advocatemmmohan
Appellant
whether the appellant be granted leave to defend the eviction petition filed by the respondents-landlords. = when there is a fair dispute to be tried in the eviction petition and the appellant be granted leave to defend. However, leave to defend could be granted to the appellant only conditionally. =2014 – Oct- Part- SHANTI DEVI …Appellant Versus RAJESH KUMAR JAIN & ANR. ..Respondents
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9378 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 37274/2012) SHANTI DEVI …Appellant Versus RAJESH KUMAR JAIN & ANR. ..Respondents O R D E R R. BANUMATHI, J. Leave granted. 2. In this appeal, short question falling for consideration is whether the … Continue reading
Service Matter – Higher post salary when entitled for – whether the appellant is entitled to salary of high post where in he had worked for few years as in charge with specific terms – Apex court held that The order dated 28th February, 2001, by which the appellant was allowed to discharge duties in the post of Assistant Manager had made it clear that the appellant would not be entitled to claim any benefit therefrom including higher salary and further that he would continue to draw his salary in the post of Assistant Labour Welfare Officer. If the above was an express term of the order allowing him to discharge duties in the higher post, it is difficult to see as to how the said condition can be overlooked or ignored and dismissed the appeal =CIVIL APPEAL NO.7692 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5396 OF 2013) A. FRANCIS … APPELLANT (S) VERSUS THE MANAGEMENT OF METROPOLITAN … RESPONDENT (S) TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD., TAMIL NADU = 2014- Aug. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41827
Service Matter – Higher post salary when entitled for – whether the appellant is entitled to salary of high post where in he had worked for few years as in charge with specific terms – Apex court held that The order dated 28th February, 2001, by which the appellant was allowed to discharge duties in the … Continue reading
Service Matter – Seniority – Promotion – mere having B.Ed. Degree can the junior as a senior in Trained Graduates cadre over power the senior candidate and can be designated as senior for promotion – Apex court set aside the order of High court and held that we find that in the case at hand there is a specific Rule, namely, Rule 12 of the Rules, which deals with seniority. The clear and unambiguous criteria for determining seniority is the continuous officiation counted from the date of acquiring the educational qualification as prescribed under Schedule “B”. since the appellant was holding the requisite qualifications, i.e. D.Ed., for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary School, as prescribed under Schedule “B” to the Rules, her seniority was to be counted on the basis of continuous officiation. Since she joined the post of Assistant Teacher on 24.08.1979 and respondent No.4 came to be appointed subsequently, i.e. on 01.09.1980. The appellant would naturally be senior to respondent No.4.Insofar as manning the post of Head of the School is concerned, Rule 3 of the Rules provides for the qualifications. It is not in dispute that as on the date of which the Head of the School was to be appointed, the appellant fulfilled all the requisite qualifications mentioned in the said Rule. Further, as already found, she was senior to respondent No.4 as well. Therefore, it is the appellant who was the rightful claimant to the post of Head of the School. Depriving her of this legitimate right and making the appointment of respondent No.4 as the Head Master of the School was, therefore, clearly erroneous, which resulted in infringement of the rights of the appellant to hold that post. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Judgment of the High Court is set aside and a direction is issued to appoint the appellant as Head of the School by replacing respondent No.4 therefrom. This direction shall be carried out within a period of four weeks from today.= CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7699 OF 2014 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 29696 of 2013) |VIMAN VAMAN AWALE |…..APPELLANT(S) | |VERSUS | | |GANGADHAR MAKHRIYA CHARITABLE TRUST & |…..RESPONDENT(S) | |ORS. | | = 2014- Aug. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41826
Service Matter – Seniority – Promotion – mere having B.Ed. Degree can the junior as a senior in Trained Graduates cadre over power the senior candidate and can be designated as senior for promotion – Apex court set aside the order of High court and held that we find that in the case at hand there is a … Continue reading
Sec. 302, 308 r/w 34 of I.P.C. -Circumstantial Evidence not proved – Sec.27 of Evidence Act recovery at the instance of accused not proved- Abscond not proved- common intention not established – two accused – trial court convicted both accused – Appellant court acquitted Accused No.1 and convicted only Accused No.2 as the wrist watch was collected from his house – Apex court held that theory of theft for committing murder – not the case of Prosecution witnesses as no body complained about theft – it is only case of I.O. -all the gold ornaments are not removed from the body of deceased – so theory of theft is false one- mere left for their native village does not amounts to abscond as admittedly the accused were arrested in their village – mere presence in the morning in a rented house , there is nothing to disclose who killed the deceased in a house after all left for their respective duties – Recovery of wrist watch after 10 days at the instance of accused No.2 is also wrong procedure adopted as the wrist watch was handed over by the mother of the accused No.2 but not from any hidden place – non- examination of mother of accused – hostile of seizer witnesses and another witness who alleged that the accused left for some other village – No chain proved – Acquitted the accused and allowed the appeal = CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1010 OF 2004 Durga Burman (Roy) … Appellant (s) Versus State of Sikkim … Respondent (s) = 2014 July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41798
Sec. 302, 308 r/w 34 of I.P.C. -Circumstantial Evidence not proved – Sec.27 of Evidence Act recovery at the instance of accused not proved- Abscond not proved- common intention not established – two accused – trial court convicted both accused – Appellant court acquitted Accused No.1 and convicted only Accused No.2 as the wrist … Continue reading
Sec. 420 – compoundable – Apex court held that Offence under Section 420 of the IPC is compoundable with the permission of the court by the person who is cheated. Since the parties are related to each other and they have decided to accord a quietus to their disputes and live peacefully, we permit them to compound the offence. Hence, the offence under Section 420 of the IPC for which the appellant was convicted is compounded because it is compoundable with the permission of the court. The appellant is acquitted of the said charge.=CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1165 OF 2014 Deva Ram … Appellant Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. … Respondents = 2014 July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41783
Sec. 420 – compoundable -Apex court held that Offence under Section 420 of the IPC is compoundable with the permission of the court by the person who is cheated. Since the parties are related to each other and they have decided to accord a quietus to their disputes and live peacefully, we permit them to compound the offence. Hence, the … Continue reading
service matter – Recovery orders and reduce of pension – after retirement and after the lapse of few years – order to recover the excess payment and also order to reduce the pension as the salary was re fixed – challanged High court dismissed – Apex court held that we quash the impugned judgment delivered by the High Court and direct the respondents not to recover any amount of salary which had been paid to the appellant in pursuance of some mistake committed in pay fixation in 1986. The amount of pension shall also not be reduced and the appellant shall be paid pension as fixed earlier at the time of his retirement. It is pertinent to note that the Government had framed such a policy under its G.O. dated 16th January, 2007 and therefore, the respondent authorities could not have taken a different view in the matter of re-fixing pension of the appellant. and allowed the civil appeal =SUSHIL KUMAR SINGHAL …APPELLANT VERSUS PRAMUKH SACHIV IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT & OTHERS ….RESPONDENTS=2014 (April.Part ) http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41431
service matter – Recovery orders and reduce of pension – after retirement and after the lapse of few years – order to recover the excess payment and also order to reduce the pension as the salary was re fixed – challanged High court dismissed – Apex court held that we quash the impugned judgment delivered by the High Court … Continue reading
Sec. 302 / 307 I.P.C. = Appreciation of Evidence – Gun Shot – only skin deep pellet injuries and only bone deep forehead injury – Doctor never stated that due to profusing of blood or due to injuries shock the deceased died – Doctor simply stated that died due to shock – Sessions court acquitted – High court convicted – Apex court converted the sentence from sec.302 to sec.307 of I.P.C. = M.B. SURESH … APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA …RESPONDENT = 2014 ( JANUARY – VOL -1) JUDIS.NIC.IN/ S.C./ FILE NAME= 41132
Sec. 302 / 307 I.P.C. = Appreciation of Evidence – Gun Shot – only skin deep pellet injuries and only bone deep forehead injury – Doctor never stated that due to profusing of blood or due to injuries shock the deceased died – Doctor simply stated that died due to shock – Sessions court acquitted – High court … Continue reading
Service matter -Part III of The Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 Penalty 6(vii)- Disproportionate penalty – Removed from service for the bribe of petty amount – Punishment is disproportionate – not habitual briber-demanded petty amounts for issuing Fit Certificates – Apex court order for compulsory retirement as suitable penalty and order for payment of retirement benefits as he rendered service for 23 years = Ishwar Chandra Jayaswal …..Appellant Versus Union of India & Ors. …..Respondents = Published in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41126
Service matter – Part III of The Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 Penalty 6(vii)– Disproportionate penalty – Removed from service for the bribe of petty amount – Punishment is disproportionate – not habitual briber-demanded petty amounts for issuing Fit Certificates – Apex court order for compulsory retirement as suitable penalty and order for payment … Continue reading
Cancellation of Railway tender on technical point is not illegal nor arbitrary to interfere by courts – Apex court confirm the judgement of division bench = Maa Binda Express Carrier and Anr. …Appellants Versus Northeast Frontier Railway and Ors. …Respondents = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41031
Cancellation of Railway tender on technical point is not illegal nor arbitrary to interfere by courts – Apex court confirm the judgement of division bench = invited tenders for the grant of a three year lease of 23 tonnes of space in VPH (Parcel Van) on train No.15960/15959 Kamrup Express. Among those who … Continue reading
Service – matter = Disproportionate punishment to the negligence proved – Dismissal orders quashed – directed to pay retire benefits and pension as he was dismissed just 6 days prior to his retirement date = GIRISH BHUSHAN GOYAL APPELLANT Versus B.H.E.L. & ANR. RESPONDENTS = Published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40954
Service – matter = Disproportionate punishment to the negligence proved – Dismissal orders quashed – directed to pay retire benefits and pension as he was dismissed just 6 days prior to his retirement date = “25(1). No order imposing any of the major penalties specified in Clause (f), (g), (h), (i) and (j) … Continue reading
