filed a petition for eviction of the appellant from 4.77 acres of agricultural land on account of default in the payment of rent amo...