Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.M. SIKRI, C.J.I., J.M. SHELAT, I.D. DUA, H.R. KHANNA AND G.K. MITTER, JJ.
G. M. Contractor etc., Petitioners
Versus
Gujarat Electricity Board and others, Respondents.
Civil. Appeals Nos. 28, 170 and 678 of 1971 with Civil Misc. Petn. No. 7420 of 1971, D/- 10-12-1971.
Judgment
S. M. SIKRI, CJI.:- In these Civil Appeals the respondents have filed miscellaneous petition praying that this Court may be pleased to permit them to raise the following additional ground:
"That the licence granted in this case is nothing but a contract and it is by virtue of the contract that the option to purchase the undertaking is being exercised. As the ocntroversy has arisen out of a contract only and the undertaking is sought to be purchased in terms of the contract, there is no compulsory acquisition of the undertaking within the meaning of Article 31 of the Constitution and as such the writ petition and the appeal are not maintainable".
2. It is stated that this ground goes to the very root of the matter but was not raised before the High Court. The appellant objected to this fresh ground being allowed to be taken up, but we consider that as this ground goes to the very root of the matter it should be allowed after the appellants are compensated by costs.
3. We further consider that we would like to have the assistance of the views of the High Court on the matter as important questions are involved. The High Court may allow the appellants herein to file counter-affidavits in reply to the ground raised and then after hearing the parties, forward its report to us.
4. The miscellaneous petition is accordingly allowed and the cases remanded to the High Court. The respondents will pay to the appellants the costs of hearing on December 1, 1971, in any event.
Petition allowed and Case remanded.
For Citation : AIR 1972 SC 792
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
