evolawyer/inlegalbert-sc-ner-silver huggingface dataset:
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

SMT. NALINI AGGARWAL ETC. ETC.

APRIL 21, 1997

[K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.]

Housing:

Eamest money deposited-Refund of-lllterest there01r-Notificatio11 C stati11g that i11terest not payable-Delay of one year i11 conducting draw of lots-Held : Delay was due to administrative exigencies and not 011 account of any mala fide action of any individual-Nor was there indifference-Hence 1111successji1l allottees not entitled to interest-However Haryana Urban Developmelll Alllh01ity being a statutory authority is expected to peif onn its dlllies as expeditiously as possible and have the action taken immediately.

D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3143- 3145 of 1997.

From the Judgment and Order dated 14.6.96 of the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in R.P. No. 992 of E 1995.

Puneet Bali and M.T. George for the Appellant.

P. Aggarwal and F.C. Garg for the Respondents.

F The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and also parties-in-person.

Notification was issued calling for the applications for allotment of G houses and the respondents had applied on April 20, 1993. The last date for making applications was May 31, 1993. After necessary steps were taken and scrutiny was made, lots were drawn on June 7, 1994. Since the respondents remained un-successful in the lots, the earnest money deposited by them refunded on July 20, 1994 within one month. The H question, therefore, is : whether the unsuccessful applicants would be 888

H.U.D.A v. SMT. N. AGGARWAL 889

entitled to payment of interest for the period from the date of deposit till A the date of refund? One of the conditions imposed in the notification inviting applications for allotment was that "No interest shall be payable on the money of the applicant for the period for which the same is lying with the Authority." Having accepted the above conditions, while applied for allotment, the respondents are not entitled to the payment of interest for the period during which the deposit was lying with the Authority. It is true that there was an interlude of around one year between the date of calling applications and the date of draw of lots. It is obvious that the draw of lots was delayed due to administrative exigencies and not on account of any ma!a fide action of any individual; nor is there any absolute indifference on the part of the appellant in not drawing the lots. However, it is made clear that the appellant being a statutory authority is expected to perform its duties as expeditiously as possible and have the actions taken quickly.

Under these circumstances, the appeals are allowed. The order of

the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, dated June 14, 1996 made in Revision Petition No. 992/95 etc. and that the State Forum D are clearly illegal. They are accordingly set aside. No costs.

G.N.

Appeals allowed.
STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. ETC.

A v.

NIRANJAN NA YAK AND ANR. ETC.

APRIL 21, 1997

[K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.) B

Service Law :

Qualification-Acquiring of-Cut off date fixed for entitlement to additional amount on acquiring qualification-Held, valid-Writ petitions pend- C ing-High Court to decide the matter on the basis of relevant rules.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3179 of 1997 Etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 19.4.95 of the Orissa High D Court in O.J.C. No. 1196 of 1994.

Jana Kalyan Das and S. Misra for (P.N. Misra) for the Appellants.

A. Mariarputham, Mohan Kr. Mohanty, Aruna Mathur and Jaya Salva for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted.

We have learned counsel on both sides.

These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the Orissa High Court, made on April 19, 1995 in O.J.C. No. 1196of1994 and batch.

The Government has prescribed April 1, 1981 as the cut off date for acquisition of the qualific; ation and those who have acquired the qualifica- G tions prior to that date are entitled to the additional amounts as prescribed under the Rules. The High Court has allowed writ petitions without reference to the relevant Rules. It is settled law that the cut off date has to be valid and bears reasonable relationship to the object sought to be achieved.

H 897

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[1997] 3 S.C.R.

A It is stated that the teachers are relying upon Rule 9 of 1974 Rules.

We are informed that several writ petitions are pending in the High Court on the basis of Rule 9. In that view of this matter, it may be desirable that all these matters be decided by the High Court.

Taking an over all view of all the facts, the appeals are allowed. The B judgment of the High Court stands set aside. The High Court is at liberty to consider the matter afresh. Learned counsel for the respondents states that orders were implemented subject to the result of the appeals. Implementation of the order docs not stand on the way of the High Court is have the matters examined. No costs. c G.N.

Appeals allowed.
SANGARABOINA SREENU A v.

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

APRIL 23, 1997

[M.K. MUKHERJEE AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.] B

Criminal Law :

Penal Code, 1860 :

Ss. 302, 306-Accused charged with murder of his wife-Trial Court C convicting him for murder-High Court setting aside the conviction u/s 302 but convicting him under s.306-Held, offence under s.306 cannot be said to be a minor offence in relation to an offence under s.302 !PC as these two offences are of distinct and different categories-Hence conviction under s.306 set aside-Code of Criminal Procedure, S.222.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 182 of 1990.

From the J udgmcnt and Order dated 16.8.89 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Crl. No. 382 of 1989.

A. Subba Rao for the Appellant.

G. Prabhakar for the Respondent.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

The appellant was put up for trial before the Sessions Judge, Warangal for uxoricide. The accusation against him was that on May 15, 1987 at or about 9.30 p.m. he poured kerosene oil on the body of his wife and set her on fire. The trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC

but in the appeal preferred by him the High Court set aside his above G conviction and convicted him under Section 306 IPC. The above judgment of the High Court is under challenge in this appeal.

This appeal must succeed for the simple reason that having acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 302 IPC - which was the only charge framed against him - the High Court could not have convicted him H 957

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

(1997] 3 S.C.R.

A of the offence under Section 306 IPC. It is true that Section 222 Cr.P.C.

entitles a Court to convict a person of an offence which is minor in comparison to the one for which he is tried but Section 306 IPC cannot be said to be a minor offence in relation to an offence under Section 302 IPC within the meaning of Section 222 Cr.P.C. for the two offences are of B distinct and different categories. While the basic constituent of an offence under Section 302 IPC is homicidal death those of Section 306 IPC are suicidal death and abetment thereof.

For the foregoing reason the appeal is allowed and the conviction of the appellant under Section 306 IPC is set aside. The appellant, who is on C bail, is discharged from his bail bonds.

G.N.

Appeal allowed.
ANIL BAPURAO KANASE

v. 0

KRISHNA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD.

ANDANR.

MAY 7, 1997

[K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD

AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

Labour Law

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:

Ss.25-F and 2(oo)(bb)-Sugar factory-Seasoiial worker--Disengagement after the season is over-Held, is not retrenchment-However, Management should maintain a register of such employee~When the season starts

in the succeeding year, the workmen should be engaged according to the D seni01ity and, until all such workmen are engaged, Management should not recruit new workmen.

Marinda Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Ram Kishan & Ors., [1995] 5 SCC 653, relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3692 of 1997.

From the Judgment and Order dated 28.3.95 of the Bombay High Court in W.P. No. 488 of 1994.

Nikhil M. Sakhardande and Nandini Gore for the appellant.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted.

The appellant -employee was engaged in the seasonal work in the Chemistry Section of the sugar factory by the respondent No. 1. Since the work was over, the services of the appellant and others were terminated.

He sought a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short,

'the Act') contending that the termination being in the nature of retrench- H 259

2"0 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) SUPP. 1 S.CJl.

A ment is in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Industrial Tribunal and the High Court negatived the contention.

0 -

Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the judgment of the High Court of Bombay relied on in the impugned order dated March 28, 1995 in Writ Petition No. 488 of 1994 is perhaps not applicable. Since the B appellant has worked for more than 180 days, he is to be treated as retrenched employee and if the procedure contemplated under Section

25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is applied to, his retrenchment is illegal. We find no force in this contention. In Marinda Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Ram Kishan & Ors., (1995] 5 SCC 653 in paragraph-3, this Court C has dealt with engagement of the seasonal workman in sugarcane crushing; in paragraph 4, it is stated that it was not a case of retrenchment of the ·-· workman, but of closure of the factory after crushing season W.s over. _ Accordingly, in paragraph 5, it was held that it is not 'retrenchment' within the meaning of Section 2( oo) of the Act. As a consequence the appellant is not entitled to retrenchment as per clause (bb) of Section 2( oo) of the D Act. Since the present work is seasonal business, the principles of the Act have no application. However, this Court has directed that the respondentmanagement should maintain a register and engage the workmen when the season starts in the succeeding years in the order of seniority. Until all the employees whose names appear in the list are engaged in addition to the E employees who are already working, the management should not go in for fresh engagement of new workmen. It would be encumbent upon the respondent management to adopt such procedure as is enumerated above.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

R.P.

Appeal dismissed.
Y.R. VEERANNA A _; v.

STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

MAY 7, 1997

(K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD B

AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

Karnataka Land Ref omis Act, 1961 : , Ss.44 and 48-A-Occupancy tena11t-Applicatio11 by father in F om1 7 c for recognition of 1ight-So11s in cultivato1y possession of land and not the father-Held, application was lightly rejected by cowts below-Since applica- _,, lion was filed due to mistaken stand, it may be open to the sons to make an application in Fonn 7 and in that event limitation may not be taken as a ground for rejection of their claim.

D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 11352-53 of 1997.

From the Judgment and Order dated 10.6.96/6.1.97 of the Karnataka High Court in L.R.R.P.No. 2179/88 and C.P. No. 499 of 1996.

E / G.V. Chandrashekhar and P.P. Singh for the Petitioner.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Delay condoned.

F It is an undisputed fact that the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act had come into force with effect from March 1, 1974. The petitioner laid claimed as an occupancy tenant, in respect of 13 acres and -

24 gunthas of the land situated in KR. Nagar Taluk, Kamataka District.

When he filed application in Form-7 for recognition of his rights as an G occupancy tenant, the Tribunal rejected his claim on the ground that his sons were cultivating the land. It was held that since the petitioner had not been cultivating the land, he could not file the application in Form-7 and, therefore, he was not entitled to be treated as a protected tenant. That order came to be affirmed by the High Court in LRRP No. 2179/88 and in C.P. No. 499/96 on June 10, 1996 and January 6, 1997. Thus, this special H 261

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A leave petition.

In view of the fact that a tenant in cultivation is entitled to lay the claim under Section 44 and 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act (for short, the 'Act'), on his own admittedly showing that he had not been cultivating the land, the petitioner's right as occupancy tenant was rightly B rejected. His status is that of the co-owner, Karta of the joint family and as such on behalf of his sons he had filed it and the sons were. cultivating the land on behalf of the family; since this land was obtained at a partition between the petitioner and his brother way back in 1957, it is joint family property. In view of the fact that he is not personally cultivating the land C on his own showing, the finding recorded by the Tribunal and the High Court is not vitiated by any manifest error of law. However, due to mistaken stand the application in Form-7 came to be filed. He was held disentitled to the claim as a protected tenant. If the sons were really occupying the land as tenants prior to the Amendment Act had come into force on March 1, 1974, it may be open to the sons to make an application D in Form-7 and have the matter adjudicated. The limitation that has been prescribed in the statute, in the peculiar facts, may not be taken as a ground for reject of their claims.

The special leave petition are accordingly dismissed with the above E observations.

R.P.

Petition dismissed.
-,)

-:;

ADIKANDA SETHI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ANR. v.

PALANI SWAMI SARAN TRANSPORTS AND ANR.

MAY 8, 1997

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

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939:

S.110-A--Fatal accident-Compensation to dependents of young deceased-Principles to be applied for calculating compensation-Explained-Multiplier of 18 years applied-Since claim was limited to Rs.

1,00,000, the same is granted to the dependents.

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors., v. Trilok Chandra & Ors., (1996) 4 SCC 362, relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3567 of 1997.

From the Judgment and Order dated 13.9.93 of the Orissa High Court in Misc. A.No. 384 of 1990.

A.Z.S. Pasrich for the Appellants.

P.P. Malhotra and Naresh Sharma for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the High Court of Orissa, made on 13.9.1993 in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 384/90.

Ballav Kumar Sethi, a young man of 24 years was fatally knocked down by Oil Tanker bearing registration No. TCV 667. The appellant G claimed a sum of Rs. 1 lakh towards the loss of the estate of the deceased and the support to the appellant as dependent of the deceased. The claim under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939 was laid on April 30,

1983. The Tribunal delivered the judgment awarding a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 to the appellant which was confirmed under appeal by the High Court H 291

SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A enhancing the same by a further sum of Rs. 18,000.

The principle of determination of the compensation in the case of fatal accident was determined by this Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors., v. Trilok Chandra & Ors., [1996J 4 SCC 362 .. This Court in paragraph 18, after considering the tabulations, found that the maximum B multiplier of purchaser was as under :

"What we propose to emphasise is that the multiplier cannot exceed 18 years' purchase factor. This is the improvement over the earlier position that ordinarily, it should not exceed 16. We thought it necessary to state the correct legal position as courts and tribunals are using higher multiplier as in the present case where the Tribunal used the multiplier of 24 which the High Court raised . to 34, thereby showing lack of awareness of the background of the multiplier system in Davies case."

D Thus, we have to conclude that the annual income of the deceased is Rs. 12,000 p.a. and he would have spent Rs. 7,500 towards family members and 1/3 for himself; thereby the annual income is taken at Rs. 9,000 per year and multiplier of 18 years which is the maximum in the case of the young person dying in an accident, has to be applied. The claimants would get Rs. 1.40 lakhs towards the compensation. Since the claim is E limited to Rs. 1 lakh, the claimants are entitled to get Rs. 1 lakh as compensation with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the judgment of the High Court.

The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

F R.P.

Appeal allowed.
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD.

(SUCCESSOR TO HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD.) v.

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ORS.

MAY 9, 1997

[K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.]

Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971:

C Evictiolt"'-£ompany took on rent the premises from Life Insurance Corporation-Proceedings for eviction started against the Company-Company filed writ petition and contended that the matter be ref med to the High Power Committee-Writ petition dismissed-Held, High Court has not committed any error warranting interference.

D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 9984 of 1997.

From the 'udgment and Order dated 13.3.97 of the Delhi High Court in C.W. No. 1085 of 1997.

E D .K. Sinha and Ajit Pudussery for the Petitioner.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

This special leave petition has been filed against the order of the High Court of Delhi, made on b.3.1997 in C.W. No. 1085/97.

The predecessor of the petitioner-Company had taken on rent the disputed premises, from the Life Insurance Corporation, on 4th floor of Jeevan Deep Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi. Since the petitioner had not vacated the premises, action was taken for eviction under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act. The petitioner G challenged the action in the High Court contending that this Court had issued directions in I.A. Nos. 4 and 5 of 1992 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2058-59/88 to constitute a High-power Committee to resolve the disputes between the Public Sector Undertaking and the Government of India of the concerned Ministry, by a Committee composed of Cabinet Secretary, H Secretary in Ministry of Law and Secretary in the Bureau of Public Sector 378

--·

STEELAUlHORITYOFINDIALID.v. L.l.C.OFINDIA 379

Undertakings to decide the disputes without needless consumption of time A and waste of public funds. The petitioner has sought for such a reference and contends the High-power committee should have been constituted and decided the matter. We find no force in the contention.

The object of issuing direction in those matters was to decide the fiscal disputes in case of major policy matters to save the public money and B courts valuable time, and disputes could amicably be settled between the Public Sector Undertakings. and the Government of India or the State Governments. The intention was not to resolve the disputes like eviction of a Company or Public Undertaking under Public Premises (Unauthorised Occupants) Act;. such petty disputes are not directed to be dealt with by C the High level officers whose otherwise duty and time is of very important nature. Under these circumstances, the High Court has not committed any error warranting interference.

The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.

R.P.

Petition dismissed.
DIAMOND PLASTIC INDUSTRIES ETC.

GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

MAY 9, 1997

(K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.]

Sick industry-Taken over by State Govemment-Decision of BIFR regarding payment-Binding 011 the pa1ties-Payment pending to party-State

Government directed to implement the direction issued by BIFR.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3629 of 1997.

From the Judgment and Order dated 23.4.94 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.A. No. 16293 of 1992.

Narasimha P.S. Rina N. and V.G. Paragasam for the Appellants.

A.T.M. Sampath, Y.P. Rao and T. Anil Kr. for the Respondents

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted.

These matters are disposed of by a common order.

While adopting the revised and updated guidelines for the implemen- F tation of Ancillary Development Programme by the Public Sector Enterprises, by proceedings dated October 3, 1979, the Hyderabad Allwyn Limited which has been a State Government undertaking, invited applications from the entrepreneurs to set up various ancillary industries for supply of required goods. The appellants have set Up ancillary unit for G supply of watch boxes, watch strips and dial holding rings. There was a dispute as regards the payment of the amount and the resultant liability.

In regard thereto, a writ petition came to be filed in the High Court.

Learned Single Judge by his judgment dated January 19, 1988 directed the Government to appoint Plant Level Committee and follow the enforceable guidelines issued thereunder; ancillary industries are the units coming H within the Scheme; and, therefore, the recommendations of the Plant Level

....

DIAMOND PLASTIC IND. ETC. v. GOVT. OF ANDHRAPRADESH 381

Committee should be enforced. Accordingly, a mandamus was issued to A the Hyderabad Allwyns Limited (HAL). Feeling aggrieved by that order, the appellants filed a writ appeal. The Division Bench by its order dated March 15, 1991 while upholding that the findings given by the learned single Judge, directed that inst.ead of HAL mandamus be issued to the State Government to comply with the direction issued by the Single Judge. B It would appear that prices of DHR were reduced from Rs. 5.81 to Rs. 2.48 the appellants felt aggrieved and contend that the reduction is bad in law. It is not in dispute that since subsequently HAL became sick industry, the matter was referred to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction which has gone into that question. M/s. Voltas Ltd. has started functioning after take over of all the units except watch manufac- C luring Division which was taken over by the State Government with regard to the respective assets and liabilities. The decision of the BIFR binds the parties. We are informed that Rs. 27 lacs have already been paid to the appellants. The appellants are claiming the balance amount, whatever be the liability, as per the undertaking before the BIFR that binds the parties; D the State Government is also bound to implement the direction issued by the BIFR.

The appeals are accordingly disposed of. No costs.

G.N.

Appeals disposed of.