Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-20-1996
Reported in : 1996IXAD(SC)415; AIR1997SC1599; 1997(1)BLJR569; JT1996(10)SC584; 1996(8)SCALE472; (1997)1SCC177; [1996]Supp8SCR886
ORDER1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by one Madanlal Agrawal for eviction of Bharat Coking Coal Limited from land and buildings allegedly owned by him adjacent to the coal mine known as Victory Colliery, which had vested in the Central Government by virtue of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973. Victory Colliery was owned by United Mining Company Private Limited. The case of the appellant is that the company was practically a one man company. If the corporate veil is lifted, it will be found that Madanlal Agrawal was de facto owner of the company. Madanlal Agrawal's case is that he had in his individual capacity purchased certain properties together with structures thereon by registered deeds of sale dated 7.7.1949 and 24.3.1950 and built further structures and remodeled them. The United Mining Company Private Limited took these structures on monthly rent. These structures were utilised as office premises of Victory Colliery as also staff quarters. Eviction was so...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-23-1996
Reported in : 1996VAD(SC)678; AIR1996SC2462; 82(1996)CLT875(SC); JT1996(6)SC685; 1996(5)SCALE414; (1996)9SCC709; [1996]Supp3SCR808
ORDERA.M. Ahmadi, CJ.1. Special Leave granted.2. These appeals seek to challenge: (i) the common judgment and order of the Orissa High Court dated April 4, 1995, arising out of OJC No. 7729 of 1993 and allied matters and (2) the decision of the Central Government dated August 17, 1995 made pursuant to the said judgment of the High Court.3. The appellants in these appeals are the Tata Iron and Steel Company, Limited, (hereinafter called 'T1SCO') and the Industrial Development Corporation of Orissa Limited (hereinafter called 'IDCOL'). The principal respondents are the Union of India, the State of Orissa, M/s. Indian Charge Chrome Limited, (hereinafter called 'ICCL'), Indian Metal & Ferro Alloys Limited (hereinafter called 'IMFA'), M/s. Jindal Strips Limited, (hereinafter called 'JSL'), Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited (hereinafter called 'FACOR') and Ispat Alloys Limited.4. The factual matrix of the case is as follows :The appellant, TISCO, is a limited company, one of whose primary obj...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-02-1996
Reported in : 1996IIAD(SC)137; AIR1996SC1431; JT1996(2)SC85; 1996(1)SCALE780; (1996)7SCC637; [1996]2SCR23
ORDERK. Ramaswamy, J.1. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.2. This batch of appeals by special leave arises from common judgment dated November 22,1994 of the Kerala High Court made in O.P. No. 5957 of 1987 and batch.3. By Section 36 of Finance Act 1978, the Central excise and Salt act, 1944 [for short the 'Excise Act) was amended to impose central excise duty on electricity under Item 11-E in the 1st Schedule to the Excise Act and fixed 2 paise per kilo watt of electricity unit. Consequently, the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) was liable to pay excise duty on electricity generated and produced by it. To recoup that loss, the Government of Kerala, exercising its power under Section 3 of the Kerala Essential Articles Control (Temporary Powers) Act 1961, issued an order. By Clause (4) of the said order, surcharge at the rate of 2.5 paise per unit of electrical energy was levied on all supplies of electrical energy made by the KSEB either directly or through licensees...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-31-1996
Reported in : 1996VIIIAD(SC)473; AIR1997SC1815; JT1996(10)SC116; (1997)2MLJ111(SC); 1996(8)SCALE71; (1997)1SCC326; [1996]Supp8SCR193
ORDER1. The State of Tamil Nadu is the appellant in these appeals. Civil Appeal No. 134 of 1980 has been filed against the judgment of the High Court of Madras in Writ Petition 1464 of 1974, whereas Civil Appeal Nos. 352-354 of 1980 have been filed against the judgment of the same High Court in Writ Petition 2341-2343 of 1978. All the Writ Petitions had been filed on behalf of the respondent which were allowed by the High Court.2. The respondent, a public limited Company which owned and possessed 3421.14 acres of land, was engaged in composite and integrated activity of raising sugarcane on the aforesaid land and crushing it in its sugar factory. The Tamil Nadu Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 (Act 58 of 1961), (hereinafter referred to as the Principal Act) was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 2.5.1962. According to the said Act, a ceiling of 30 standard acres of agricultural land was fixed as the maximum holding. Under Section 18(1) of the Principal Act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-27-1996
Reported in : 62(1996)DLT278
K. Ramamoorthy, J.(1) National Textile Corporation (Delhi Punjab &Rajasthan;) Ltd., Unit - Ajudhia Textile Mills has filed this suit against the three defendants for recovery of Rs. 1,47,106.03. Very briefly stated the facts are these. The second defendant through the first defendant M/s. Subhkarandas Chiranjilal placed the indents with the plaintiff which are Ex. P.9 and P.10 for the purchase of yarn. Pursuant to the indents Ex. P.9 and P.IO plaintiff dispatched the goods to the second defendant to a place called Maunath Bhanjan in the District of Azamgarh through the third defendant Delhi Kanpur Gondia Transport Co. Regd., the carrier. (2) The plaintiff prepared G/Rs, the bills and the hundies and were sent through the Bank. Ex. P.29 to P.33 are the hundies and Ex. D.11 to D.15 are the G/Rs First defendant, the commission agent, was informed about second defendant not having honoured the hundies. The first defendant requested the plaintiff to redraw the hundies. As per the directions...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : May-09-1996
Reported in : AIR1996AP413; 1996(2)ALT757; [1999]96CompCas645b(AP)
ORDERP.S. Mishra, J. 1. These petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India have in general questioned admission as members several persons in the Hyderabad Stock Exchange Limited. The Exchange, it is not in dispute, is a public limited company. It is, however, recognised by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) as a Stock Exchange on its willingness to comply with the conditions under the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 and is thus subject to the control and regulations relating in general to its constitution and in particular, besides other items, to the admission into the Stock Exchange of various classes of members, the qualifications for membership and the exclusion, suspension, expulsion and re-admission of members therefrom or thereinto. The Exchange in its extraordinary General Body Meeting, on 24-8-1992, however, introduced an amendment to its Articles of Association and increased the maximum number of members from 200 to 300. In another General...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Mar-22-1996
Reported in : AIR1996All375
ORDERA.P. Misra, J.1. A Divisional Bench has referred for reconsideration, a decision of earlier Division Bench in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1190 of 1994 (Kamla Palace v. Stale of U. P.) decided on 10th July, 1995, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in : [1995]1SCR256 (State of Bihar v. Sachidanand Kumar Prasad Sinha). In Kamla Palace (supra) this Court held proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 3-A of the Uttar Pradesh Entertainment & Betting Tax Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Government Orders issued thereunder as ultra vires.2. Short facts are, Uttar Pradesh Legislature by way of Uttar Pradesh Entertainment & Betting Tax (Amendment) Act, 1992 (U.P. Act No. 14 of 1992), published on 11th April, 1992, introduced amendment in Section 3-A of the Act, which authorised the proprietor of a Cinema to realise an extra charge of twenty-five paise per ticket for admission to be utilised for maintenance of the cinema premises. But by proviso excluded the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-22-1996
Reported in : AIR1996SC1340; 1996(1)ALD(Cri)270; 1996(3)SCALE72; (1996)4SCC127; [1996]3SCR785
ORDER1. This appeal on reference to this Bench raises an interesting question of law. The respondent while working as Major General, Army Ordnance Corps., Southern Command, Pune between December, 1, 1982 and July 7, 1985 was in-charge of purchase. The Controller General of Defence Accounts in special audit on the local purchases sanctioned by the respondent prima facie found that respondent had deselected his duty and action under the Act was initiated against him. At that time, the respondent was attached to College of Military Engineering, Pune and was promoted as Major General. After initiation of the proceedings he was ordered to retire which he had challenged by filing Writ Petition No. 3189 of 1986 in the Bombay High Court which stood dismissed on August 29, 1986.2. On August 30, 1986, action was initiated against the respondent under Section 123 of the Army Act, 1950 (for short, the 'Act'). He was kept under open arrest from that date onwards and retired from service on August 3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-21-1996
Reported in : 1996IIIAD(SC)428; AIR1996SC1627; JT1996(3)SC679; (1997)1MLJ82(SC); 1995(4)SCALE762; (1996)3SCC709; [1996]3SCR721
ORDER1. Leave granted in Special Leave Petitions.2. In response to wide-spread agitation by the women of Andhra Pradesh, the Government prohibited the sale and consumption of intoxicating liquors by an Ordinance issued on December 27, 1994. In February, 1995, the Legislature of Andhra Pradesh enacted the Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] replacing the Ordinance. It was reserved for and received the assent of the President of India. The long title and the preamble to the Act reads:An Act to introduce Prohibition of the sale and consumption of intoxicating liquors in the State of Andhra Pradesh and for matters connected therewith or incidental there to.WHEREAS Article 47 of the Constitution of India enjoins that the State shall endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption, except for medicinal purposes, of intoxicating drinks which are injurious to health;AND WHEREAS there is urgent need in public interest to bring about the prohibitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-04-1996
1. This miscellaneous first appeal under Section 82(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), arises from the judgment and order dated August 21, 1990, delivered by Sri Vittal Sheregar, Judge, the Employees' Insurance Court. Hubli, whereby the Employees' Insurance Court dismissed the applicant-appellant's application under Section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act. 2. The facts of the case in brief are, that the appellant which is a private limited company under the Companies Act has been engaged in the manufacture of steel safes and furniture. This factory of the applicant-appellant has been situated at Hubli. As per the admitted facts, the applicant's company is covered by the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act and Scheme thereunder and in which more than hundred workers and employees have been employed and have been working. According to the appellant-applicant's case, it has been remitting the contributions regularly...
Tag this Judgment!