evolawyer/inlegalbert-sc-ner-silver huggingface dataset:
THE COMMJSSIONER, RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE

ENDOWMENTS, BANGALORE AND ORS.

KASLIYAPPA GURUKULA SRI VIDYA SHALA

SEPTEMBER 1, 1995

(K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : Order IX-R.ule 13. Ex-Parte decree-Setting aside of-Application filed within 3 days of knowledge-Held C no delay.

On the question whether the State has properly given explanation for not filing the application to set aside the exparte decree within 30 ...... days from the date of the knowledge :

D AlloWing the appeal, this Court

HELD : No notice required under section 80 CPC was issued. In view of the fact that the office of the Government was informed on February 15, 1984, the Government must be deemed to have had notice of ex parte decree from the date and within three days thereafter the application was E filed. Therefore, there was no delay. [247-B-C)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8077 of 1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 19.6.89 of the Karnataka High F Court in M.F.A. 1046 of 1989.

M. Veerppa for the Appellants.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

G Though the respondent has been served, he does not appear either in person or through counsel.

Leave granted.

Admittedly, the suit was filed in which the Government was set H ex-parte and an ex-parte decree was granted. Then the state filed an 246

....

COMMNR., RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS v. KG. SRI VIDYA SHALA 247

application to set aside the ex-parte decree on February 17, 1984 and that A petition was dismissed on the ground that the delay was not properly explained. The appeal was also dismissed by the High Court.

The question is whether the State has properly given explanation for not filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree within 30 days from the date of the knowledge. No notice required under s.80 CPC was B issued. In view of the fact that the office of the Government was informed on February 15, 1984, the Government must be deemed to have had notice of a parte decree from that date and within three days thereafter the application was filed. Therefore, there was no delay.

The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

T.N.A.

Appeal allowed.
STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

TATA ENGINEERING AND LOCO.CO. LTD. AND ANR.

SEPTEMBER 8, 1995

[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 136 Appeal-Disposaf-Clarification of

In this appeal the mining lease had already expired by emux of time.

In view of the fact that civil appeal No. 3996 of 1987 has been dismissed as withdrawn the controversy does not survive for decision in this case.

Disposing the appeal, this Court

D HELD : The judgment of the High Court would not be construed to stand in the way of the appellant-State to g.,-ant mining leases in accordance with law and it would not form a precedent. (445-D]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: <;:ivil Appeal No. 8374 of 1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 19.3.86 of'the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 968 of 1984 {R)l.

B.M. Naik and Mr. M.P. Jha for the Appellants.

F R.F. Nariman, J.B. Dadachanji and S. Sukumaran for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted. ,

Heard the counsel on both sides. Since the mining lease had already expired by efflux of time, we dispose of the appeal by stating as below :

One M/s. Douglas Dias had approached this Court by way of appeal, viz., C.A. No. 3996/87. Since it has been dismissed as withdrawn by this H Court's order dated 25th January, 1993, the controversy does not survive 444

....

STATE v. TATAENGG.ANDLOCOCO.LTD. 445

for decision in this case, except that the impugned decision may be con- A strued to stand in the way of the State to consider similar case differently in future. In fact in the application for condonation of delay, in filing this appeal, it was stated in paragraph 2, thus :

"Initially there was a decision taken that the petitioner should only file a counter affidavit to the special leave petition No. 6337 of B 1986, filed by the respondent no. 2 herein, M/s. Douglas Dias, in the Supreme Court, but without there being a proper appreciation and perusal of the judgment done by the department they came to know that it may subsequently affect the rights of the petitioners, while granting any mining lease to any party. Ultimately, it was C decided in the month of November, 1986, to file a special leave petition herein the Supreme Court and now the petitioners are filing a petition for special leave here in the Supreme Court."

It is made clear that the judgment of the High Court w_ould not be construed to stand in the way of the appellant to grant mining leases in D accordance with law and it would not form a precedent.

The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

T.N.A.

Appeal disposed of.
STATE OF M.P.

SURESH GUPTA AND ANR.

SEPTEMBER 8, 1995

[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.)

Oiminal Appeal-Pending cases-Disposal by Cowts below-Directions regarding.

Regarding certain matters pending between the parties;

Disposing the appeal, this Court

HELD : The Courts below are free to dispose of all the pending or connected matters between the parties on their merits without being D influenced by any of the findings and observations made by the High Court in the impugned order. (457-B]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal Nos. 1085-86 of 1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 5.5.95 & 27.4.95 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in W.P. Nos. 671 & 596 of 1995.

P.P. Rao, Uma Nath Singh for the Appellant.

U.R. Lalit and D.D. Thakur, B.K. Satija, Vipin Gogia, S.K. Jain A.P.

Dhamija, P.R. Jain, Vivek Gambhir, Anil Kumar S.K. Gambhir and K. G.

Maheshwari for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The respondent, Sadhvi Rithambara, has already been released. It is stated by Shri D.D.

Thakur, learned senior counsel for the respondent, that the State would be free to proceed with the pending matters, i.e., not only concerned F.I.R. but also the other connected matters between the parties. The courts below H would proceed and decide the cases uninfluenced by any of the findings 456

STATE v. S. GUPTA 457

and observations made by the High Court in the impugned order and A purely based on the merits of the case. Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel for the appellant, has very fairly agreed for this suggestion.

In view of the above very fair stand taken by both the counsel, we reiterate that the courts below are free to dispose of all the pending or connected matters between the parties on their merits without being B influenced by any of the findings and observations made by the High Court in the impugned order.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

T.N.A.

Appeal disposed of. C
RA VINDER SINGH v.

STATE OF M.P. AND ORS.

MARCH 6, 1995

[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]

Service Law-Resignation submitted under threat-Withdrawal-Accep- tance quqshed and reinstatement directed.

The appellant, an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police was alleged to C have made delay in despatching some communication and also failed to keep a copy of leave application of Superintendent of Police on record. As he was given threat and warning ht tendered his resignation on 3.1.91.

However, he withdrew his resignation on 2.2.91 but the resiation was accepted on the same day.

Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD : It is an appropriate case for the appellant to continue in service. The acceptance of resignation stands quashed and he should be reinstated into service forthwith but without back wages. (520-D]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4027 of 1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 31.12.92 of the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal Bench at Bhopal in OA No. 2698

mL F

Surya Kant for the Appellant.

Niraj Sharma and S.K. Agnihotri for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. On the facts and circumstances, it would appear that it is a case warranting our interference.

It is seen that the appellant was working as Assistant Sub-Inspector in the H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[1995} 2 S.C.R.

A office of Superintendent of Police. On two occasions there was delay in dispatch of some communication. According to the explanation offered by the appellant, the Head Clerk was responsible for the delay for dispatch.

It was on the third occasion that he did riot keep office copy of the leave application for earned.leave of the Superintendent of Police. In fact it is not the duty of the dispatch clerk but office/Head Clerk to keep the office B copy for record. These three facts were taken into consideration by the Superintendent of Police and by giving insinuating threats or warning to the appellant, a sense of insecurity in continuance of employment was ' created. Obviously to get over the situation, he might have tendered resignation on January 3, 1991 but he had withdrawn it on February 2, 1991, ;>---- .

C before the acceptance was communicated to him. On the same day the resignation was accepted.

Under these circumstances, we thillk that it is an appropriate case for the appellant to continue in service. The.appeal is accordingly allowed.

The acceptance of resignation dated February 2, 1991 stands quashed and D there shall be a direction to reinstate the appellant into service forthwith but without back wages ..

Appeals allowed.
..._.

DADAN BAI WD/0 BHAGCHAND SINDHI A v.

ARJUNDAS

MARCH 31, 1995

(R.M. SAHA! AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] B

M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961: Section 23A(b)

Lesso,--Title not disputed by lessee-Such a lessor is owner at whose instance Eviction petition is maintainable.

The eviction petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that she was not the owner because the premises beloliged to the Municipal Corporation.

Setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter to High D Court, this Court

HELD: A lessor whose title cannot be disputed by the lessee undoubtedly is owner at whose instance the proceedings for eviction were maintainable. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in setting aside the decree passed in favour of the appellant. (110-B] E

CIVIL APPELIATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4183 of 1995.

From the Judgment aod Order dated 21.7.89 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in C.R.No. 481 of 1989.

Dr. N.M. Ghatate, S.V. Deshpaode aod Pramit Saxena for the Appellaot.

S.K. Agnihotri for the Respondent.

The following Order of the Court was delivered:

Leave granted.

Heard counsel for the parties. The eviction petition filed by the landlady-lessor was dismissed by the High Court as she was not the owner H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

(1995] 3 S.C.R.

A since even on her own admission the premises belonged to the Municipal Corporation. The word 'owner' used in Section 23-A(b) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act has in our opinion been construed narrowly. A lessor whose-title cannot be disputed by the lessee undoubtedly is owner at whose instance the proceedings for eviction were maintainable. There- B fore, the High Court was not justified in setting aside the decree passed in favour of the landlord on the ground that since the premises belonged to Municipal Corporation, therefore, the proceedings were not maintainable.

The order of the High Court is accordingly set aside. The matter remitted back to the High Court to decide the same afresh in accordance C with law and on merits as expeditiously as possible.

The appeal is disposed of.

T.N.A.

Appeal disposed of.

,.. __
ARJUNA AND ORS.

A :-) v.

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

MAY 2, 1995

[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] B

Maharashtra Land ceiling Act :

Land-holder within ceiling limit-Allotment of surplus Land-Validity of c The High Court held that as the respondents are within the ceiling limit allotment of surplus land to them was illegal. In this Court It was specifically pleaded that the respondents are declared tO be a surplus bolder and the excess land was assigned to the appellants.

Allowing the apl>eal, this Court D ..

HELD : Both the parties were directed to produce the return flied /._

by the respondents as well as a certified copy of the said return but they failed. In that view of the matter, the ground raised has remained ondisputed. Accordingly, the order of the High Court Is set aside. [1106-CJ E

CNIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil APPeal No. 2446 of 1978.

From the Judgment and Order dated 11.7.78 of the Bombay High > ,._ Court in F .A. No. 155 of 1971.

P.H. Parekh for the Awellants.

Dr. N.N. Ghatate and S.V. Deshpande for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered : G

The High Court allowed the appeal on the ground that the private

-\ respondent are within the ceiling limit and, therefore, allotment of the surplus land to the respondents is illegal. In ground No. 5 of the special leave petition it was specifically pleaded that the respondents are declared to be a surplus holder and the excess land was assigned to the appellants. H 1105

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

(1995) 3 S.C.R.

A By order dated March 22, 1995, we had directed both the parties to produce the return filed by the respondents. The appellants were directed '(" to get the certified copy of the said return as well as the copy of the return filed by the respondents.

It is stated by Dr. N.N. Ghatate, learned senior counsel for the B respondents, that through Mr. S.V. Deshpande, the learned instructing counsel, had written letters to the party he has not received any response.

Mr. Parekh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, stated that the.y could not procure the certified copy.

In that view of the matter, ground No.5 has remained undisputed.

C The appeal is, accordingly allowed on that terms and the order of the High Court is set aside. In case the respondents were declared to be within the ceiling limit, liberty is given to them to file a review petition within a period of two months from to day. No costs.

T.N.A.

Appeal allowed.
KAMLA SHANKAR v.

THE DIRECTOR OF BOARD OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION,

KANPUR AND ANR.

MARCH 31, 1995

(K. RAMASWAMY AND N.

VENKATACHALA, JJ.]

Education Law

Student-Examination--Decl1J1ation of Result-Directions Regarding:

Pending writ petition before the High Court the appellant obtained orders from this Court to appear in the 4th year examination of the Diploma Conrse, but the result was not declared. He sought similar orders as passed by this court on January 12, 1986 in similar circumstan ces.

Disposing the appeal, this Court

HELD: The respondents are directed to .declare the result of the examination. If the appellant passes in the examination, then it would be open to the respondents to grant diploma certificate subject to fulfilment E of other conditions, if any. If be does not pass in the examination then he will not be eligible to qnestion the action of the respondents. [112-C, DJ

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4597 of 1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 22.7,85 of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P. No. 16223 of 1983.

Ms. Sandhya Goswami for M.P. Shorawala for the Appellant.

Ms. Rachna Gupta for R.B. Misra for the Respondeµts.

The following Order of the Court w.S delivered:

Leave granted.

Heard both the counsel.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[1995] 3 S.C.R.

A This Court, on January 12, 1986 in similar circumstances, directed the Government to declare the result of the Fourth Year Diploma Course Examination taken by one Ramesh, appellant therein, and it was undertaken by him that if he succeeds in passing the examination, he may be entitled to that benefit and in case he failed, he will not file any Writ B Petition in the High Court questioning the result of the examination. The appellant herein also seeks the same relief.

It would appear that pending Writ Petition before High Court the appellant obtained orders to appear for the 4th year examination, but the result has riot been declared. If the records are still available after passing r , C the examinations, the respondents are directed to declare the result of the examination. If the appellant passes in the examination, then it would be open to the respondents to grant diplollla certificate according to rules and subject to fulfilment, other conditions, if any. If the appellant does not pass in the examination, that is the end of the matter. He shall not be eligible to question the action of the respondents by filing any further writ petition D in the High Court.

The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

T.N.A.

Appeal disposed of.
U.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ALLAHABAD

VINOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA AND ORS.

JULY 31, 1995

[K. RAMASWAMY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.]

U.P. Labour SelVice Rules, 1991: Rule 5

Assistant Labour Commissioners-Promotion-Directions regarding.

The Public Service Commission selected candidates for the post of Assistant Labour Commissioners and forwarded the select list to the Government for approval subject to the result of a writ petition filed by a candidate who has since retired.

Disposing the appeal with regard to the claim of the other officers, this Court

HELD : The claims of others for promotion require to be considered and finalised. The Government is directed to finalise the list as recommended by the Public Service Commission and then make promotion to E the substantive posts according to Rules of all the persons recommended by the Public Service Commission within the quota prescribed under Rule 5 of the U.P. Labour Service Rules, 1991. [425-C-D]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7400 of 1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 19.5.94 of the Allahabad High J Court in C.M.W.P. No. Nil of 1994.

Gaurab Banerjee and Devendra Singh for the Appellants.

G Goodwill Indeevar for the Respondent

Ms. Rachna Gupta and AK. Srivastava for the Respondent No. 3-4.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

H Leave granted. 424

U.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMN. v. V.K. SRIVASTAVA 425

We have heard the counsel for the parties. The admitted facts as A transpired from the record are that the Assistant Labour Commissioners are eligible to be promoted according to Rule 5 of the U.P. Labour Service Rules , 1991 to their quota of 50%. The balance 50% shall be filled in by direct recruitment. Twentythree posts are available for promotion. The Selection Committee consisting of members of the Public Service Commis- B sion and the Departmental personnel considered the inter se claims from feeder posts on September 13, 1993 and forwarded to the Government the select list for approval subject to the result in W.P. No. 5744/86. One Mr.

Awasthi who filed that writ petiton has since been retired as Dy Labour Officer pursuant to the direction issued by the Court, the claims of others for promotion require to be considered and finalised. We direct the C Government to finalise the list as recommended by the Public Service Commission and then. make promotion to the substantive posts according to Rules of all the persons recommended by the Public Service Commission within the quota prescribed under the Rules. The appeal is disposed of.

No costs.

T.N.A.

Appeal disposed of.
SPECIAL LANI> ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ORS.

MALLANAGOUDA RAYANAGOUDA PATIL AND ORS.

AUGUST 3, 1995

[K. RAMASWAMY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.]

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :

Compensation--Award of-Solatium and interest on enhanced com- C pensation-Held entitled to since the award was made after the Amendment Act 68 of 1984-Was introduced.

These appeals challenged the order of the Karnataka High Court reversing the award and decree of the Reference Court and modifying the same to the extent that the claimants will be entitled to compensation @Rs.

D 9,160 per acre for the irrigated land and Rs. 8,680 per acre for dry land, as against the Reference Court's award of sum of Rs. 16,950 and Rs. 9,975 respectively.

Dismissing the appeals, this Court

HELD : The batch of appeals has been disposed of by order dated January 27, 1995 granting solatium at 15 percent and interest at 6 per cent on the enhanced compensation from the date of taking possession till date ofpayment or deposit, whichever is earlier. In these cases, since the award of the Reference Court itself is of October 23, 1982, i.e. after the Amendment Act was introduced, the respondents are entitled to the benefits of the enhanced solatium and interest as granted by the High Court. [495-C-D]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 7402- 7408 of 1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 11.12.85 of the Karnataka High G Court in M.F.A.Nos. 1240, 1241, 1244-48/83.

M. Veerappa for the Appellant.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

H Leave granted. 494

~ -

SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. M.R. PATIL 495

The High Court of Karnataka in the impugned order reversed the A award and decree of the Reference Court and modified the same to the extent that the claimants will be entitled to compensation @Rs. 9,160 per acre for the irrigated land and Rs. 8,680 per acre for dry land, as against the Reference Court's award of sum of Rs. 16,950 and Rs. 9,975 respectively, when the matter had come up for admission, since a batch of the matters was then pending, notice wa:s ordered in these matters also and the same was directed to be tagged with them. Since the batch has been disposed of by order dated January 27, 1995 in C.A. arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 11963-70/96, this Court while affirming the compensation awarded by the High Court modified the judgment and decree to the extent of awarding benefits of enhanced solatium and interest under the Amendmnt Act 68 of 1984. The Court instead granted solatium at 15 per cent and interest at 6 per cent on the enhanced compensation from the date of taking possession till dated of payment or deposit, whichever is earlier. In these cases, since the award of the Reference Court itself is of October 23, 1982,

i.e., after the Amendment Act was introduced, the respondents are entitled D to the benefits of the enhanced solatium and interest as granted by the High Court.

The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.

G.N.

Appeals dismissed.