advocatemmmohan
just another law knowledge bank
Pondicherry
Sec. 302,498 A etc., – Husband died pending trial – No prima faice proof of conspiracy- The Accused are entitled for discharge = L. Krishna Reddy …..Appellant Versus State by Station House Officer & Ors. …..Respondents – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40898
Sec. 302,498 A etc., – Husband died pending trial – No prima faice proof of conspiracy- The Accused are entitled for discharge = whether the criminal proceedings could or should have been continued against his parents, namely Vidyasagar and Narasamma, who had preferred a Discharge Petition under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal … Continue reading
Applicability of the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, 1956, vis-à-vis, Article 2262 of the French Code Civil, said to be the governing law of limitation in the Union Territory of Pondicherry, erstwhile French Establishment.= whether, by virtue of the Limitation Act, 1963, the French Law of Limitation which had been in force till 1.1.1964, was in any manner repealed or modified by the Limitation Act, 1963. We can draw considerable sustenance from the ratio laid down by this Court in Syndicate Bank (supra), wherein, we have already indicated, this Court considered the interaction between the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 vis-à-vis Article 535 of the Portuguese Civil Code. In that case, this Court held as follows: “20. ……………….. In any event, as noticed above, the Portuguese Civil Code, in our view, could not be read to be providing a distinct and separate period of limitation for a cause of action arising under the Indian Contract Act or under the Negotiable Instruments Act since the Civil Code ought to be read as one instrument and cause of action arising therefrom ought only to be governed thereunder and not otherwise. The entire Civil Code ought to be treated as a local law or special law including the provisions pertaining to the question of limitation for enforcement of the right arising under that particular Civil Code and not dehors the same and in this respect the observations of the High Court in Cadar Constructions that the Portuguese Civil Code could not provide for a period of limitation for a cause of action which arose outside the provisions of that Code, stands approved. A contra approach to the issue will not only yield to an absurdity but render the law of the land wholly inappropriate. There would also be repugnancy insofar as application of the Limitation Act in various States of the country is concerned: Whereas in Goa, Daman and Diu, the period of limitation will be for a much larger period than the State of Maharashtra — the situation even conceptually cannot be sustained having due regard to the rule of law and the jurisprudential aspect of the Limitation Act.” 12. This Court also held that it cannot but hold that in the wake of the factum of the Limitation Act coming into existence from 1.1.1964, Article 535 of the Portuguese Civil Code cannot but be termed to be impliedly repealed and it is on this score that the decision of this Court in Justiniano Augusto De. Piedade Barreto v. Antonio Vicente Da Fonseca (1979) 3 SCC 47, stood overruled. This Court also held that there is one general law of limitation for the entire country, being the Act of 1963, and the Portuguese Civil law cannot be termed to be a local law or a special law applicable to the State of Goa, Daman and Diu, prescribing a different period of limitation within the meaning of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act and the question of saving of local law under the Limitation Act, 1963 does not and cannot arise.- Pondicherry (Extension of Laws) Act, 1968, as amended, has adopted several such legislations in the State of Pondicherry, but the Act which governs limitation is the general law of the land that is the Indian Limitation Act. Consequently, it is not Article 2262 of the French Code Civil that applies to the suit in question, but Section 54 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Under such circumstances, as rightly held by the High Court, the suit filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Article 54 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 is clearly barred. Since the suit itself is barred by the law of limitation, the other questions of law framed by the High Court were rightly not answered. The appeal, therefore, lacks in merits and accordingly dismissed.
published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40788 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICITON CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8308 OF 2013 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 4836 of 2012] Gothamchand Jain .. Appellant Versus Arumugam @ Tamilarasan .. Respondent J U D G M E N … Continue reading
PERSONAL STAFF ON CO-TERMINUS BASIS- whether the employees who are appointed on a co-terminus basis have any right to continue in service after the cessation of the engagement of the person with whose engagement their services were made co-terminus.= In another judgment of this Court in State of Gujarat and Anr. Vs. P.J. Kampavat and Ors. reported in 1992 (3) SCC 226, this Court had occasion to look into a similar situation. That was a case where persons concerned were appointed directly in the office of the Chief Minister on purely temporary basis for a limited period up to the tenure of the Chief Minister. This Court held that such an appointment was purely a contractual one, and it was coterminus with that of the Chief Minister’s tenure, and such service came to an end simultaneously with the end of tenure of the Chief Minister. No separate order of termination or even a notice was necessary for putting an end to such a service. 20. We have to note that in the present case the M.L.A. concerned was to function as the Chairman during the course of his tenure as an M.L.A., and had resigned with the announcement of the election for the state assembly. A proposal for regularization of the co-terminus employees appointed by him was directly sent to the Governor without the same being routed through the State Government. Similar such proposals have come to be rejected. As observed by this Court in Union of India Vs. Dharam Pal reported in 2009 (4) SCC 170, the requirement of being employed through proper channel could not be relaxed in an arbitrary and cavalier manner for the benefit of a few persons. This would be clearly violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 21. This being the scenario, the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench, and the subsequent learned Single Judge have erred in passing the orders that they have. The High Court has erred in deciding Writ Petition No.3181 of 2008 by directing the board to implement the 2Page 21 resolution/note issued by the Chairman and approved by the Governor. The Division Bench has also erred in leaving the order passed by the learned Single Judge in that petition undisturbed. So has the learned Single Judge erred who heard the second Writ Petition. For the reasons stated above both these appeals are allowed, and the impugned judgments and orders in Writ Appeal No. 1131 of 2011 as well as one in Writ Petition No. 3181 of 2008 and Writ Petition No. 13428 of 2010 are setaside. Writ Petition No. 3181 of 2008 and 13428 of 2010 shall stand dismissed. Consequently the Interim Applications in both these appeals, and the Contempt Petition No.1841 of 2011 filed by the respondent in the Madras High Court will also stand disposed of. In the facts of the present case we do not pass any order as to the costs.
Page 1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2323 OF 2013 (@ out of SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 4669/2012 ) The Chief Executive Officer, Pondicherry Khadi and Village Industries Board and Anr. …Appellants Versus K. Aroquia Radja & Ors. …Respondents With CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2324 OF 2013 (@ … Continue reading
