A junior cotton purchaser was removed from service on charges of not insuring several bales of cotton and for not maintaining proper records. The cotton bales were destroyed by fire, causing a loss of Rs 72.13 lakh. The employee contended that as no misappropriation of funds had taken place, the punishment meted out to him was unjust. Others before him had not been removed from service for not insuring cotton bales. The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the employer couldn’t discriminate while deciding on punishments and asked the authorities to re-examine the case (S.P.S. Venkataraman vs Cotton Corporation of India).
A litigant was aggrieved with a court order that allowed a deaf, mute and illiterate woman’s son to give evidence on her behalf. He contended that the son’s evidence would only consist of what he knew, and could not be treated as his mother’s evidence. The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the Indian Evidence Act permits a disabled person to give evidence by signs and writing. But in this case, the woman would not even be able to hear or read the questions put to her. So, she could only be assisted by her son in giving evidence (K. Neerja alias Rajani vs K. Narasingha Rao).
A landlord, an agriculturist, filed a suit for eviction. He said he needed the premises to set up a vegetable and seed shop for his uneducated and unemployed sons. The tenant contended that the landlord had four and a half acres of land and ran a business from there. He also argued that the landlord’s uneducated sons were incapable of running a business. The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that you couldn’t get a decent income out of four and a half acres of land these days. Hence, the landlord’s requirements were reasonable (Rakesh Kumar vs Joginder Singh)
SOLON
