|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 154 Records
-
1976 (11) TMI 217
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the plaintiff's second suit for ejectment was maintainable under Order 2, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code.
2. Whether the cause of action for a suit for possession is distinct from the cause of action for arrears of rent and mesne profits.
3. Whether the leave of the court obtained by the plaintiff in the first suit to file a subsequent suit for ejectment affects the applicability of Order 2, Rule 2.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Maintainability of the Second Suit under Order 2, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code:
The plaintiff, Atma Ram Srivastava, initially filed a suit for arrears of rent and mesne profits without claiming ejectment. He reserved his right to file a suit for ejectment and obtained leave from the court to do so. Subsequently, he filed a second suit for ejectment and mesne profits. The defendant objected, claiming the second suit was barred by Order 2, Rule 2. The court held that the second suit was not barred as the plaintiff had obtained leave to file a subsequent suit for ejectment, which is permissible under Order 2, Rule 2(3). The court emphasized that the plaintiff's omission to claim ejectment in the first suit with the court's leave allowed him to file the second suit, thereby making it maintainable.
2. Distinct Causes of Action for Possession and Arrears of Rent/Mesne Profits:
The court analyzed whether the cause of action for a suit for possession is different from that for arrears of rent and mesne profits. The court referred to Order 2, Rule 4, which allows the joinder of claims for mesne profits or arrears of rent with a suit for recovery of immovable property. The court concluded that the cause of action for possession and mesne profits could be the same or distinct based on the facts of each case. The court disagreed with the Bombay High Court's view in Shankerlal v. Gangabisen, which held that claims for mesne profits and possession are always distinct. Instead, the court held that the claims could arise from the same cause of action, especially when based on a contract of lease.
3. Effect of Leave of the Court on Applicability of Order 2, Rule 2:
The plaintiff had obtained leave of the court in the first suit to file a subsequent suit for ejectment. The court held that this leave was crucial in determining the applicability of Order 2, Rule 2. Since the plaintiff had expressly reserved his right to file a suit for ejectment and obtained the court's permission, the bar under Order 2, Rule 2 did not apply. The court emphasized that Order 2, Rule 2(3) allows a plaintiff to omit certain reliefs with the court's leave and file a subsequent suit for those omitted reliefs.
Conclusion:
The court answered the reference in the affirmative, holding that the plaintiff's second suit for ejectment was maintainable under Order 2, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. The court clarified that the cause of action for possession and mesne profits could be the same or distinct based on the facts and that the leave of the court obtained in the first suit allowed the plaintiff to file the second suit for ejectment without being barred by Order 2, Rule 2.
-
1976 (11) TMI 216
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the respondent-chartered accountant is guilty of professional misconduct for allowing his articled clerk to engage in other employment without prior permission of the Council.
2. The power and jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 21(6) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949.
3. The standard of proof required in disciplinary proceedings against a chartered accountant.
4. The applicability of Regulation 36 of the Chartered Accountants Regulations, 1964.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Professional Misconduct
The primary issue was whether the respondent-chartered accountant allowed his articled clerk, Vijay Kumar Gupta, to engage in other employment without prior permission from the Council, thereby committing professional misconduct as defined under Section 22 of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. The Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India received information that the respondent allowed his clerk to work full-time at Liberty Insurance Co. Ltd., Indore, during the period of his articles. The respondent denied knowledge of the clerk's employment and claimed that the clerk was dedicated to his office work. The Disciplinary Committee, after an inquiry, concluded that the respondent was aware of the clerk's employment and failed to inform the Council, thus committing professional misconduct.
Issue 2: High Court's Jurisdiction
The High Court's jurisdiction under Section 21(6) of the Act is broad, allowing it to examine the entire material on record and arrive at its own conclusions on both facts and law. The Court is empowered to direct that the proceedings be filed, dismiss the complaint, reprimand the member, remove him from membership, or refer the case for further inquiry. The Court emphasized that its jurisdiction is not limited to questions of law or procedure but extends to a thorough review of the findings of the Disciplinary Committee and the Council.
Issue 3: Standard of Proof
The Court observed that disciplinary proceedings under the Chartered Accountants Act are quasi-judicial and quasi-criminal in nature, akin to criminal prosecutions. Therefore, the standard of proof required is beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proof lies on the Council or the complainant to establish the guilt of the chartered accountant with legal and satisfactory evidence. The Court rejected the notion that the onus shifts to the respondent once a prima facie case is established, emphasizing that the respondent is entitled to the benefit of doubt if the evidence is not conclusive.
Issue 4: Applicability of Regulation 36
Regulation 36 prohibits an articled clerk from engaging in any other occupation during the period of articles without prior permission from the Council. The charge against the respondent was that he allowed his clerk to work at Liberty Insurance Co. Ltd. without such permission. The Court noted that there was no direct evidence proving that the respondent had knowledge of the clerk's employment. The testimony of the clerk and the lack of examination of key witnesses, such as the custodian of the insurance company and the clerk's father, weakened the case against the respondent.
Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that there was no positive and conclusive proof that the respondent-chartered accountant was aware of the clerk's employment during office hours. The evidence on record did not support the charge of professional misconduct. The Court emphasized that the respondent could not be held liable without clear evidence of connivance or knowledge. Consequently, the Court dismissed the complaint against the respondent-chartered accountant, finding no professional misconduct. The Court also declined to refer the case back to the Council for further inquiry, considering the inconvenience already caused to the respondent.
-
1976 (11) TMI 215
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 94 of the CrPC regarding the production of documents.
2. Validity of the order directing Smt. Parmeshwari Devi to attend court and make a statement on oath.
3. Determination of whether the order was interlocutory and subject to revision under Section 397 of the CrPC.
Analysis:
1. The case involved a complaint filed under various sections of the Indian Penal Code regarding a partnership dissolution. The complainant sought the original deed of dissolution, leading to the issuance of summons under Section 94 of the CrPC to produce the document. However, the subsequent order directed Smt. Parmeshwari Devi, who was not a party to the case, to attend court and make a statement on oath regarding the document's possession. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 94 and highlighted that merely producing a document does not make a person a witness unless called as one. The Magistrate's order exceeded the legal provisions by requiring Smt. Parmeshwari Devi to attend court and make statements beyond the scope of the law, leading to the dismissal of her revision applications.
2. The court delved into the legality of the order directing Smt. Parmeshwari Devi to attend court and make a statement on oath. It emphasized that Section 94 of the CrPC only authorizes the issuance of a summons to produce a document, not to examine a person who is not a witness in the proceedings. The order for Smt. Parmeshwari Devi to attend court and make statements went beyond the statutory framework, as there was no provision allowing such actions under the Code. The court concluded that no further action was warranted against the appellant, and the lower courts erred in upholding the order, leading to the appeal being allowed and the impugned orders set aside.
3. The judgment also addressed the argument regarding the nature of the Magistrate's order dated August 8, 1974, as interlocutory and subject to revision under Section 397 of the CrPC. The court clarified that an interlocutory order is an intermediate order made during the preliminary stages of an inquiry or trial. It highlighted that the order adversely affected the appellant, who was not a party to the case, and could not challenge it after the final order, making it non-interlocutory in nature. Citing precedents and legal principles, the court determined that the order was not interlocutory, and the revisional courts erred in applying the bar of Sub-section (2) of Section 397, ultimately leading to the appeal being allowed and the impugned orders being set aside.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the High Court and the Metropolitan Magistrate, emphasizing the importance of adherence to legal provisions and procedural fairness in judicial proceedings.
-
1976 (11) TMI 214
Issues:
- Criminal breach of trust in respect of a receipt-book entrusted to the appellant as a Patwari.
Analysis:
The appellant, a Patwari, was suspended and faced a departmental inquiry. Upon suspension, he failed to hand over the charge of his post, leading to a forced takeover by his successor. The prosecution alleged criminal breach of trust regarding a receipt book, a roznamcha waqlati, a copying fee register, and an amount of Rs. 26.50. The Judicial Magistrate exonerated the appellant for most items but convicted him under Section 409 of the IPC for the receipt book. The Sessions Judge and High Court upheld the conviction. The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence and legal requirements under Section 409. The Court noted that the appellant was entrusted with the receipt book but found no evidence of dishonest misappropriation or conversion by the appellant. The Court emphasized that mere failure to return the receipt book did not establish criminal breach of trust. As there was no proof of dishonest intent, the Court concluded that the appellant was wrongly convicted under Section 409.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant of the offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code.
-
1976 (11) TMI 213
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the civil Court in tenant inclusion proceedings.
2. Effect of civil Court's decree on subsequent administrative decisions.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the civil Court in tenant inclusion proceedings
The appellant sought inclusion as a tenant in certain lands, which was allowed by the Records Officer based on a civil Court's declaration. However, the Appellate Authority overturned this decision, leading to a series of appeals and revisions. The primary question was the extent of the civil Court's jurisdiction in such matters. The civil Court had decreed in favor of the appellant, establishing him as the cultivating tenant without surrender of possession. The subsequent enactment of Section 16-A did not bar the civil Court's jurisdiction at the time of its decree. The judgment emphasized that a valid civil Court decree can only be set aside through an appeal to the appellate civil Court, not by administrative bodies like the Revenue Divisional Officer or District Revenue Officer.
Issue 2: Effect of civil Court's decree on subsequent administrative decisions
The judgment clarified that the Revenue Divisional Officer and District Revenue Officer erred in ignoring the civil Court's decree and judgment. Despite the enactment of Section 16-A, these administrative bodies could not disregard the civil Court's decision. The proper procedure for challenging a civil Court's decree is through the appellate process, not through administrative actions. The judgment emphasized that the rights of the parties and the jurisdiction of the civil Court should be addressed during the appeal process. Ultimately, the writ appeal was allowed, setting aside the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer and District Revenue Officer. The Revenue Divisional Officer was directed to proceed according to law after the civil Court's decision in the appeal, allowing the appellants in the civil appeal to raise all legal contentions available to them.
In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of respecting civil Court decrees and following the appropriate legal procedures for challenging them. It underscored the limited jurisdiction of administrative bodies in matters already adjudicated by the civil Court and emphasized the need for adherence to legal processes in setting aside civil Court judgments.
-
1976 (11) TMI 212
Issues:
Suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale, possession of property in dispute, claim for earnest money, contestation by defendants, bona fide purchaser defense under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, findings of lower appellate court, applicability of Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act.
Analysis:
1. The case involved a second appeal arising from a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale where the plaintiff also sought possession of the disputed property and claimed earnest money. The lower appellate court set aside the trial court's judgment, rejecting specific performance but awarded a sum against the defendants. The main dispute revolved around the execution of the agreement and possession of the property.
2. The lower appellate court found that the defendant No. 4 was a bona fide purchaser without notice of the agreement, thus entitled to protection under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. It also contested the plaintiff's possession claim, based on documentary and oral evidence. The appellate court's findings were upheld by the High Court as factual, considering the evidence and lack of compliance with Land Records Manual formalities.
3. The High Court addressed the contention that Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act was wrongly applied to the case, emphasizing that the provision pertains to transfers by ostensible owners, not applicable here. The correct provision, Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, was cited, requiring good faith and lack of notice for a transferee to be protected. The court noted the distinction between the requirements of Section 41 and Section 19(b) and upheld the lower court's decision based on the defendant's good faith and lack of notice.
4. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower appellate court's findings and decision. The judgment highlighted the importance of good faith and lack of notice for a transferee under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, concluding that the defendant No. 4 acted in good faith and was entitled to protection despite the initial confusion regarding the application of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act.
5. The judgment serves as a comprehensive analysis of the issues surrounding specific performance of an agreement of sale, possession claims, and the protection afforded to bona fide purchasers under relevant property laws. It clarifies the legal requirements for such protection and emphasizes the significance of good faith and lack of notice in determining the rights of parties involved in property transactions.
-
1976 (11) TMI 211
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the plea of 'guilty' and its implications.
2. Adulteration and misbranding under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
3. Applicability of the proviso (i) to Section 16(1) of the Act.
4. Vicarious liability of partners under Section 17 of the Act.
5. Adequacy of the Public Analyst's certificate.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Plea of 'Guilty' and Its Implications:
The appellants, a firm and its two partners, entered a plea of 'guilty' before the trial court, which was possibly part of a 'plea bargaining' that misfired at the appellate level. The Supreme Court noted that once a person pleads guilty and the court accepts it, there is no room for defences based on business being the mainstay of a large family or other extenuating circumstances. The court emphasized that a factual contention of innocence cannot survive a plea of guilt, and the provision for a minimum sentence must be adhered to.
2. Adulteration and Misbranding Under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954:
The facts of the case involved the sale of buffalo's milk misbranded as cow's milk, with a fat deficiency of 16.3% and 17.8% added water. The trial court convicted the accused based on their plea of guilt and imposed fines, viewing the offence as a venial deviation. However, the High Court enhanced the punishment to six months' imprisonment plus a fine, citing that the benefit of proviso (i) to Section 16(1) was not applicable, and the minimum sentence set by the statute was obligatory.
3. Applicability of the Proviso (i) to Section 16(1) of the Act:
The Supreme Court discussed whether the offence fell under the proviso (i) to Section 16(1), which allows for a lesser sentence for certain types of adulteration. The court concluded that the appellants did not qualify for the proviso because their case involved misbranding under Section 2(ix)(c) of the Act, which is not covered by the proviso. The court stated that the judicial jurisdiction to soften the sentence arises only if the offence of adulteration falls exclusively under sub-clause (1) of clause (i) of Section 2 or sub-clause (k) of clause (ix) of that section.
4. Vicarious Liability of Partners Under Section 17 of the Act:
The court examined the liability of the second accused, who was not present when the misbranded article was sold. Section 17(2) of the Act makes a partner vicariously liable if the offence is committed with their consent, connivance, or due to their neglect. However, there was no evidence of mens rea against the second accused. Section 17(1) applies if the partner is in charge of the business, but the proviso to this section provides immunity if the offence was committed without the partner's knowledge or despite due diligence. The court found that the second accused was entitled to acquittal as there was no proof of knowledge or connivance.
5. Adequacy of the Public Analyst's Certificate:
The appellants criticized the Public Analyst's certificate as perfunctory. The court acknowledged that a more detailed process of arriving at the conclusion would have been preferable. However, since the plea was 'guilty', the court did not delve further into the adequacy of the certificate.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal but suggested that the State Government consider exercising clemency to remit the sentence by three months, given the petty nature of the trade, the non-noxious adulteration, and the lack of significant harm. The appeal was dismissed, but the court left room for potential clemency by the State Government.
-
1976 (11) TMI 210
Issues Involved:
1. Competence of the State to appeal as a 'party aggrieved' under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.
2. Interpretation of 'area appurtenant to buildings' under Section 9 of the Act.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Competence of the State to Appeal as a 'Party Aggrieved':
The primary issue is whether the State, after vesting the land in the Gaon Sabha, retains sufficient legal interest to appeal against an adverse decree. The Act's provisions, particularly Sections 4, 6, and 117, were scrutinized to determine the State's residual interest.
Key Findings:
- Section 4: Declares the vesting of all estates in the State, free from all encumbrances.
- Section 6: Specifies the consequences of such vesting, including the termination of all intermediary rights.
- Section 117: Allows the State to vest these estates in Gaon Sabhas, retaining the power to amend or cancel such vesting.
The judgment emphasizes that the State retains a significant interest in the estates, as it can resume them from the Gaon Sabha at any time. This residual power indicates a continuing legal interest, making the State a 'person aggrieved' capable of appealing under Section 96 of the CPC. The court highlighted that the State's role in overseeing and potentially resuming the estates justifies its standing to appeal.
Conclusion:
The State has a sufficient legal interest to sustain an appeal, as its supervisory and resumption powers over the vested estates indicate a continuing proprietary interest.
2. Interpretation of 'Area Appurtenant to Buildings' under Section 9:
The second issue revolves around whether the entire land, used for a cattle fair, qualifies as 'appurtenant' to the buildings under Section 9 of the Act. The defendant argued that the entire estate, including vacant lands, should be considered appurtenant to the buildings for the meaningful operation of the cattle fair.
Key Findings:
- Section 9: Settles buildings and the area appurtenant thereto with the intermediary.
- The court analyzed the term 'appurtenant,' concluding that it implies a subordinate or ancillary relationship to the buildings. The large open spaces used for the cattle fair do not meet this criterion, as they are not necessary for the enjoyment of the buildings as such.
- The High Court's decision to grant only a 5-yard surrounding space around each building was upheld, as it aligns with the legal interpretation of 'appurtenant' land.
Conclusion:
The large open spaces used for the cattle fair are not appurtenant to the buildings. The High Court's decision to limit the appurtenant area to 5 yards around each building is legally sound.
Final Judgment:
The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision. The State is recognized as a 'party aggrieved' with the competence to appeal, and the interpretation of 'appurtenant' land under Section 9 does not include the extensive open spaces used for the cattle fair. The judgment reinforces the statutory framework's intent and the precise legal meanings of key terms within the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.
-
1976 (11) TMI 209
Issues Involved:
1. Nature of Appointment (Permanent vs. Temporary)
2. Powers of the Vice-Chancellor u/s 13(7) of the Act
3. Allegations of Fraud and Collusion
4. Judicial Interference in University Affairs
Summary:
1. Nature of Appointment (Permanent vs. Temporary):
The plaintiff-respondent was initially appointed as an Accountant and later as a "Senior Assistant" before being asked to teach classes temporarily. He was appointed temporarily on 25th February 1970, and his appointment was to terminate on 20th April 1970. Despite a Selection Committee recommending his name first for the post, the Executive Committee decided to advertise the post again, leading to the plaintiff-respondent filing a suit for a permanent injunction to restrain the University from terminating his services. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, but the Appellate District Court decreed in favor of the plaintiff-respondent, interpreting his appointment as permanent. The High Court affirmed this judgment but modified the injunction, stating it would become inoperative if the plaintiff's services were terminated for valid reasons.
2. Powers of the Vice-Chancellor u/s 13(7) of the Act:
The High Court interpreted Section 13(7) of the Act as conferring the power of absolute appointment to a permanent vacancy upon the Vice-Chancellor. However, the Supreme Court found this interpretation incorrect, stating that the Vice-Chancellor's powers were confined to making a tentative decision subject to confirmation by the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee had the final authority to specify the nature of the appointment, and the Vice-Chancellor's emergency powers were meant for emergent situations necessitating immediate action.
3. Allegations of Fraud and Collusion:
The plaintiff-respondent alleged that there had been an alteration and interpolation in the recommendation of the Selection Committee to make it appear temporary. The Supreme Court found that the first Appellate Court had lightly believed in the fraud allegations without sufficient particulars as required u/r Order VI, Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code. The Court emphasized that general allegations of fraud or collusion without specific details are insufficient.
4. Judicial Interference in University Affairs:
The Supreme Court observed that courts should be reluctant to interfere in the internal affairs of educational institutions and should refuse to grant an injunction unless a strong prima-facie case is made. The Court found no justification for continuing the injunction granted to the plaintiff-respondent and allowed the appeal, setting aside the decree and order of the High Court and restoring those of the Trial Court. The parties were left free to adjust their differences, and the plaintiff-respondent was free to seek relief based on any new rights acquired from subsequent facts.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's decree, and restored the Trial Court's order, emphasizing the limited powers of the Vice-Chancellor u/s 13(7) of the Act and the need for specific allegations in fraud claims. The Court also highlighted the importance of judicial restraint in interfering with the internal affairs of educational institutions.
-
1976 (11) TMI 208
Issues:
Interpretation of Section 115 Civil Procedure Code for interference with concurrent findings of lower courts, assessment of house tax on property not let out, balance of convenience in granting interim injunction, application of principles from Dewan Daulat Ram Kopur case, relevance of Delhi Rent Control Act provisions, discretion in granting injunction under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, consideration of appeal process under Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, and adherence to principles laid down by the Supreme Court in interference cases.
Analysis:
The Supreme Court granted special leave to appeal against a judgment where the Delhi High Court interfered with the Trial Court and Appellate Court's findings that no interim injunction could be granted in a case involving house tax assessment by the Municipal Corporation. The plaintiff had purchased a house free from liabilities, but the Corporation sought to recover house tax. The Trial Court initially granted an interim injunction, later vacated for lack of a prima facie case. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, considering the Corporation's need for property tax to carry out duties.
The High Court agreed with the Appellate Court on the balance of convenience but held that a prima facie case existed due to erroneous assessment, citing principles from a previous Full Bench decision. The High Court granted the interim injunction based on this reasoning, which the Corporation challenged. The Supreme Court noted the misapplication of law by the High Court and emphasized the importance of balance of convenience in such cases. It also highlighted the relevance of the Specific Relief Act's provisions and the availability of appeal under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act for the assessee.
The Supreme Court referenced a recent case to emphasize the need for adherence to principles governing interference under Section 115 Civil Procedure Code. It ultimately allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring that of the Appellate Court. The Court emphasized that the parties would bear their own costs in the matter. The judgment underscores the significance of balance of convenience, proper application of legal provisions, and adherence to established legal principles in cases involving injunctions and tax assessments.
-
1976 (11) TMI 207
Issues Involved:
1. Question of Limitation
2. Applicability of Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act
3. Presumption of Death under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act
4. Preliminary Objection regarding the Maintainability of Appeals
Detailed Analysis:
1. Question of Limitation:
The primary issue in these appeals was whether the suits filed by the plaintiffs were within the prescribed period of limitation. The plaintiffs had to prove that their suits were filed within three years of the accrual of the right to sue, which, according to them, occurred upon the presumed death of Kishan Singh after he had not been heard of for seven years since August 15, 1945. The Court emphasized that under Article 2 of the Schedule annexed to the Punjab Limitation (Customs) Act, 1920, the plaintiffs had to bring their suits within three years of the accrual of the right to sue, which meant within three years of the death of Kishan Singh. The plaintiffs failed to prove the exact date of Kishan Singh's death, which was crucial for establishing that the suits were within the limitation period.
2. Applicability of Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act:
The plaintiffs argued that the time spent in prosecuting previous suits should be excluded under Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act, which allows for the exclusion of time spent in good faith in prosecuting a suit in a court that is unable to entertain it due to a defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature. The Division Bench of the High Court held that the words "or other cause of a like nature" had to be read ejusdem generis with "defect of jurisdiction," and the previous suits were dismissed because they were premature, not due to a defect of jurisdiction. Hence, Section 14(1) was not applicable. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the plaintiffs could not benefit from Section 14(1) as the previous suits were not dismissed due to a defect of jurisdiction or other analogous cause.
3. Presumption of Death under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act:
The plaintiffs contended that Kishan Singh should be presumed dead under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act as he had not been heard of for seven years. The Court noted that while Section 108 allows for the presumption of death after a person has not been heard of for seven years, it does not presume the exact time of death. The burden of proving the specific time of death within those seven years lies on the person who claims a right based on that fact. The plaintiffs failed to provide evidence of the exact time of Kishan Singh's death, which was necessary to establish that the suits were filed within the limitation period.
4. Preliminary Objection regarding the Maintainability of Appeals:
The respondents raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the appeals were untenable due to an amendment in Section 7 of the Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Act, 1920, introduced by the Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Amendment Act, 1973, which had retrospective effect. The Supreme Court dismissed this objection, citing the savings clause in Section 4 of the Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Act, 1920, which protected rights to contest alienations made before the Act came into force. Since the alienation in question occurred in 1885, it was not affected by the 1920 Act or its 1973 amendment.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, agreeing with the Division Bench of the High Court that the suits were time-barred. The Court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove the exact date of Kishan Singh's death, which was essential to establish that the suits were filed within the limitation period. Additionally, the plaintiffs could not benefit from Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act as the previous suits were not dismissed due to a defect of jurisdiction or other analogous cause. The Court also dismissed the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeals, citing the savings clause in the Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Act, 1920.
-
1976 (11) TMI 206
Issues Involved:
1. Whether an order of 'anticipatory bail' can be competently made by a Court of Session or a High Court under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in case of offences falling under Rule 184 of the Defence and Internal Security of India Rules, 1971.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Competency of Granting 'Anticipatory Bail' Under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for Offences Under Rule 184 of the Defence and Internal Security of India Rules, 1971:
The core issue in this case was whether the power to grant 'anticipatory bail' under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is overridden by Rule 184 of the Defence and Internal Security of India Rules, 1971.
Historical Context and Legislative Intent:
The judgment begins by discussing the historical context and legislative intent behind Section 438. The Law Commission, in its Forty-First Report, highlighted the necessity of anticipatory bail due to the misuse of the legal system by influential persons. This recommendation was accepted by the Central Government, leading to the inclusion of Section 438 in the new Code of Criminal Procedure. The Law Commission stressed that this power should be exercised only in exceptional cases to prevent misuse.
Textual Analysis of Section 438:
Section 438 allows a person who anticipates arrest for a non-bailable offence to apply for bail. The section does not explicitly mention 'anticipatory bail,' but it is implied that the court may direct that the person be released on bail if arrested. This power is extraordinary and is meant to be exercised only in exceptional cases where there is a likelihood of false implication or misuse of liberty.
Textual Analysis of Rule 184:
Rule 184 imposes a ban on releasing a person accused or convicted of contravening the Rules unless two conditions are met: the prosecution must be given an opportunity to oppose the application, and the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person is not guilty of such contravention. This Rule does not confer new powers but restricts existing powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Harmonious Construction:
The judgment emphasizes the need for a harmonious construction of Section 438 and Rule 184. Section 438 applies at the stage of apprehension of arrest, while Rule 184 applies once the person is in custody. Therefore, there is no direct conflict between the two provisions. The court held that Rule 184 does not stand in the way of granting 'anticipatory bail' under Section 438.
Guidelines for Exercising Power Under Section 438:
Even though Rule 184 does not apply directly to anticipatory bail, the policy behind it should guide the court. The court should not grant anticipatory bail unless the prosecution is given an opportunity to oppose the application, and there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person is not guilty of the contravention.
Case-Specific Application:
In the present case, the High Court had dismissed the application for anticipatory bail based on its earlier decisions, which held that Rule 184 barred the granting of such bail. The Supreme Court set aside this order and remanded the case back to the High Court to decide the application on merits, emphasizing the need to give the prosecution an opportunity to be heard.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and directed the High Court to decide the application for anticipatory bail on merits. The appellant was allowed to remain on bail until the High Court's decision.
Separate Judgment:
Fazal Ali, J., concurred with the judgment of Bhagwati, J., and provided additional reasoning. He emphasized that the Defence and Internal Security of India Act and Rules were special laws meant for emergency situations but did not explicitly repeal Section 438 of the Code. He argued for a harmonious construction, stating that Rule 184 supplements Section 438 by providing guidelines for granting anticipatory bail. He also highlighted the importance of protecting the liberty of the citizen and ensuring that the provisions of both statutes coexist without conflict.
Final Orders:
1. Section 438 of the Code has not been repealed or overridden by Rule 184 of the Rules.
2. There is no real inconsistency between Section 438 of the Code and Rule 184 of the Rules.
3. Section 438 is an extraordinary remedy and should be exercised sparingly.
4. In cases covered by Rule 184, the court must comply with the conditions mentioned in Rule 184 before granting anticipatory bail.
The High Court was directed to re-admit the petition and decide it on merits, with the appellant continuing on bail until the High Court's decision.
-
1976 (11) TMI 205
Issues Involved:
1. Allegation of corrupt practices by the successful candidate.
2. Distribution of defamatory leaflets and copies of the newspaper PRACHAND.
3. Credibility and reliability of witnesses.
4. High Court's approach to evidence and findings.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Allegation of Corrupt Practices by the Successful Candidate:
The appellant was elected to the Barwaha Assembly constituency, and the election result was contested on the grounds of corrupt practices. The High Court had set aside the appellant's election based on these allegations. The Supreme Court had to determine whether the allegations of corrupt practices were substantiated by reliable evidence.
2. Distribution of Defamatory Leaflets and Copies of the Newspaper PRACHAND:
The election petition alleged that the successful candidate and his agents distributed defamatory leaflets and copies of PRACHAND, which contained false statements about the second respondent. The leaflet and the newspaper were claimed to have been distributed in various villages within the constituency. The defense argued that neither the appellant nor his workers distributed these documents and suggested that the second respondent might have fabricated the story.
3. Credibility and Reliability of Witnesses:
The High Court relied on the testimonies of several witnesses to conclude that the leaflets and PRACHAND were distributed by the appellant and his agents. However, the Supreme Court scrutinized the credibility of these witnesses. The Court noted discrepancies in the witnesses' statements, such as the exact dates of distribution, and their ability to recall the defamatory content verbatim. The Court also observed that many witnesses were partisan or had connections with the second respondent, which raised doubts about their impartiality.
4. High Court's Approach to Evidence and Findings:
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for not adhering to well-settled principles in evaluating the evidence. The High Court was found to have disregarded the quasi-criminal nature of the proceedings, which required allegations to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court emphasized that oral evidence in election cases should be supported by "surer circumstances or unimpeachable documents" to be reliable. The High Court's reliance on the oral testimonies without sufficient corroboration from independent evidence was deemed inappropriate.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence presented by the second respondent was neither sufficient nor convincing to prove the allegations of corrupt practices beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found serious infirmities in the evidence, including the credibility of witnesses and the lack of corroborative documentary evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and dismissed the election petition.
-
1976 (11) TMI 204
Issues:
1. Validity of the cancellation of the notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act.
2. Compliance with the mandatory provisions of section 5-A of the Act.
3. Opportunity given to the petitioners for objections under section 5-A.
4. Effectiveness of the fresh notification issued under section 6.
Analysis:
1. The judgment involves the challenge of the validity of the cancellation of the notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The court emphasized the importance of the proper sequence of events, stating that the notification canceling the section 6 declaration must appear first in the gazette before giving an opportunity to the petitioners. The court ruled that the cancellation of the notification under section 6 was not valid as the petitioners were not informed until its publication in the gazette, rendering the subsequent actions based on the cancellation invalid.
2. The court examined the compliance with the mandatory provisions of section 5-A of the Act. It highlighted that the purpose of section 5-A is to provide landowners with an opportunity to raise objections to the proposed acquisition. The court found that there was a denial of opportunity and non-compliance with section 5-A in this case, as the petitioners were not adequately informed before the hearing for objections under section 5-A was scheduled, leading to a conclusion of plain injustice and a pretense of compliance.
3. The issue of the opportunity given to the petitioners for objections under section 5-A was closely scrutinized by the court. It was noted that the petitioners were not informed of the cancellation of the earlier notification under section 6 before the hearing date, leading to a lack of proper communication and procedural irregularities. The court emphasized the mandatory nature of the provisions of section 5-A and the necessity for proper compliance to ensure fairness in land acquisition proceedings.
4. The effectiveness of the fresh notification issued under section 6 was also a crucial aspect of the judgment. The court ruled that the fresh notification issued on January 16, 1969, under section 6 was invalid due to the procedural flaws and lack of compliance with the statutory requirements. The court highlighted the significance of publication dates and the need for adherence to legal procedures in issuing and canceling notifications under the Land Acquisition Act to uphold the integrity of the acquisition process.
-
1976 (11) TMI 203
Issues:
1. Appeal against the order of the District Judge dismissing a Miscellaneous Appeal for restoration of a suit.
2. Transfer of the suit from one Court to another and the authority of the Advocate.
3. Petitioner's appeal dismissed by the District Judge on the grounds of unsatisfactory explanation for absence.
4. Legal position regarding the authority of the Advocate in case of transfer of proceedings to a different Court.
5. Review of the decision and setting aside the ex parte decree with conditions.
Analysis:
Issue 1: The revision before the High Court was against the order of the District Judge, Ratnagiri, dismissing the Miscellaneous Appeal for restoration of the suit. The suit had initially been filed in a different Court and was transferred to the Court where the ex parte decree was passed. The petitioner sought restoration of the suit for hearing on merits after the decree.
Issue 2: The High Court deliberated on the authority of the Advocate in the transferred proceedings. The Court observed that the authority of the Advocate may not necessarily continue if the proceedings are transferred to a different Court. The Court emphasized that the Advocate's authority is specific to the Court for which it was given, and a transfer to a distinct Court might terminate that authority.
Issue 3: The petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the District Judge, who was not satisfied with the petitioner's explanation for failing to attend the Court on the relevant date. The High Court noted that both lower Courts had taken a harsh view against the petitioner, highlighting the need for negligence to be compensated without disentitling the party from defending the suit on merits.
Issue 4: The High Court discussed the legal position regarding the Advocate's authority in case of a transfer of proceedings to a different Court. The Court expressed doubts about the continuation of the Advocate's authority in such situations and emphasized the need for a specific connection to the Court where the proceedings are being conducted.
Issue 5: The High Court ultimately set aside the ex parte decree with conditions. The petitioner was required to pay costs and file a Vakalatnama for another Advocate in the Court where the suit was pending. The Court directed the expeditious disposal of the suit and outlined specific timelines for compliance, ensuring that the restoration of the suit was subject to fulfilling the prescribed conditions.
-
1976 (11) TMI 202
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the promotion of a petitioner to the Indian Administrative Service, alleged supersession by juniors, delay in seeking redress, and the validity of the writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
Promotion Dispute:
The petitioner, a permanent member of the Orissa Administrative Service Class I, claimed he was senior to respondents 4 to 13 but was not included in the list for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service in 1960. He alleged that the list prepared in 1961 placed his name at the bottom, contrary to regulations. Despite making representations and memorials, his grievances were not addressed until he filed a writ petition in 1973.
Delay in Seeking Redress:
The Supreme Court noted an inordinate delay of eleven years from the rejection of the petitioner's representation in 1962 to filing the writ petition in 1973. The Court held that repeated representations without a satisfactory explanation did not justify the delay. The delay allowed for multiple appointments and promotions within the Indian Administrative Service, affecting the careers and benefits of other officers.
Validity of Writ Petition:
The State Government argued that the writ petition should be dismissed due to the significant and unexplained delay in seeking redress. The Court agreed with this argument, emphasizing that the High Court erred in not considering the delay as a reason for dismissal. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and dismissed the writ petition without costs.
This summary highlights the key issues of promotion dispute, delay in seeking redress, and the validity of the writ petition, culminating in the Supreme Court's decision to dismiss the petition due to the significant and unexplained delay in seeking redress.
-
1976 (11) TMI 201
Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of affidavits sworn before magistrates not in seisin of the case under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Interpretation and application of Section 8 of the Kerala Government Land Assignment Act, 1960.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Admissibility of Affidavits:
The core issue in these appeals was whether affidavits sworn or affirmed before magistrates who were not in seisin of the case under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could be read in evidence under that section. The High Court had ruled these affidavits inadmissible, prompting the appeals.
- Legal Provisions Involved:
- Section 145(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows parties to adduce evidence through affidavits.
- The Oaths Act, 1873, governs the swearing or affirmation of affidavits, while the Oaths Act, 1969, was deemed inapplicable.
- Key Legal Interpretation:
- Affidavits under Section 145 are considered evidence for proceedings before the concerned magistrate, notwithstanding the Evidence Act.
- The Code does not specify courts or persons before whom such affidavits must be sworn, necessitating reliance on general provisions.
- Application of the Oaths Act:
- Section 4 of the Oaths Act authorizes courts and persons to administer oaths if acting "in discharge of the duties or in exercise of the powers imposed or conferred upon them respectively by law."
- Only magistrates dealing with the Section 145 proceedings could administer such oaths, not those unconnected with the case.
- Conclusion:
- As the affidavits in question were not sworn before the magistrates handling the disputes, they were deemed improper and inadmissible as evidence under Section 145.
- The appeals were dismissed based on precedents and legal reasoning supporting the High Court's decision.
2. Interpretation and Application of Section 8 of the Kerala Government Land Assignment Act, 1960:
The second set of appeals involved the interpretation of Section 8 concerning whether further restrictions could be imposed on land after acquiring title from the government.
- Background Facts:
- An agreement in 1939 and modified in 1941 allowed Joseph and his father to reclaim land, with conditions on alienation until full payment.
- Joseph fulfilled the terms, and in 1957, executed a deed of settlement for the land.
- The Kerala Land Reforms Act of 1963 led to proceedings for land surrender, questioning whether the land should be treated as a single unit or separate units for compensation.
- Key Legal Interpretation:
- Section 8 validates all provisions, restrictions, conditions, and limitations in any Patta or document evidencing government land assignment.
- The restraint on alienation in the 1941 agreement applied only until full payment was made, which was completed before 1957.
- High Court's Findings:
- The settlement deed of 1957 was recognized by the government, with mutations and pattas issued to Joseph's children.
- The Kerala High Court found no conditions in the Patta to which Section 8 could apply post-payment.
- Conclusion:
- The High Court correctly interpreted that Joseph's children acquired rights under the settlement deed, entitling them to compensation for separate units.
- The appeals were dismissed, affirming that no further restrictions could be imposed once the conditions of the original agreement were fulfilled.
Overall Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decisions in both sets of appeals. The affidavits not sworn before the appropriate magistrates were inadmissible under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Additionally, the terms of the 1941 agreement did not impose further restrictions once the land value was fully paid, allowing Joseph's children to be treated as separate unit holders for compensation purposes under the Kerala Government Land Assignment Act, 1960. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the High Court's interpretations and applications of the relevant legal provisions.
-
1976 (11) TMI 200
Issues:
1. Right of private defence
2. Trespass and possession
3. Injuries and mutual fight
4. Consistency of medical evidence with eyewitness testimony
5. Appropriate conviction and sentencing
Detailed Analysis:
1. Right of Private Defence
The court examined whether the accused had the right of private defence. The defence argued that the accused were asserting their lawful right over a public Chak Road encroached by the complainant and acted in self-defence. However, the court found that the complainant had established settled possession over the land for two to three weeks before the occurrence. Therefore, the accused had no right to forcibly dispossess the complainant, and their act of aggression could not be justified as self-defence. The court noted: "The appellants who were undoubtedly the aggressors and had opened the assault could not claim any right of private defence either of person or property."
2. Trespass and Possession
The court discussed the legal implications of trespass and possession. It was established that the complainant had encroached upon the Chak Road and cultivated paddy, thus establishing possession. The court cited previous rulings to emphasize that a true owner cannot forcibly dispossess a trespasser who has accomplished possession. The court stated: "In view of the clear finding of the High Court that the complainant Ram Khelawan even after encroachment had established his possession over the land in dispute for two to three weeks before the occurrence, for the purpose of criminal law, the complainant must be treated to be in actual physical possession of the land."
3. Injuries and Mutual Fight
The court addressed the injuries sustained by both parties and the nature of the fight. The defence argued that the prosecution did not explain the injuries on the accused, suggesting a mutual fight. The court found that the prosecution had provided sufficient explanation for the injuries, noting that the complainants were also armed and acted in self-defence. The court concluded: "The prosecution has given sufficient explanation for the injuries sustained by the accused persons and the prosecution case cannot be thrown out on this ground."
4. Consistency of Medical Evidence with Eyewitness Testimony
The court evaluated the consistency between medical evidence and eyewitness testimony. The defence pointed out discrepancies, particularly regarding the manner of the assault with a Biroo. The court found that the medical evidence supported the eyewitness accounts, stating: "There is clear and consistent evidence of the eye witnesses that the deceased had been assaulted in the abdomen and this fact has been accepted by the two courts concurrently that the deceased Murli was assaulted by Ram Sajiwan with a Biroo."
5. Appropriate Conviction and Sentencing
The court deliberated on the appropriate convictions and sentences for the accused. It upheld the conviction of Ram Sajiwan under Section 302 IPC for causing the death of the deceased, noting: "The appellant Ram Sajiwan was rightly convicted under s. 302 I.P.C." However, the court found no common intention among the other accused to cause grievous hurt, setting aside their convictions under Sections 326/34 IPC but affirming their convictions under Sections 324/34, 323/34, and 447 IPC. The court concluded: "For these reasons, therefore, we would affirm the convictions and sentences passed on the appellant Ram Sajiwan but allow the appeal of the other appellants viz. Ram Rattan and Ram Samujh to this extent that their convictions and sentences under ss. 326/34 I.P.C. are set aside, but their convictions and sentences under ss. 324/34, 323/34 and 447 I.P.C. will stand."
Conclusion
The appeal was dismissed for Ram Sajiwan, affirming his conviction under Section 302 IPC. The convictions of Ram Rattan and Ram Samujh under Sections 326/34 IPC were set aside, but their convictions under Sections 324/34, 323/34, and 447 IPC were upheld. The court emphasized the importance of legal recourse over taking the law into one's hands.
-
1976 (11) TMI 199
Issues Involved:
1. Correctness of the selection list for promotion of Income Tax Officers to Assistant Commissioners.
2. Requirement of 10 years' experience for promotion.
3. Evaluation of merit by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC).
4. Field of choice for promotion.
5. Compliance with administrative instructions and statutory rules.
6. Alleged arbitrariness and violation of Article 16 of the Constitution.
7. Date for determining eligibility for promotion.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Correctness of the Selection List:
The principal question was whether the selection list for promotion of Income Tax Officers to Assistant Commissioners was correct. The selection list was prepared by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) based on the seniority list approved by the Supreme Court on April 16, 1974, in Bishan Sarup Gupta v. Union of India.
2. Requirement of 10 Years' Experience:
The Gujarat High Court held that the requirement of 10 years' experience for promotion, as laid down in a Government of India letter dated January 16, 1950, was violated because the DPC considered persons with 8 years' experience. However, the Supreme Court found that the requirement of 10 years' experience was modified to 8 years through administrative instructions and correspondence between the Finance Ministry, Home Ministry, and the Union Public Service Commission. The Court concluded that the requirement of 10 years' experience was not a statutory rule and had been effectively modified to 8 years.
3. Evaluation of Merit by the DPC:
The High Court held that the DPC did not properly evaluate the merit of persons in the field of choice. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the DPC followed the principles set out in the Memorandum dated May 16, 1957, which emphasized merit over seniority. The DPC classified officers as "outstanding," "very good," and "good" based on their service records and prepared the selection list accordingly.
4. Field of Choice for Promotion:
The High Court criticized the DPC for not extending the field of choice to five times the number of vacancies, as recommended in the Memorandum. The Supreme Court found that the field of choice had been prepared based on running seniority, an administrative practice followed for over 10 years. The DPC considered 276 names out of 336 sent by the Government, adhering to the principle of running seniority and the modified requirement of 8 years' experience.
5. Compliance with Administrative Instructions and Statutory Rules:
The respondents contended that the selection violated the rule framed by the Government of India for promotion to selection posts. The Supreme Court found that the administrative instructions from the Home Ministry dated May 16, 1957, were generally applicable and had been adapted by the DPC for promotions within the Income Tax Department. The Court upheld the DPC's adherence to these instructions.
6. Alleged Arbitrariness and Violation of Article 16:
The respondents argued that the selection was arbitrary and violated Article 16 of the Constitution. They claimed that promotee officers with more than 8 years' service were excluded, while direct recruits with less than 8 years' service were included. The Supreme Court found that the DPC's selection was based on running seniority and the modified 8-year experience rule. The Court held that the selection was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory.
7. Date for Determining Eligibility for Promotion:
The respondents contended that eligibility should be determined based on the dates of provisional promotions permitted by the Supreme Court on December 21, 1972, and subsequent Government orders. The Supreme Court clarified that the eligibility for promotion should be decided with reference to the date of the DPC meeting, as always done in past meetings. The Court emphasized that promotions to the post of Assistant Commissioners are to be made prospectively, not retrospectively.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the judgments and orders of the Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh High Courts. It held that the selection list prepared by the Departmental Promotion Committee was correct, lawful, and valid. The appeals were allowed, and parties were directed to bear their own costs.
-
1976 (11) TMI 198
Issues Involved:
1. Validity and binding nature of the disputed settlement.
2. Fairness, justness, and reasonableness of the disputed settlement.
3. Completeness of the disputed settlement.
4. Principles applicable in granting dearness allowance to workers.
Analysis of Judgment:
1. Validity and Binding Nature of the Disputed Settlement:
The Tribunal found that the disputed settlement was not valid and binding on the members of the Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha (Respondent No. 2). The Supreme Court, however, emphasized that when a recognized union negotiates with an employer, individual workers do not come into the picture. The settlement, being a product of collective bargaining, is entitled to due weight and consideration. The Court noted that the 2nd respondent did not produce evidence to show the number of workers who were its members and who could assert that the settlement was not binding under section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Court concluded that the settlement was binding on all workers, given that the majority had accepted it and received the arrears and emoluments accordingly.
2. Fairness, Justness, and Reasonableness of the Disputed Settlement:
The Tribunal found that the scheme of dearness allowance (D.A.) provided in the disputed settlement was not fair, just, and reasonable, particularly for workmen at or just above the subsistence level. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the settlement must be judged as a package deal. The Court highlighted that the settlement had provided better terms in wages, and even if there was some reduction in D.A., it did not make the settlement unfair or unreasonable. The Court emphasized that settlements in collective bargaining should be encouraged and judged in the spirit of mutual give and take, rather than strictly by adjudication principles.
3. Completeness of the Disputed Settlement:
The Tribunal held that the disputed settlement was incomplete because the terms and conditions for a small number of seasonal casual workmen were left to be mutually decided by the parties. The Supreme Court, however, noted that some terms had been settled for this category by mutual agreement. The Court concluded that the settlement could not be deemed bad on account of this minor incompleteness.
4. Principles Applicable in Granting Dearness Allowance:
The Tribunal applied principles from the Killick Nixon Limited case, advocating for cent percent or at least 95% neutralization of the cost of living in D.A. The Supreme Court clarified that while these principles are relevant for adjudication, they do not necessarily apply to voluntary settlements. The Court emphasized that settlements should not be judged by the strict principles of adjudication but by the mutual benefits and the spirit of collective bargaining. The Court found that reducing the D.A. to 85% and 87.5% did not render the settlement unfair or unjust, especially when considering the overall benefits and the context of the settlement.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the disputed settlement as fair and just, substituting the award of the Tribunal with the settlement dated October 18, 1973. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs. The judgment emphasized the importance of collective bargaining and the need for industrial peace and harmony.
........
|
9911796707
