Search by Keywords x
contact us contact us | home help



 Welcome Guest | Jul 25 2014
 
Home Skip Navigation Links
Search by Database Expand Search by Database
Skip Navigation Links
Subject Modules Expand Subject Modules
Skip Navigation Links
State Modules Expand State Modules
Skip Navigation Links
Legal Focus Expand Legal Focus
 

Login

  

Free Demo

Database Updates
Search by Database
Resources
Subject Modules

Database updates


Judgments

G. Mohanasundaram vs R. Nanthagopal and another  [SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 21 Jul 2014]

S. S. Rajaram, Madurai vs Accounts Officer and Principal Accountant General  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 21 Jul 2014]

V. Satheesh Ramanujam vs DAG (Admn.), O/o Principal Accountant General (Accounts & Entitlements), Chennai  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 21 Jul 2014]

Akhilesh Tripathi vs State of Uttar Pradesh Through Principal Secretary Rural Development Departtment Lucknow and others  [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 21 Jul 2014]

Sashikanta Parhi vs Union of India and others  [CALCUTTA HIGH COURT, 21 Jul 2014]
Service - Promotion - Denied - Sustainability - Petitioner was denied regular promotion because departmental proceedings were instituted against him - Hence instant petition - Whether respondent authorities committed error in not communicating to the petitioner any of his below bench mark ACR gradings -

Held, in the case of the petitioner the DPC's finding he was unfit for promotion to DIG post in 2004 indicates that his ACR gradings for 5 years preceding the year of 2004 did not meet the required bench-mark of 'Very Good' - It appeared, however, the respondent authorities never communicated to the petitioner any of his below bench mark ACR gradings - That was undisputed - SC in one case laid down that every entry in the ACR of a Public servant should be communicated to him whether it was poor, fair, average, good or very good entry - It was further laid down that non-communication of entries in ACRs certainly had civil consequences because it might affect the chance of promotion and hence such non- communication is arbitrary and violative of art.14 of the Constitution - Dev Dutt-Vs- Union of India 2008 Indlaw SC 817, relied on - In another subsequent judgment SC held the entries in the ACR which were below the bench mark, if not communicated, could not be taken into consideration for promotion to the higher grade by the DPC - Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar-Vs- Union of India 2008 Indlaw SC 2549, relied on - In view of the settled principle of law, the writ petitions were disposed of directing the petitioner's case for promotion to DIG should be reviewed by the DPC in accordance with the judgments of SC - Application disposed of.


Aseem Takyar vs Delhi Jal Board, Govt. of (NCT of Delhi)  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 18 Jul 2014]

Anil Comar and another vs Municipal Corporation Shimla and another  [HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT, 18 Jul 2014]

Narendra Pratap Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others  [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 18 Jul 2014]

Balraj Ladi vs Labour Department, Govt. of (NCT of Delhi)  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 18 Jul 2014]

S. K. Virmani vs Family Courts, Dwarka  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 18 Jul 2014]

Satender Kumar Garg vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Govt. of (NCT of Delhi)  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 18 Jul 2014]

Chattar Singh Rachoya vs Department for welfare of SC/ST/OBC/ Minorities  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 18 Jul 2014]

Deepika vs Revenue, Govt. of (NCT of Delhi)  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 18 Jul 2014]

Shashikant Gangaram Narkar, Mumbai vs (1) Advance Transformers & Equipments Private Limited, Mumbai; (2) J. V. Deshmukh Presiding Officer, Mumbai  [BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 18 Jul 2014]
Service - Reinstatement - Without back wages - Sustainability - Petitioner-workman challenged the award made by Labour Court to the extent it denied the entire back-wages and other consequential benefits for the period between 1-10-1992 to 1-8-2003, despite having come to the conclusion that the termination of his services was neither legal, nor justified - Whether reinstatement without back wages when petitioner successfully discharged the onus of establishing that he was not gainfully employed between the period 1 October 1992 and 1 August 2003, was valid -

Held, claim of the petitioner in the instant case was not on the basis that award of entire back-wages was almost a corollary, once the termination was found to be illegal and unjustified - Claim of the petitioner was on the basis that the termination of his services was not upset upon grounds which were merely technical - Rather, it was a case where the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner had at no stage tendered his resignation, but was ousted from services for a long period of almost 11 years, on the basis that he had so resigned - Further, in instant case, the petitioner had discharged his onus of establishing that he was not gainfully employed in the interregnum - In absence of any evidence to the contrary having led by the respondent-employer, there was no justification both on the facts as well as in law, to deny back- wages for the entire period - Deepali Gundu Surwase v Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) and others 2013 Indlaw SC 579, relied on - Rule made absolute.


(1) Farida Abubakar Memon; (2) Abdulla Abubakar Zariwala; (3) Sajid Abubakar Zariwala; (4) Imran Abubakar Memon vs (1) Collector of Stamps (Enforcement-II), Mumbai; (2) Additional Controller of Stamps General Stamp Office, Mumbai; (3) State of Maharashtra  [BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 18 Jul 2014]
Administrative - Constitution of India, 1950, art.226 - Payment of stamp duty - Legality - By the petition u/art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners questioned the following - (i) Order dt. 26-10-2007, issued by the Collector Stamps Duty (Enforcement-II), Mumbai requiring the predecessor in title of the petitioners to pay stamp duty of Rs.5,59,500 and fine of Rs.11,19,000 - (ii) Judgment and order dt. 31-3-2008 passed by the Additional Controller of Stamps, in appeal against the aforesaid order dt. 26-10-2007, which required the predecessor in title of the petitioners to pay an amount of Rs.5,90,500/- which includes deficit stamp duty and penalty - Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order deserved to be interfered with in exercise of equitable jurisdiction u/art. 226 of the Constitution of India -

Held, MOU dt. 26-9-1996, very clearly constitutes 'Conveyance' for the purposes of art. 25 in the 1st Schedule to the Act - At the time of execution of the MOU, not only the entire consideration for the purchase of the said property came to be paid, but further the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners, was placed in possession of the said property - In the year 1996, the stamp duty admittedly payable upon such instrument was 10% ad valorem which was not paid - In the year 2006, when the Deed of Conveyance dt. 17-7-2006 came to be executed, the stamp duty payable upon such Conveyance was only 5% ad valorem - In terms of s. 4 of the Act, no doubt the parties had an option to treat any one of the two instruments as the principal instrument, accordingly, the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners opted to treat the Deed of Conveyance dt. 17-7-2006 as the principal instrument and paid stamp duty of only 5% ad valorem thereof - In doing so, the proviso to s. 4 of Act, which provided that the duty chargeable on the instrument so determined should be the highest duty which shall be chargeable in respect of any of the said instruments so employed, was ignored - On basis of the same, the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners was required to pay stamp duty at the rate of 10% ad valorem - Clearly therefore, it was not a case where the Collector had merely changed his opinion as to the valuation of the said property and reviewed its earlier decision - Further, the Appellate Authority had already scaled down the stamp duty and penalty from Rs.16,78,500 to Rs.5,59,500 - In any case, if justice was the by-product of even an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction, ordinarily, such just and equitable result should not be whittled down in exercise of the extra ordinary and equitable jurisdiction u/art. 226 of the Constitution of India - It was yet another reason as to why the impugned order, did not call for interference - Petitioners final contention that the Appellate Authority had ignored the proviso to s.32A(4) of the Act, was again, not well founded - In the instant case, although the difference between the market value as determined by the Appellate Authority and the market value as determined by the parties themselves was less than 10%, what was important is that in respect of the MOU dt. 26-9-1996, the stamp duty payable in the year 1996 was 10% ad valorem and not 5% ad valorem, as in the year 2006 - Predecessor-in-title of the petitioners, by opting to treat the Deed of Conveyance dt. 17-7-2006 as the principal instrument, paid stamp duty at the rate of 5% ad valorem - Upon correct interpretation of the provisions of s. 4 of Act, the duty payable, ought to have been 10% ad valorem - In such a situation therefore, there was no question of the proviso to s.32A(4) of Act being attracted - Even if the proviso to s.32A(4) of Act was applied to the facts and circumstances of the case, then at the highest the market value of the said property should have to be pegged down to Rs.22,00,000/- and the enhanced value of Rs.23,35,000 should have to be ignored - However, upon the market value of Rs.22,00,000/-, stamp duty at the ad valorem rate of 10% becomes payable - Difference in the final figures of stamp duty payable, would therefore be negligible, to call for any interference u/art. 226 of the Constitution of India - Thus, there was no merit in the final contention of the petitioners, as well - Order accordingly.


Union of India and others vs Sharda Nand Bhardwaj  [HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT, 18 Jul 2014]

Ram Baksh Singh vs (1) State of Uttar Pradesh and others; (2) Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari Mainpuri and others; (3) District Inspector of Schools, Mainpuri and others  [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 18 Jul 2014]
Service - Uttar Pradesh Basic Shiksha Service Recruitment Rules - Uttar Pradesh Junior High Schools, Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978 - Right to officiate as head of institution - Denied - Justifiability - Petitioner filed instant petitions Writ challenging the orders appointing respondent no. 2 as officiating Principal of the institution and attesting his signature, respectively and further challenging the advertisement issued for appointment to the post of Principal/ Head Master, in accordance with provisions of the Rules published in daily Newspaper and also for restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's working as officiating principal and further it was sought by the petitioner for quashing the order dt.28-6-2003 passed by District Inspector of Schools (DIOS) attesting the signatures of 'R' as officiating principal, pursuant to his appointment as Principal on 19-5-2003, which was approved by District Basic Shiksha Adhikari (DBSA) on 21-2-2003 as head master and lastly challenged GO dt.24-11-2001, whereby, procedure to regulate functioning of Jr. High School upgraded to High School and Intermediate levels were specified - Petitioner contended that he was appointed as Asst. Teacher in the year 1980, and at that stage, he possessed the qualification of Intermediate with B.T.C and tat he claimed that with the prior permission of the concerned authorities, pursued and passed B.A. and M.A. Examinations from University and also completed B.Ed and that management of institution, in order to circumvent orders of DIOS directing handing over of charge of office of officiating Principal to Sr. most eligible teacher, adopted a novel method of advertising the post of Head Master in accordance with the provisions of Rules, inviting applications and for holding of interview, even though post of Head master had seized to exist after the up-gradation of the institution and recruitment could not be made as per the Provisions of the Rules -

Held, in peculiar facts of instant case, deliberate intent on part of the management to deny handing over charge of officiating principal to petitioner who was senior most teacher possessing required qualification for appointment to the post was apparent on the face of record - Series of letters sent by DIOS, in that regard, were ignored - A novel method to circumvent the directions of DIOS was invented - Even despite passing of order dt.20-2-2003 by HC, the management allowed 'R' to continue working as head of the institution - Petitioner, for no fault of his, was denied the right to officiate as head of the institution - In such circumstances, petitioner was clearly entitled to relief prayed for and authorities concerned were directed to forthwith allow the petitioner to join as officiating principal of the institution with all consequential benefits and continue till a regularly selected candidate on the post of Principal was made available by Commission - Petitioner was also entitled to be compensated for the harassment meeted out to him by the committee of management - Impugned advertisement as well as all consequential action undertaken including appointment of 'R' as head master/officiating principal were quashed - Order passed by DIOS attesting the signature of 'R' as officiating Principal was also quashed - Respondents were directed allow the petitioner to assume responsibility of officiating principal of the institution alongwith all consequential benefits till regular selection by Commission - Petitioner was also entitled for payment of costs assessed as Rs.25,000/- from the respondent committee of management for harassing the petitioner - Petitions disposed of.


Ashok Kumar Sharma Through Friend/Father Brijesh vs Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs and others  [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 18 Jul 2014]

Shriram Vitthal Thakurdesai vs Central Public Information Officer, Bank of Maharashtra, Maharashtra  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 17 Jul 2014]

Ramdeni Singh S/o Banbari Singh vs Central Public Information Officer, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Bihar  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 17 Jul 2014]

Moti Lal Meena vs Central Public Information Officer, Baroda Rajasthan Gramin Bank, Ajmer  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 17 Jul 2014]

Mohammadunisha vs State of Uttar Pradesh Through Secretary and others  [ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 17 Jul 2014]

Rambabu Prasad S/o Butaya Mehto vs Central Public Information Officer, UCO Bank, Begusarai  [CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 17 Jul 2014]

(1) Ram S/o Pyarelal Khicher; (2) Sunita W/o Raju Paisadeli vs (1) Municipal Council, Ramtek, Nagpur; (2) Member, Industrial Court, Nagpur  [BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 17 Jul 2014]
Service - Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1946 - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, s.25F, G, H - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Termination - Validity - Petitioners questioned their termination order served on them on 3-4-1995 by the respondent - According to the petitioners it was in breach of the Model Standing Orders framed under 1946 Act - Contention of petitioner was that termination of services amounted to retrenchment, but no compliance was made of s.25-F, G and H of 1947 Act - Complaints were dismissed by the Industrial Court on the ground that the Labour Court and not the industrial Court had jurisdiction to hear and decide the complaints as they are maintainable before the Labour Court and not the Industrial Court -

Held, Object of 1971 Act was to prevent occurrence of unfair labour practices - Refusal by the Industrial Court to exercise jurisdiction in relation to hear the complaints on merits in respect of the unfair labour practice violated the fundamental right, when the Industrial Court heard and dismissed the complaint as not maintainable - Submission was that the Industrial Court's order refusing to entertain the complaints is invalid and unjust and needed to be recalled and the Industrial Court should hear the matter and decide it on merits in accordance with the law - Rule made absolute.


(1) Vivek Kaushal and others; (2) Reenu Bala and another; (3) Poonam Kumari Thakur; (5) Rakesh Chauhan; (6) Kuldeep Singh; (7) Sunil Kumar Chauhan; (8) Pawan Kumar; (9) Dishant Kumar; (10) Uma Shankar vs (1) Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission; (2) State of Himachal Pradesh and another  [HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT, 17 Jul 2014]



Copyright © 1997-2014 | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer