|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 384 Records
-
1990 (11) TMI 432
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED The Court considered several core legal questions in this judgment: A) The rights vested in the Custodian under the Textile Undertakings (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1983, and whether the proprietorship of the existing Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 can be said to have been transmitted to the Custodian. B) Whether the Custodian can be categorized as a permitted user or if the proprietorship of the trade marks has been transmitted to the Custodian, thereby extinguishing the rights of the company. C) Whether the registered owners of the trade marks can be prosecuted for unauthorized use of these trade marks without the knowledge and consent of the Custodian. D) Whether it is permissible for the registered owners to move the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India to quash the criminal proceedings. E) Whether the registered proprietor of a trade mark can be prosecuted for unauthorized use of his own trade mark under these circumstances. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS A) Rights vested in the Custodian: - Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Textile Undertakings (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1983, and the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. - Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that the management of the textile undertaking was vested in the Central Government, but this did not automatically transmit the proprietorship of trade marks to the Custodian. - Key evidence and findings: The Court noted that the Finlay Mills Ltd. remained the registered proprietor of the trade marks, and there was no evidence of any steps taken by the National Textile Corporation to register themselves as proprietors. - Application of law to facts: The Court applied the provisions of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, to conclude that the Finlay Mills Ltd. continued to have rights as the registered proprietors. - Treatment of competing arguments: The Court rejected the argument that the rights under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act were extinguished by the Take-over Act. - Conclusions: The Court concluded that the rights of the registered proprietors were not extinguished by the Custodian's management takeover. B) Custodian as permitted user: - Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, and relevant definitions of "permitted use" and "registered user." - Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court found that the National Textile Corporation was a permitted user of the trade marks but not the proprietor. - Key evidence and findings: The Court noted that the National Textile Corporation did not register as a user of the trade marks. - Application of law to facts: The Court held that the National Textile Corporation could use the trade marks but did not have exclusive rights. - Treatment of competing arguments: The Court dismissed the argument that the takeover resulted in the transmission of trade mark ownership. - Conclusions: The National Textile Corporation was a permitted user, not the proprietor of the trade marks. C) Prosecution of registered owners: - Relevant legal framework and precedents: Sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. - Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that the registered proprietors could not be prosecuted for using their own trade marks. - Key evidence and findings: The Court emphasized the continued registration of the trade marks under the Finlay Mills Ltd. - Application of law to facts: The Court applied the law to conclude that the prosecutions were not maintainable. - Treatment of competing arguments: The Court rejected the argument that the prosecutions were justified due to the Custodian's rights. - Conclusions: The prosecutions against the registered proprietors were not legally sustainable. D) High Court's jurisdiction under Section 482 and Article 227: - Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 227 of the Constitution of India. - Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court found that it was appropriate to exercise its jurisdiction to quash the proceedings. - Key evidence and findings: The Court noted the lack of any alternative remedy for the petitioners. - Application of law to facts: The Court applied its inherent powers to quash the proceedings. - Treatment of competing arguments: The Court dismissed the preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the petitions. - Conclusions: The High Court had jurisdiction to quash the proceedings under Section 482 and Article 227. E) Permissibility of prosecuting the registered proprietor: - Relevant legal framework and precedents: Sections 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. - Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that the registered proprietors could not be prosecuted for using their own trade marks. - Key evidence and findings: The Court emphasized the continued registration of the trade marks under the Finlay Mills Ltd. - Application of law to facts: The Court applied the law to conclude that the prosecutions were not maintainable. - Treatment of competing arguments: The Court rejected the argument that the prosecutions were justified due to the Custodian's rights. - Conclusions: The prosecutions against the registered proprietors were not legally sustainable. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS - The Court held that the management of the textile undertaking was vested in the Central Government, but this did not automatically transmit the proprietorship of trade marks to the Custodian. - The Court found that the National Textile Corporation was a permitted user of the trade marks but not the proprietor. - The Court held that the registered proprietors could not be prosecuted for using their own trade marks. - The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 and Article 227 to quash the proceedings. - The Court concluded that the prosecutions against the registered proprietors were not legally sustainable.
-
1990 (11) TMI 431
Issues Involved:
1. Dispute of seniority in the Orissa Administrative Services.
2. Validity of the 'year of allotment' principle.
3. Validity of the Orissa Administrative Services Class II (Appointment of Officers Validation) Act, 1986.
4. Seniority of direct recruits vs. mergerists.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Dispute of Seniority in the Orissa Administrative Services:
The primary issue in these matters was the dispute over seniority between the direct recruits and the mergerists within the Orissa Administrative Services. The contention arose due to the integration of the Orissa Administrative Service Class II (O.A.S.II) and Orissa Subordinate Administrative Service Class III (O.S.A.S. III) into a single cadre known as O.A.S.II with a senior branch (S.B.) and a junior branch (J.B.). The Government of Orissa passed a resolution on January 7, 1972, to effectuate this merger, and the integration was to be completed in a phased manner over ten years. However, on December 21, 1973, the two branches were abolished, and a new cadre of O.A.S.II was constituted, placing all members of O.S.A.S. III below the last person in the existing O.A.S.II(S.B.) in the seniority list.
2. Validity of the 'Year of Allotment' Principle:
The principle of the 'year of allotment' was central to determining seniority. The Orissa Administrative Service Class II (Appointment by Promotion, Transfer and Selection) Regulations, 1959, and the Orissa Administrative Service Class II (Appointment by Competitive Examination) Regulation, 1959, provided for the determination of the 'year of allotment' for members of O.A.S.II. The Orissa High Court, in Ananta Kumar Bose v. State of Orissa, upheld the principle of the 'year of allotment,' noting that it had been a long-standing practice that resulted in accrued rights and benefits. The Supreme Court affirmed this view, emphasizing that the principle should remain sacrosanct and not be disturbed.
3. Validity of the Orissa Administrative Services Class II (Appointment of Officers Validation) Act, 1986:
The Orissa Administrative Services Class II (Appointment of Officers Validation) Act, 1986, was enacted to validate certain appointments and seniority determinations. Section 3 of the Act aimed to validate the appointment of merger recruits and the determination of their seniority vis-a-vis direct recruits for the years 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, and 1974. However, the Supreme Court found Section 3(2)(a) of the Act, which placed deemed promotees of the year 1972 above the direct recruits of the same year, to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court held that there was no reasonable classification to differentiate between direct recruits of 1970, 1971, and 1972, and thus, the provision was arbitrary and liable to be struck down.
4. Seniority of Direct Recruits vs. Mergerists:
The Supreme Court addressed the seniority dispute between direct recruits and mergerists. It was argued that direct recruits who were assigned 1972 as their 'year of allotment' should be senior to the mergerists. The Court upheld the concept of the 'year of allotment' and declared that the direct recruits of 1972 should be ranked senior to the mergerists. The Court also noted that the direct recruits of 1973 should be senior to the mergerists, following the prevailing system of promoting Class III officers to Class II and fixing inter se seniority in accordance with the regulations.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the principle of the 'year of allotment' as a traditional and tested modality to regulate seniority. It declared Section 3(2)(a) of the Orissa Administrative Services Class II (Appointment of Officers Validation) Act, 1986, as violative of Article 14 and extended the benefit of the Ananta Kumar Bose case to the 1972 direct recruits. The Court dismissed Civil Appeal No. 750 of 1987 and Writ Petition No. 12770/85, while partially allowing Writ Petition No. 1044/87. The dispute regarding the seniority of 1973 direct recruits was left for determination before the State Administrative Tribunal.
-
1990 (11) TMI 430
Issues:
Eviction under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent And Eviction) Act, 1973; Interpretation of Section 13(2) of the Act; Allegations of non-payment of rent; Proper procedure for seeking eviction; Impleading parties in eviction proceedings; Rights of tenants in possession; Scope of relief sought by the landlord; Application of relevant legal precedents.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal arising from eviction proceedings under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent And Eviction) Act, 1973. The key issue revolves around the interpretation of Section 13(2) of the Act, which allows a landlord to seek eviction of a tenant for non-payment of rent. The Controller may order eviction if the tenant fails to pay or tender rent within the specified time frame. The case involved a dispute between a landlord and a tenant regarding possession of a shop building. The landlord sought eviction of the tenant, but the Controller dismissed the application as the tenant in question was not the real tenant. The appellate authority and the High Court upheld this decision.
The appellant argued that the lower courts misinterpreted the Act by rejecting the eviction application. The appellant contended that non-payment of rent by the tenant justifies eviction, even if the specific tenant is not named in the application. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this argument. The Court emphasized that the application for eviction must be based on valid grounds specified in the Act. In cases where the real tenant is not targeted correctly, the landlord cannot succeed in obtaining an eviction order. The Court highlighted that a party cannot be granted a relief not claimed, especially if it prejudices the other party's rights.
The Court further discussed the importance of impleading parties in eviction proceedings. It noted that impleading a party does not automatically imply their agreement to eviction. The Court cited legal precedents to support the principle that a plaintiff cannot receive relief contradictory to their case if it causes prejudice to the defendant. The judgment emphasized the necessity of following proper procedures and seeking relief as per the statute's requirements.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the arguments presented. The Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts and made no order as to costs. The judgment clarifies the proper procedure for seeking eviction under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent And Eviction) Act, emphasizing the importance of correctly identifying parties and following statutory requirements for eviction proceedings.
-
1990 (11) TMI 429
Issues:
Challenge to maintainability of the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Analysis:
1. Maintainability Challenge: The petitioners challenged the maintainability of the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint alleged that the accused petitioners were responsible for the day-to-day conduct of the business of the company. The petitioners argued that they were not directly responsible for the day-to-day business operations but were involved in policy-making only. The petitioners relied on precedents like K.N. Genda v. State, Mahalderam Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. D.N. Prodhan, and G. Atherton and Co. v. Corporation of Calcutta to support their claim. These cases emphasized the need for a direct connection between the accused's role in the business and the alleged offence. However, the opposite party cited Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Purshotam Dass Jhunjunwala, where the Supreme Court allowed prosecution of directors based on detailed allegations of their involvement in the offence.
2. Prima Facie Case: The petitioners also argued that there was insufficient evidence to show their liability under Section 138 of the Act. The complaint alleged that the accused issued a dishonored cheque, leading to legal consequences. The petitioners contended that the term "refer to drawer" did not necessarily imply dishonor, citing a House of Lords judgment. However, the opposite party presented letters from banking officials clarifying that the remark indicated insufficient funds in the drawer's account. The court held that the bounced cheque and the petitioners' failure to respond adequately indicated a prima facie case under Section 138. The court found no illegality in proceeding with the trial and directing the examination of the accused under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Decision: Ultimately, the court rejected the petitioners' application challenging the maintainability of the case and upheld the impugned order. The court found that the complaint sufficiently established the necessary elements for proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The judgment highlighted the importance of detailed allegations and evidence to establish criminal liability in such cases, following the precedent set by the Supreme Court in similar matters.
This detailed analysis of the judgment outlines the key legal arguments, precedents cited, and the court's reasoning in deciding the issues raised by the petitioners regarding the maintainability and evidence in the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
-
1990 (11) TMI 428
Issues Involved:
1. Inter se seniority between promotees and direct recruits.
2. Legality of Rule 3(h) and Rule 24 of the U.P. Forest Services Rules, 1952.
3. Applicability of Rule 4 of the Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966.
4. Validity of Regulation 5 of Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion), Regulation 1966.
Summary:
1. Inter se Seniority between Promotees and Direct Recruits:
The Supreme Court addressed the "vexed question of inter se seniority between promotees and direct recruits" as Asstt. Conservators of Forest. The promotees, confirmed Forest Range Officers in U.P. Forest Subordinate Service, were appointed on an ad-hoc basis due to the non-availability of direct recruits. The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to declare Rule 3(h) and Rule 24 of the U.P. Forest Services Rules, 1952, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. They argued that their continuous length of service from the dates of their initial promotion should be counted towards their seniority.
2. Legality of Rule 3(h) and Rule 24 of the U.P. Forest Services Rules, 1952:
The Court interpreted Rule 3(h) and Rule 24, stating that a member of the service must be appointed in a substantive capacity under the provisions of the rules. The appointment must be to a post in the service according to rules and within the quota to a substantive vacancy. The Court emphasized that "any other construction would be a violation of the rules."
3. Applicability of Rule 4 of the Indian Forest Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1966:
The Court noted that the rules are legislative in character and must be harmoniously interpreted. Rule 4 constitutes and fixes the cadre strength of various posts, including Asstt. Conservator of Forest. The Court highlighted that the Government did not abandon direct recruitment under Rule 5(a) and the delay in recruitment was due to judicial proceedings.
4. Validity of Regulation 5 of Indian Forest Service (Appointment by Promotion), Regulation 1966:
The Court examined the procedure for recruitment by promotion under Rule 5(b) and Appendix 'B'. It was found that the promotees were appointed on an ad-hoc basis, pending direct recruitment, and in excess of the prescribed quota under Rule 6. The Court held that "appointments are dehors the rules and until they are appointed by the Governor according to rules, they do not become the members of the service in a substantive capacity."
Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the promotees' continuous length of ad-hoc service from the date of initial appointment cannot be counted towards seniority. The seniority of the promotees shall be counted only from the respective dates of appointment to substantive posts in their quota under Rule 6. The direct recruits' seniority shall be counted from the date of discharging duties as Asstt. Conservator of Forest. The writ petitions were allowed, and the inter se seniority of the direct recruits and promotees shall be determined in accordance with the relevant rules and the law declared in the judgment.
-
1990 (11) TMI 427
Issues Involved:
1. Cognizance and trial by the Special Judge.
2. Necessity of prosecuting the firm to convict partners.
3. Classification of Lactogen (infant formula) as baby food.
4. Responsibility and liability of partners under Section 10 of the Essential Commodities Act.
5. Consideration of mens rea and sentencing.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Cognizance and Trial by the Special Judge:
The preliminary point raised was whether the cognizance and trial by the Special Judge based on a prosecution report by P.W. 1, which is not a police report, is valid under Section 12AA(e) of the Essential Commodities Act. The provision states that a Special Court may take cognizance of an offence upon a perusal of the police report. However, the Division Bench in (1990) 3 OCR 480 clarified that a Special Court could take cognizance on a report by a public servant, overruling earlier single-judge decisions. Thus, the preliminary submission was not entertained.
2. Necessity of Prosecuting the Firm to Convict Partners:
The trial court acquitted the accused partners on the ground that the firm was not made an accused. This decision was based on earlier judgments, including ILR (1975) Cut 86 and (1979) 48 CLT 1, which held that the firm must be prosecuted to convict partners. However, the Supreme Court clarified that it is not necessary for the company or firm to be made an accused to sustain the conviction of its officers, directors, or partners. Section 10 of the Act allows for the prosecution of individuals responsible for the company's conduct without necessarily prosecuting the company itself. Hence, the trial court's ground for acquittal was deemed unsustainable.
3. Classification of Lactogen (Infant Formula) as Baby Food:
The defense argued that Lactogen (infant formula) is not listed in Schedule-I of the Orissa Baby Food Licensing Order and thus is not baby food. The prosecution countered that Lactogen (infant formula) falls under the category of 'Lactogen' as listed in the schedule. The court found that Lactogen, including its variants like Lactogen (Full Protein follow-up formula with iron) and Lactogen (Infant formula) with iron, is covered under the term 'Lactogen' in the schedule. Therefore, the trial court correctly held that Lactogen (infant formula) is baby food under the order.
4. Responsibility and Liability of Partners under Section 10:
Section 10(1) of the Act states that every person responsible for the company's conduct at the time of contravention is guilty. Section 10(2) extends liability to any director, manager, secretary, or officer if the offence was committed with their consent or due to their neglect. The court found that accused Dindayal was present at the business premises during the inspection, making him responsible. Accused Khusiram admitted to selling Lactogen (infant formula), implicating his responsibility. However, accused Asharam, aged 62, claimed no knowledge of the partnership business, indicating he was not responsible for the contravention. Thus, only Dindayal and Khusiram were held guilty, while Asharam was acquitted.
5. Consideration of Mens Rea and Sentencing:
Mens rea is not required to constitute an offence under Section 7 of the Act, but it can influence sentencing. Given the seven-year delay in the case and the lack of ill-motive, the court decided against custodial sentences. Instead, Dindayal and Khusiram were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000 each, with a default sentence of three months' rigorous imprisonment if the fine is not paid within two months. The acquittal of Asharam was confirmed.
Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed in part, overturning the acquittal of Dindayal and Khusiram, who were fined, while confirming the acquittal of Asharam.
-
1990 (11) TMI 426
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) to offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (N.D.P.S. Act).
2. Entitlement to bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.
3. Premature application for cancellation of bail.
4. Inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
5. Conditions for granting interim bail.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Applicability of Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. to offences under the N.D.P.S. Act:
The primary issue is whether Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C., which mandates bail if the charge-sheet is not filed within a specified period, applies to offences under the N.D.P.S. Act. The Division Bench of the High Court was referred to resolve this difference of opinion between two judges. One judge had previously held that Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. does not apply to N.D.P.S. Act offences, while another judge disagreed, necessitating a referral to the Division Bench for a conclusive decision.
2. Entitlement to bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C.:
The Applicant/Accused was entitled to bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. because the charge-sheet was not filed within 90 days. The Court emphasized that the proviso to Section 167(2) creates an "absolute right" for the accused to get bail if the charge-sheet is delayed. This right is described as an "order-on-default" rather than an order on merits. The Supreme Court's ruling in Rajnikant v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, New Delhi, supports this interpretation, asserting that bail can be granted even if the charge-sheet is filed subsequently, though the State can seek cancellation of bail post-filing.
3. Premature application for cancellation of bail:
The Department's application to cancel bail before the Applicant/Accused was released on bail was deemed premature. The Court clarified that under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C., cancellation of bail is only possible after the accused has been released on bail. The judgments of the Rajasthan and Gujarat High Courts supported this view, emphasizing that the language of Section 439(2) is clear and explicit, necessitating the actual release of the accused before bail can be canceled.
4. Inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:
The Department argued that the Court could use its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to cancel bail before the accused's release. However, the Court held that when express provisions exist in the Cr.P.C. (such as Sections 437(5) and 439(2)), recourse to inherent powers under Section 482 is not permissible. The Court cited R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab to support this principle. The cited case of Department of Central Excise v. Rajesh Tulsidar was distinguished as it did not specifically address the issue at hand.
5. Conditions for granting interim bail:
Given the delay in the Division Bench's hearing and the prolonged incarceration of the Applicant/Accused, the Court granted interim bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. pending the Division Bench's decision. The bail was granted with conditions: the Applicant/Accused must provide a bail bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties, surrender his passport, attend the Customs Office twice a week, provide his residential address, not leave his residence without permission, attend court hearings, and not tamper with prosecution evidence. Breach of these conditions could result in bail cancellation.
Conclusion:
The Criminal Application No. 1712 of 1990 was dismissed as premature. Criminal Application No. 1614 of 1990 was allowed, granting interim bail to the Applicant/Accused pending the Division Bench's decision on the applicability of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. to N.D.P.S. Act offences. An interim stay of the bail order was granted for one month to allow the Department to challenge the order in the Supreme Court.
-
1990 (11) TMI 425
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the Suit for Dissolution of Partnership
2. Applicability of French Law vs. Indian Partnership Act
3. Nature of the Partnership: At Will or Not
4. Rights and Liabilities of Partners upon Withdrawal or Death
Summary:
1. Maintainability of the Suit for Dissolution of Partnership:
The respondent laid the suit for dissolution of the partnership and for accounting, claiming the partnership was at will and stood dissolved upon notice. The appellants contended that the partnership was not at will under French Law and that the respondent must relinquish his share without dissolving the firm. The Trial Court and a learned Single Judge dismissed the suit, holding it was not maintainable. However, the Division Bench reversed this, holding the partnership was at will and the suit was maintainable.
2. Applicability of French Law vs. Indian Partnership Act:
The primary contention was whether the partnership was governed by French Law or the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. The Division Bench held that the Indian Partnership Act applied, as Pondicherry (Laws Regulation 7 of 1963) extended the Act to Pondicherry from October 1, 1963. Despite the partnership deed being made under the French Civil Code, the cause of action arose in 1978, by which time the Act was in operation.
3. Nature of the Partnership: At Will or Not:
The key issue was whether the partnership was at will. The appellants argued that the partnership was not at will, citing provisions of the French Civil Code and specific clauses in the partnership deeds (Ex. B1 and B2). The respondent argued that the partnership was at will, as per Clause IV of the partnership deed. The Supreme Court held that the partnership was not at will, as the contract specified that the partnership would continue as long as there were at least two partners, and partners could only withdraw or retire, not dissolve the partnership at will.
4. Rights and Liabilities of Partners upon Withdrawal or Death:
The Court examined the clauses of the partnership deed, which provided that the partnership would continue despite the withdrawal or death of a partner, with the remaining partners paying the value of the outgoing or deceased partner's share. The Court concluded that the partnership would continue till there were at least two partners, and the respondent could not dissolve the partnership but could seek accounting or retire from the partnership and take the value of his share.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the partnership was not at will and the respondent could not dissolve it but could seek accounting or retire from the partnership. The respondent was given the option to amend the plaint to seek appropriate reliefs, and the appellants were allowed to amend their written statement, except for raising the issue of limitation. The suit would be disposed of expeditiously if the respondent chose to amend the plaint; otherwise, it would be dismissed. Each party was directed to bear their own costs.
-
1990 (11) TMI 424
The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal in the case with citation 1990 (11) TMI 424 - SC. Justices M.N. Venkatachaliah and R.M. Sahai delivered the order.
-
1990 (11) TMI 423
Issues Involved:
1. Condition of the building.
2. Bona fide requirement of the landlord.
3. Legislative intent and protection of tenants.
4. Interpretation of Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.
5. Judicial review and appreciation of evidence.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Condition of the Building:
The landlord sought eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, claiming the building was over 100 years old and liable to crumble. The tenant refuted this, citing previous reports and petitions by the landlord that described the building as structurally sound. The statutory authorities and the High Court found the building structurally safe and sound, despite its age. However, the High Court held that the building's condition was not decisive in determining the landlord's bona fide requirement for demolition and reconstruction.
2. Bona Fide Requirement of the Landlord:
The landlord argued that the property's location justified its demolition and reconstruction for better economic use, which was in the public interest. The High Court agreed, stating that the landlord's requirement for a legitimate scheme of demolition and reconstruction was bona fide, even if the building was structurally sound. The tenant contended that Section 14(1)(b) focuses solely on the building's condition and not the landlord's economic interests.
3. Legislative Intent and Protection of Tenants:
The judgment emphasized the legislative intent to protect tenants from unreasonable eviction, balancing the interests of both landlords and tenants. The overriding consideration was to safeguard tenants against unjustified demands for higher rent or eviction. The court underscored that the Act's primary objective is to control rents and prevent unreasonable eviction, reflecting the acute shortage of accommodation.
4. Interpretation of Section 14(1)(b):
The court analyzed Section 14(1)(b), which allows eviction if the building is bona fide required for immediate demolition and reconstruction. The term "immediate purpose" was interpreted to mean a directly connected and timely purpose, not necessarily instant action. The condition of the building must indicate a bona fide requirement for timely demolition and reconstruction. The court held that a sound and safe building does not qualify for demolition under this section. The landlord's requirement must be genuine, timely, and directly connected to the statutory purpose of demolition and reconstruction.
5. Judicial Review and Appreciation of Evidence:
The court reviewed the judicial approach to evidence and findings of fact by statutory authorities. It emphasized that judicial review does not entail re-evaluation of evidence but ensures that the authority has acted within its jurisdiction, considered all relevant facts, and applied the law correctly. The court found that the Controller, appellate authority, and High Court had erred by not considering the building's sound condition as a relevant factor for eviction under Section 14(1)(b).
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment under appeal, emphasizing that the condition of the building is a vital factor in determining the bona fide requirement for eviction under Section 14(1)(b). The landlord's petition for eviction was dismissed, and the appeal was allowed with costs. The court reiterated the legislative intent to protect tenants from unreasonable eviction and the need for careful consideration of the building's condition in such cases.
-
1990 (11) TMI 422
Issues:
1. Validity of transfer orders issued by the District Education Establishment Committee to lady teachers in Primary Schools in Bihar.
2. Jurisdiction of the District Education Establishment Committee to transfer teachers on their request.
3. Challenge to transfer orders on the grounds of public interest and administrative reasons.
4. Authority of the competent authority to issue transfer orders in public interest.
Detailed Analysis:
The Supreme Court addressed the issue of the validity of transfer orders issued by the District Education Establishment Committee to lady teachers in Primary Schools in Bihar. The High Court had set aside the transfer orders and directed the reposting of the displaced teachers to their original places. The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in interfering with the transfer orders, emphasizing that the District Education Establishment Committee had the jurisdiction to transfer teachers, even if the transfers were made on the teachers' requests. The Court highlighted that the Director of Primary Education had issued reasonable directions to accommodate lady teachers at requested places to avoid hardship, which the Committee followed in transferring the appellants.
The Court further analyzed the challenge to the transfer orders based on public interest and administrative reasons. It emphasized that government servants holding transferable posts have no vested right to remain at one place and are liable to be transferred. The Court stated that transfer orders made in public interest and for administrative reasons should not be interfered with by the Courts unless there is a violation of mandatory statutory rules or malafide intent. The Court cautioned against judicial interference in day-to-day transfer orders, highlighting that such interference could lead to chaos in the administration and not be conducive to public interest.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and dismissed the petition filed by the displaced teachers. The Court directed the appellants to be posted to the places to which they had been transferred under the challenged orders, emphasizing that there would be no costs awarded in the matter. The judgment reinforced the principle that transfer orders made by competent authorities in public interest should not be lightly interfered with by the Courts, unless there are clear violations of legal rights or malafide intentions.
-
1990 (11) TMI 421
Issues:
1. Whether the assessee was entitled to adjust expenditure in the books of account after the close of the accounting year related to managerial remuneration.
2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in allowing the deduction of a specific amount in the assessment year.
3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting a certain amount from the assessment for a particular year.
Analysis:
Issue 1:
The case involved the adjustment of managerial remuneration expenditure in the books of account after the close of the accounting year. The Tribunal allowed the adjustment based on the consistent method of accounting followed by the assessee. The Government's approval for the remuneration came after the relevant accounting year, but the assessee made the adjustment in line with its past practice. The Tribunal relied on the judgment in CIT v. Birla Gwalior (P.) Ltd. to support the deduction. The High Court agreed, emphasizing the genuine business nature of the expenditure and the assessee's accounting practices.
Issue 2:
Regarding the specific deduction allowed by the Tribunal, the amount in question was related to the difference between the approved managerial remuneration and the amount debited by the assessee in previous years. The Tribunal permitted the deduction based on the consistent accounting method and the fact that the excess amount had been duly offered for taxation in a prior year. The High Court upheld this decision, highlighting the factual basis and the absence of tax implications.
Issue 3:
The third issue pertained to the deletion of a specific amount from the assessment for a particular year. The Tribunal justified this deletion by considering the assessee's accounting practices and the timing of the Government's approval for the remuneration. The High Court concurred, noting that the deletion was in line with the overall accounting treatment and did not result in any loss to revenue. The Court referenced relevant case law and emphasized equitable interpretation in tax matters.
In conclusion, the High Court answered all three questions in favor of the assessee, highlighting the consistency in accounting practices, the genuine nature of the expenditures, and the absence of adverse revenue implications. The judgment underscored the importance of equitable interpretation in tax law and upheld the Tribunal's decisions based on the factual and legal analysis presented.
-
1990 (11) TMI 420
Issues:
1. Regularization of service and seniority disputes among direct recruits in the Central Information Service.
2. Interpretation of service rules and notifications regarding seniority and promotion.
3. Judicial review of government actions in accordance with service rules.
Analysis:
1. The case involved Civil Appeals and a Writ Petition regarding the regularization of service in the Central Information Service (C.I.S) and the subsequent seniority disputes among direct recruits. The petitioners were initially not regularly recruited but were later regularized in service in 1977 through amendments to the Rules.
2. The Central Information Service Rules, 1959, established the C.I.S, with provisions for direct recruitment and promotion within the service. The dispute in this case focused on the inter se seniority among direct recruits to Grade IV, with specific reference to the regularized employees and their placement in the service hierarchy.
3. The notification issued on 27th January, 1977, regularized the services of certain ad hoc employees in Grade IV of the C.I.S. The petitioners challenged the direction in the notification that placed regularized employees below the regular recruits up to 1970 based on that year's examination results.
4. The High Court and Division Bench decisions favored the regularized employees, considering their officiating service from 1964 to 1977 for determining seniority. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that seniority in service is governed by service rules, and in the absence of specific provisions, the length of service is a key factor.
5. The Court rejected arguments equating regular recruitment examinations with the screening process for regularized employees. It upheld the government's decision to place regularized officers below regular recruits based on the 1970 examination results, as per the service rules.
6. The Court clarified that disputes over seniority between direct recruits and promotees should be resolved according to the rules governing each category. It highlighted the importance of adhering to service rules and refraining from judicial interference when government actions align with the established regulations.
7. The Court acknowledged concerns regarding potential reversion of the petitioner due to the seniority dispute. It suggested allowing the petitioner to hold a supernumerary post without further promotion until entitled based on seniority as per the regularization notification.
8. The Court dismissed claims for considering past service of regularized employees not covered by the regularization notification, emphasizing adherence to the rules for determining seniority. Ultimately, the Civil Appeals were allowed, setting aside the lower court judgments and dismissing the claims filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
9. The Court reiterated the importance of following service rules to avoid disruptions and urged governments to adhere to the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. It emphasized the binding nature of such rules and the need for compliance to prevent issues arising from deviations.
10. The Court concluded by stating that there would be no order as to costs in the case, emphasizing the significance of adherence to service rules and the rule of law in matters related to service regularization and seniority disputes.
-
1990 (11) TMI 419
Issues:
1. Validity of public notice issued by Delhi Development Authority proposing modifications to the Master Plan for Delhi.
2. Consideration of belated objections filed by the appellants.
3. Compliance with the requirements of Section 44 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 regarding public notice.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Validity of Public Notice
The Delhi Development Authority issued a public notice proposing modifications to the Master Plan for Delhi, changing the land use from 'Residential' to 'Recreational (District Park and Open Spaces)' for a specific area. The appellants, a religious denomination, challenged the notice alleging lack of proper publicity as required under Section 44 of the Act. The High Court rejected the writ petition, stating that even if the provisions were not fully complied with, the appellants were not prejudiced. However, the Supreme Court found that the objections were not properly considered, leading to a lack of prejudice to the appellants. The Court emphasized that objections filed within the prescribed period must be considered by the authorities to avoid prejudice.
Issue 2: Consideration of Belated Objections
The Court examined whether the belated objections filed by the appellants were duly considered by the authorities. The Secretary of the Delhi Development Authority stated that the objections were transmitted to the Central Government for consideration. However, there was no clear record indicating that the objections were considered and rejected. The Court highlighted that the absence of a record of objection disposal raised doubts about the proper consideration of objections. It was emphasized that objections filed within the specified period should be considered to prevent prejudice.
Issue 3: Compliance with Section 44 of the Act
The critical question revolved around the requirements of Section 44 of the Act regarding public notice. The section mandates wide dissemination of the notice in the affected locality through various means like affixing copies in public places, publishing by beat of drum, or in local newspapers. The Court interpreted the section's language and emphasized that the publication methods must be strictly followed to ensure affected parties have a clear notice and opportunity to file objections. In this case, the notice was only published in local newspapers, failing to meet the mandatory requirements of Section 44. Consequently, the Court held the notice invalid and quashed it along with the actions taken based on it.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and invalidated the public notice, emphasizing the mandatory nature of compliance with statutory provisions for public notices to protect the rights of affected parties.
-
1990 (11) TMI 418
The Supreme Court upheld the penalty imposed under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act but reduced the amount to Rs. 25,000 due to extenuating circumstances. The High Court has the power to modify penalties on appeal, and the appeal was ultimately dismissed with no costs.
-
1990 (11) TMI 417
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the material in question, which is being manufactured at the intermediate stage, is 'sodium rosinate'.
2. If not, whether it is a derivative of rosin.
3. Whether it is marketable.
4. Whether there was justification for invoking a longer period of limitation.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether the material in question is 'sodium rosinate':
The appellants contended that they were not manufacturing 'sodium rosinate' but rather an aqueous solution used for sizing paper. The process involves mixing soda ash and rosin, heating, and then using the resultant emulsion for paper sizing. The adjudicating authorities alleged that the appellants were manufacturing sodium rosinate, but the evidence provided, including chemical test reports, indicated that the product was an aqueous solution or emulsion rather than pure sodium rosinate. The dictionary definition of sodium rosinate (sodium abietate) describes it as a white powder soluble in water, derived by leaching rosin with sodium hydroxide solution. The test reports and the adjudicating authorities' findings did not conclusively prove the manufacture of sodium rosinate as defined.
2. Whether it is a derivative of rosin:
The adjudicating authorities suggested that the material might be a derivative of rosin. However, technical literature and definitions provided by the appellants indicated that a derivative should be a solid, easily prepared, and purified substance. The material in question did not meet these criteria, as it was an aqueous solution or emulsion used in a continuous process. The adjudicating authorities did not provide sufficient evidence to classify the material as a derivative of rosin.
3. Whether it is marketable:
The appellants argued that the material was not marketable as it was produced in a continuous process and had a short shelf life. The adjudicating authorities did not provide evidence of marketability. The Supreme Court rulings in Bhor Industries Ltd. v. CCE and CCE, Baroda v. A.S. Enterprise established that for a product to be excisable, it must be marketable. The department failed to prove that the material was marketable, and thus, it could not be considered excisable.
4. Whether there was justification for invoking a longer period of limitation:
The longer period of limitation was invoked on the grounds of alleged suppression of facts by the appellants. However, the appellants had been availing of benefits under Notification No. 201/79, which required them to disclose the use of rosin in their manufacturing process. The adjudicating authorities acknowledged that the demand arose due to changes in the Central Excise Tariff and not due to suppression of facts. Therefore, the invocation of the longer period of limitation was not justified.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the material in question was not sodium rosinate, nor was it a derivative of rosin. It was not marketable, and the invocation of the longer period of limitation was unjustified. The benefit of Notification No. 225/86 was admissible. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessees were allowed, and the appeals filed by the Collector of Central Excise were dismissed.
-
1990 (11) TMI 416
Issues Involved:
1. Allegations of bias and malafides against the inquiring officer.
2. Irregularities and violations of Army Rules 22 to 25.
3. Validity and legality of the court-martial proceedings.
4. Confirmation and promulgation of the court-martial findings and sentence.
5. Discrimination in the award of punishment.
6. Procedural defects in convening the general court-martial.
7. Adequacy of defense provided to the petitioner.
8. Allegations of fabricated and fictitious charges.
9. Compliance with procedural safeguards under the Army Act and Rules.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Allegations of Bias and Malafides Against the Inquiring Officer:
The petitioner alleged that Lt. Col. S.K. Maini, who ordered the summary of evidence, was biased and acted with malafides. The petitioner claimed that Lt. Col. Maini had a grudge against him due to prior incidents, including a report made by the petitioner against Lt. Col. Maini. However, the counter-affidavit denied these allegations, stating that the petitioner's complaints were investigated, and the cases were closed. The court found no substantial evidence of bias or malafides and noted that Lt. Col. Maini was only involved in the preliminary inquiry, not the court-martial proceedings.
2. Irregularities and Violations of Army Rules 22 to 25:
The petitioner argued that there was a gross violation of Rules 22 and 25, which require that charges be heard in the presence of the accused and that the accused be allowed to cross-examine witnesses. The petitioner contended that his consent to dispense with his presence during the summary of evidence was obtained fraudulently. However, the court found that the petitioner had given his consent in writing and that there was no substantial evidence of irregularities. The court also noted that any minor irregularities in the preliminary proceedings did not affect the general court-martial, which conducted a regular trial.
3. Validity and Legality of the Court-Martial Proceedings:
The petitioner challenged the legality of the general court-martial, arguing that the convening order was defective and that the presiding officer was junior to him. The court found that the convening order was signed by a superior officer and that the presiding officer was a Colonel, thus superior to the petitioner. The court held that there were no serious legal infirmities in the convening of the court-martial or its proceedings.
4. Confirmation and Promulgation of the Court-Martial Findings and Sentence:
The petitioner contended that the findings and sentence of the general court-martial were not properly confirmed. The court noted that the confirmation was done by the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief Command, as authorized by the Central Government. The court found no infirmity in the confirmation process and held that the procedural requirements were substantially complied with.
5. Discrimination in the Award of Punishment:
The petitioner argued that there was discrimination in the award of punishment, citing examples of other officers who received lesser penalties for similar offenses. The court held that it was within the discretion of the general court-martial to decide the appropriate sentence based on the circumstances of each case. The court found no evidence of discrimination or disproportionate punishment.
6. Procedural Defects in Convening the General Court-Martial:
The petitioner claimed that the convening order was signed in a mechanical way and not by the authorized officer. The court found that the convening order was signed by a Staff Officer for the General Officer Commanding, which was in compliance with the rules. The court dismissed the argument that the convening order was defective.
7. Adequacy of Defense Provided to the Petitioner:
The petitioner argued that he was not provided with a defense counsel of his choice and that his request for adjournment to engage a defense counsel was denied. The court noted that the petitioner was represented by a defending officer as per the rules and that there was no evidence of prejudice caused to his defense. The court held that the procedural requirements for providing defense were duly followed.
8. Allegations of Fabricated and Fictitious Charges:
The petitioner contended that the charges against him were fabricated and fictitious, pointing out inconsistencies in the charge-sheet. The court found that the description of the occurrence in different terms did not affect the case and that the investigation was a preliminary step meant for gathering evidence. The court held that the charges were properly framed and that the petitioner was duly informed of the accusations against him.
9. Compliance with Procedural Safeguards Under the Army Act and Rules:
The petitioner argued that the procedural safeguards under the Army Act and Rules were not followed, particularly Rules 22 to 25. The court held that these rules were not mandatory for officers unless they specifically requested compliance. The court found that the petitioner did not exercise his option under Rule 25 and that there was no violation of mandatory rules. The court emphasized that the main objective was to ensure that the accused was aware of the charges and had the opportunity to defend himself, which was achieved in this case.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed both writ petitions, finding no substantial evidence of bias, malafides, or procedural irregularities that would vitiate the court-martial proceedings. The court held that the procedural requirements were substantially complied with and that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining discipline in the armed forces and upheld the findings and sentence of the general court-martial.
-
1990 (11) TMI 415
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the termination of the distributorship.
2. Reliefs to which the plaintiff is entitled if the termination is invalid.
3. Entitlement of the defendant to make a counter-claim.
Summary:
Issue 1: Validity of the Termination of the Distributorship
The Supreme Court examined whether the termination of the plaintiff's distributorship by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (the appellant) was validly effected. The arbitrator found that the termination was not validly made under Clause 27 of the Distributorship Agreement. The appellant had terminated the distributorship citing unauthorized connections and tampering with the waiting list, which were deemed prejudicial to the Corporation's interests. However, the arbitrator concluded that the termination was wrongful and invalid.
Issue 2: Reliefs to the Plaintiff
Upon finding the termination invalid, the arbitrator granted several reliefs to the plaintiff:
- Declaration of Wrongful Termination: The termination of the distributorship was declared wrongful and invalid.
- Restoration of Distributorship: The arbitrator directed the restoration of the distributorship, considering it an exceptional case due to the nature of the distributorship and the livelihood of the partners.
- Compensation: The plaintiff was entitled to compensation for the commission that would have been earned from the date of wrongful termination until the distributorship was restored.
- Return of Property: The arbitrator ordered the return of 224 filled cylinders, 384 regulators, and other articles taken by the appellant.
- Refund of Draft Amounts: The appellant was directed to return the amounts of two drafts of Rs. 15,580.83 each, as no supplies were made against these drafts.
Issue 3: Counter-Claim by the Defendant
The arbitrator did not decide on the counter-claim made by the appellant, stating that it did not fall within the scope of the reference made by the Supreme Court. The counter-claim was not present at the time of the reference order dated April 9, 1986.
Supreme Court's Decision:
- Restoration of Distributorship: The Supreme Court held that granting the relief of restoration of the distributorship was contrary to law, as the contract was determinable in nature and could not be specifically enforced u/s 14(1) of the Specific Relief Act.
- Compensation: The Court modified the award, granting compensation for the notice period of thirty days instead of restoration of the distributorship. The compensation was to be calculated based on the earnings during that period.
- Return of Property: The direction to pay the price of 224 cylinders and 384 regulators was found erroneous, as these were the property of the appellant. However, the direction to refund the amounts of the two drafts was upheld.
- Counter-Claim: The Court acknowledged the merit in the appellant's grievance regarding the non-consideration of the counter-claim but did not examine it further as it was not pressed by the appellant's counsel.
Final Order:
The award was modified to grant compensation for the thirty-day notice period and refund of the draft amounts, but not the restoration of the distributorship. Costs of arbitration and the appeal were to be borne by the appellant.
-
1990 (11) TMI 414
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of sale deed executed prior to attachment before judgment but registered subsequently.
2. Interpretation of Order 38 Rule 5 and Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
3. Application of Section 64 of the CPC.
4. Effect of Section 47 of the Registration Act on the sale deed.
5. Relevance of Section 49 of the Registration Act.
6. Impact of subsequent court sale on the rights of the vendee.
Summary:
1. Validity of Sale Deed Executed Prior to Attachment Before Judgment but Registered Subsequently:
The core issue was whether Hamda Ammal, who purchased the property via a sale deed executed on 9.9.1970 but registered on 26.10.1970, had a superior claim over Avadiappa, who obtained an attachment before judgment on 17.9.1970. The Court held that the sale deed executed before the attachment but registered later would prevail over the attachment before judgment.
2. Interpretation of Order 38 Rule 5 and Rule 10 of the CPC:
Order 38 Rule 5 CPC allows attachment before judgment if the defendant intends to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree. However, this provision does not apply if the sale deed was executed before the suit was filed. Order 38 Rule 10 CPC states that attachment before judgment shall not affect the rights existing prior to the attachment of persons not parties to the suit.
3. Application of Section 64 of the CPC:
Section 64 CPC prohibits private alienation of property after attachment. However, the Court clarified that this does not affect the registration of a sale deed executed before the attachment. The act of registration, which is a statutory requirement, does not constitute a transfer prohibited by Section 64.
4. Effect of Section 47 of the Registration Act on the Sale Deed:
Section 47 of the Registration Act stipulates that a registered document operates from the time it would have commenced if no registration was required. Thus, the rights of the vendee relate back to the date of execution of the sale deed, not the date of registration.
5. Relevance of Section 49 of the Registration Act:
Section 49 of the Registration Act, particularly its proviso, allows an unregistered document to be received as evidence for specific performance or part performance of a contract. This negates the argument that the execution of the sale deed confers no rights until registration.
6. Impact of Subsequent Court Sale on the Rights of the Vendee:
The Court rejected the argument that the subsequent court sale in favor of respondent No. 5, M.S.A. Kadar, could override the rights of Hamda Ammal. Once the sale deed was executed, the subsequent attachment or court sale could not confer any title to the attaching creditor.
Case References:
- The Court distinguished the present case from Ram Saran Lall v. Mst. Domini Kuer, which dealt with pre-emption under Mohammedan Law.
- The Court referred to Hiralal Agrawal v. Rampadarath Singh, noting that the question of re-conveyance was academic in that context.
- The Court endorsed the view in Vannarakkal Kallalathil Sreedharan v. Chandramaath Balakrishnan, which held that a sale deed executed before attachment but registered later prevails over the attachment.
Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the Subordinate Judge's decision decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiff was confirmed. Each party was directed to bear their own costs.
-
1990 (11) TMI 413
Issues:
Validity of transfer orders issued to lady teachers in Primary Schools in Bihar on their request challenged by displaced teachers before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Analysis:
The Supreme Court, comprising K Singh and K Ramaswamy, JJ., granted leave in a case where lady teachers in Primary Schools in Bihar were transferred to places where their husbands were posted upon their request. The transfer orders were challenged by displaced teachers before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court set aside the transfer orders and directed the reposting of the displaced teachers to their previous locations.
Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in interfering with the transfer orders issued by the District Education Establishment Committee. The Court held that the Committee had the jurisdiction to transfer Primary School teachers, even upon their request. The Director of Primary Education had issued directions to accommodate lady teachers to avoid hardship, which the Committee followed in transferring the appellants. The Court emphasized that the High Court's reasoning for declaring the transfer orders invalid was unfounded.
The Supreme Court further stated that Courts should not interfere with transfer orders made in public interest and for administrative reasons unless there is a violation of mandatory statutory rules or malafide intentions. Government servants holding transferable posts do not have a vested right to remain at a specific location and are liable to be transferred. Even if a transfer order violates executive instructions, the Courts should not intervene, and the affected party should seek recourse through higher authorities. The Court warned against excessive judicial interference in day-to-day transfer orders, as it could lead to administrative chaos.
Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturned the High Court's order, and dismissed the petition filed by the displaced teachers. The appellants were directed to be posted at the places to which they had been transferred under the challenged orders, with no costs imposed on any party.
........
|
9911796707
