Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Nov-07-1993
Reported in : (1993)95BOMLR181
bhimrao n. naik, j.1. writ petitioner no. 4136 of 1981 is by the tenant and writ petition no. 287 of 1986 is by the landlord arising out of the same judgment and decree passed in civil suit no. 429 of 1972, confirmed in civil appeal no. 204 of 1978. both these petitions are being, disposed by me by a common judgment. the few facts which are relevant for the purpose of these petitions are that, petitioner in petition no. 287 of 1986, who is the landlord filed suit for possession under the rent act on the ground of bona fide requirement as also on the ground of permanent construction erected by the tenant. the suit property consists of the northern portion admeasuring 39'x8' of the house bearing-no. 320, situated in somwar ward at malegaon, district nasik. it is the case of the landlord that the tenant constructed three new rooms as also one mori, or bath room, without his written permission and thus carried out permanent constructions and in view of the provisions of section 13(1)(b) a right was accrued to the landlord to claim possession. this specific case made out in the plaint has not been specifically denied by the tenant in his written statement. all that is stated in his written statement is that the construction of the three rooms does not amount to permanent construction and that the said construction was carried out with the permission of the landlord. in this view of the matter the tenant claims that the suit of the landlord should be dismissed.2. the learned civil .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-14-1993
Reported in : 1993LabIC1996; (1994)ILLJ358SC; 1994Supp(1)SCC73
orderl.m. sharma, j.1. heard learned counsel for the parties. the special leave is granted.2. the appellant was appointed as a social worker on ad hoc basis in 1981. in the year 1987, he was declared to have acquired quasi-permanent status. his services were terminated by an order passed simplicitor on december 3, 1971. he filed a departmental appeal which was ultimately dismissed. he thereafter challenged the order of his termination by filing a suit which was later transferred to the administrative tribunal. the administrative tribunal dismissed the suit on several grounds including that of limitation. the judgment of the tribunal is impugned before us in the present appeal.3. it is the admitted position before us that the appeal, which had been filed before the department and was ultimately dismissed, was a statutory one. but the tribunal, has not correctly appreciated the position and has assumed that there was no right of appeal under the statute and that the so-called appeal of the appellant was merely a representation. it, therefore held that the transferred suit was barred by rule of limitation. if the limitation is calculated from the date when the appeal was dismissed, the suit was admitted within time. we, therefore, reverse the finding of the tribunal recorded against the appellant on the plea of limitation.4. on merits the tribunal had dismissed the suit holding that the civil surgeon who had initially appointed the appellant did not have any power to do so. the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Jan-19-1993
u.l. bhat, c.j.1. the common revision petitioner in the two revision petitions has been convicted under section 16 read with section 7 of the prevention of food adulteration act, 1954 in two separate cases for having sold adulterated food articles, namely, coriander powder and chillies powder to the food inspector and sentenced in each case to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of rs. 1000/- and in default to undergo imprisonment for three months. the conviction and sentenced entered against him in each of the cases have been confirmed by the appellate court in separate appeals. hence these two revisions.2. revision petitioner is a trader in jorhat town. food inspector, jorhat on 28-5-79 visited the shop of the revision petitioner and after observing the legal requirements purchased samples of coriander powder and chillies powder and sent one part of each of the samples to the public analyst and the remaining parts of the samples to the local (health) authority. public analyst reported that the samples were adulterated. in due course, food inspector filed two separate complaints against him. copies of the public analyst's reports with necessary intimations were forwarded to the revision petitioner. revision petitioner did not apply to the court to cause remaining part or parts of the samples to be sent to the director, central food laboratory. he pleaded not guilty in both the cases. in each of the cases, food inspector and a witness to the .....Tag this Judgment!