Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.V.Chandrachud, CJI., A.D.Koshal, N.L.Untwalia, P.N. Shinghal, V.R.Krishna Iyer, JJ.
Hasinuddin Khan: Ram Pyare
Versus
Deputy Director Of Consolidation: Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Lucknow
Case No., 1394 of 1974, 543 of 1975, 242 of 1979,2152 of 197
Date of Decision, 9/13/79
Advocates Appeared: Agarwala E.C., Andley S.N., Chatterjee G.S., Chauhan A.P.S., Dikshit R.N., Dutta Uma, Goyal J.P., Jain S.K., Prashar V.C., Sharma Tera Chund
Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals - Special Leave Petition - In view of judgments of this court and in view of fact that special leave petition filed against judgment rendered by high court upholding validity was dismissed by constitution bench of this court after an elaborate argument there is no substance in contention is unconstitutional - Challenge to these Acts on ground of their unconstitutionality is therefore rejected - Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants have very fairly conceded that position - Accordingly Civil and special leave petition are dismissed – Held, However appellants may if so advised ask for special leave to appeal from judgment of learned single judge - We are sure that delay caused in filing special leave petition in this court will be condoned since appellants were pursuing their remedy by filing these appeals in this court - Learned counsel for appellant in civil says that appellant has already filed special leave petition in this court challenging decision of learned single judge of high court on merits of matter - He has also filed an application seeking leave of this court for urging additional grounds and an application for condonation of delay in filing special leave petition - Petition for permission to urge additional grounds except on constitutional points shall be treated as having been filed in SLP - These three petitions will be listed before division bench - Order accordingly.
Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, CJI.
(1) -IN view of the judgments of this court in (1) State of Bombay v. Narottamdas Jothabai (2) Union of India v. Mohindra Supply Compan) and (3) Ram Adhar Singh v. Ramroop) Singh and in view of the fact that the special leave petition filed against the judgment rendered by the High court of Allahabad, upholding the validity of the 1962 Act was dismissed by the Constitution bench of this court after an elaborate argument, there is no substance in the contention that either the U. P. High court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) Act, 1962 or the U. P. High court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) (Amendment) Act 33 of 1972 is unconstitutional. The challenge to these Acts on the ground of their unconstitutionalty is, therefore, rejected. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants have very fairly conceded that position. Accordingly, the Civil and the special leave petition are dismissed. There will be no order as to costis
(2) HOWEVER, the appellants may, if so advised, ask for special leave to appeal from the judgment of the learned single Judge. We are sure that the delay caused in filing the Special Leave Petition in this court will be condoned since the appellants were pursuing their remedy by filing these appeals in this court.
(3) LEARNED counsel for the appellant in Civil 543 of 1975 says that the appellant has already filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) 361 of 1976 in this court challenging the decision of the learned single Judge of the Allahabad High court on the merits of the matter. He has also filed an application seeking leave of this court for urging additional grounds and an application for condonation of delay in filing the special leave petition. The petition for permission to urge additional grounds, except on constitutional points, shall be treated as having been filed in the SLP. These three petitions will be listed before the division bench on 4/10/1979.
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
