Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-19-1998
Reported in : 1998VIAD(SC)220; AIR1998SC2713; 1998(2)CTC742; JT1998(5)SC548; 1998LabIC3012; (1998)IILLJ809SC; 1998(4)SCALE608; (1998)7SCC84; [1998]Supp1SCR22; 1999(1)SLJ271(SC); (1998)3U
..... had accepted the conclusions of the enquiring officer in the entirety.'19. in karunakar's case (supra) the question arose whether after the 42nd amendment of the constitution, when the inquiry officer was other than a disciplinary authority, was the delinquent employee entitled to a copy of the inquiry report ..... accountant of india (supra). the respondent therein, who was a chartered accountant, was accused of misconduct. an inquiry was instituted under the chartered accountants act, 1949. the disciplinary committee after hearing ratna submitted its report to the council opining that he was guilty of professional misconduct. the council considered the ..... 13. the controversy in the present case, however, relates to the case where the disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings of the inquiring authority and acts under regulation - 7 (2). the said sub-regulation does not specifically state that when the disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings of the inquiring authority .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-13-1998
Reported in : AIR1999SC1934; (1999)1SCC181
..... the case of the petitioners before it for giving at least one post of assistant presenting officer to those who are working in the public services tribunal, may be by amending the g.o. dated 28-1-1982. the government was directed to consider the case of the claimants for such appointment.4. learned counsel appearing for the appellants before us ..... g.o. of 28-1-1982. we also do not find any express direction in the high court order either setting aside the g.o. of 28-1-1982 or amending it. we do not see how such a direction can now be given. even a cursory look at the terms and conditions of service of munsrim and assistant registrar shows .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-10-1998
Reported in : AIR1998SC3052; JT1998(5)SC348; 1998(4)SCALE431; (1998)6SCC476; [1998]3SCR1074
..... intimated of the weight recorded in the manner as aforesaid.'5. the high court, after referring to section 9(1) of the mines and minerals (regulation and development) act, 1957 (hereinafter called 'the act') and also clause 3 of part v of the lease deed, held as follows :'a distinction has to be made between removal from the mine and removal from ..... contractor from the leased area. we have seen earlier the process that the mineral said to undergo before the same was removed form leased area. section 9(1) of the act also contemplates the levy of royalty on the mineral consumed by the holder of a mining lease in the leased area. if that be so, the case of the appellants ..... 's profession but only concerns itself with the right to practice. it appears that in the instant case also no tax can be levied or is leviable under the impugned act if no mining activities are carried on. hence, it is manifest that it is not related to land as a unit which is the only method of valuation of land .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-03-1998
Reported in : 1998VAD(SC)470; AIR1998SC2986; [1998]233ITR434(SC); JT1998(5)SC257; 1998(4)SCALE344; (1998)6SCC267; [1998]3SCR947
..... to british india. after the constitution came into force, the operation of the validation act of 1913 was, therefore, by amendment, excluded from part-b states i.e. territories which were originally native states or outside british india. after the constitution (seventh amendment) act, 1956 abolishing part-b states (inter alia), all the territories which were included in part-b states prior to 1956 ..... were excluded from the validation act, 1913. it is, therefore, contended by the department that the validation act did not apply to the state of hyderabad which was a part .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-31-1998
Reported in : 1998VAD(SC)588; AIR1998SC2676; 1998(2)ALD(Cri)322; 1998(4)ALLMR(SC)389; 1998(2)ALT(Cri)316; [1998]94CompCas75(SC); 1998CriLJ4027; JT1998(5)SC233; (1998)IILLJ794SC; 1999(1)M
..... to have dishonestly used the amount of the said contribution in violation of a direction of law as aforesaid.'explanation 2 was inserted by the employees' state insurance amendment act 38 of 1975. explanation 2 makes 'a person being an employer' who deducts the employee's contribution from the wages payable to the employee liable for ..... owns the factory and is also the employer of its employees at the head office.11. in any event, in the absence of any express provision in the indian penal code incorporating the definition of 'principal employer' in explanation 2 to section 405, this definition cannot be held to apply to the term 'employer' in explanation ..... proceedings on the ground that the respondents cannot be considered as 'employers' within the meaning of explanation 2 to section 405 read with section 406 of the indian penal code. hence they were not liable for prosecution under section 406. from this judgment the present appeal has been filed by the original complainant.3. section .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-22-1998
Reported in : 1998VAD(SC)423; AIR1998SC2476; JT1998(5)SC165; RLW1999(1)SC53; 1998(4)SCALE232; (1998)6SCC200; [1998]3SCR863
..... the order shall be conclusive.'7. a perusal of the aforesaid provisions would show that the scheme commencing under rule 97 and onwards before the enactment of the amendment act, 1976 was that where a decree holder or the purchaser at the court sale of property was obstructed in obtaining possession of such property by any person, he ..... khare, j.1. this civil appeal raises only one question that is, as to whether the benefits of provisions of section 14 of the indian limitation act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the act) can be extended to a suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant under order 21 of rule 103 cpc and is directed against the judgment of ..... terms to the present case. since the suit was filed in the year 1958, the provisions of the indian limitation act, 1908 would be applicable although it is repealed and replaced by the limitation act of 1963. section 14 of the act as it stood men is extracted below:-'14. exclusion of time of proceeding bonafide in court without jurisdiction .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-16-1998
Reported in : AIR1998SC2423; JT1998(5)SC40; 1998(4)SCALE161; (1998)6SCC131; [1998]3SCR740
..... admission capacity, such person or medical college, as the case may be, shall seek, within a period of one year from the commencement of the indian medical council (amendment) act, 1993, the permission of the central government in accordance with the provisions of section 10a.(2) if any person or medical college, as the case may ..... seeking permission for certain existing medical colleges, etc-(1) if after the 1st day of june, 1992 and on and before the commencement of the indian medical council (amendment) act, 1993 any person has established a medical college or any medical college has opened a new or higher course of study or training or increase the ..... of the impugned judgment where the division bench held that prior to insertion of sections 10a, 10b, and 10c in the indian medical council act, 1956 (for short, the 'medical council act') by the amending act 31 of 1993 neither the central government nor the medical council could fix the admission capacity in the medical colleges in the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-16-1998
Reported in : AIR1998SC2526; 1998(62)ECC266; 1998(101)ELT529(SC); JT1998(5)SC16; 1998(4)SCALE141; (1998)6SCC79; [1998]3SCR708
..... fraudulent and, therefore, the question of exercising the discretion for extending the period for filling the import manifest as provided under section 30(1) of the act or for considering amendment or supplementation of the manifest would not arise even if a request would have been made for such extension of the time limit for filling of the manifest ..... that had been seized, valued at rs. 59,53,560 c.i.f. and rs. 1,78,60,680 at the indian market rate under clauses (d) and (f) of section 111 of the act as well as for confiscation of the gunny bags, white cloth wrappings, wooden cases and the cartons which were used for keeping ..... under the regulations in any import manifest or import report which are not so mentioned;'6. the expressions 'import', 'import manifest', 'india' and 'indian customs waters' are defined in section 2 of the act in the following terms:-'2(23). 'import', with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, means bringing into india from a place outside india.''2(24 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-14-1998
Reported in : AIR1998SC2456; 1998(3)BLJR1608; [1998]94CompCas64(SC); (1998)3CompLJ385(SC); 2000(69)ECC247; 1999(113)ELT761(SC); JT1998(4)SC631; 1998LabIC2735; (1998)IILLJ604SC; 1998(4)SC
..... over the affairs of the factory, so that they take proper care for maintenance of the factories and the safety measures therein proviso (ii) was introduced by the amending act, couched in a mandatory form-'any one of the directors shall be deemed to be the occupier'- keeping in view the experience gained over the year as to ..... any person other than the director as the occupier. following the decision of this court in j. k. industries limited and ors. v. the chief inspector of factories and boilers and ors., : (1997)illj722sc , wherein it is held that in the case of company, which owns a factory, it is only one of the directors of the ..... appointed by the central government but by the company. it, therefore, dismissed both the petitions.5. pressing only the second point the learned attorney general submitted that though indian oil corporation is a government company and, therefore, a company as contemplated by clause (ii) of the proviso to section 2(n), its factories would properly fall within .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-13-1998
Reported in : 1998VAD(SC)276; AIR1998SC2443; 1998(2)ALT(Cri)164; 1998(2)BLJR1530; 1998CriLJ3611; 1998(3)Crimes4(SC); JT1998(4)SC534; 1998(4)SCALE25; (1998)5SCC699; [1998]3SCR529
..... fired at the maruti van in consequence of which three innocent persons were killed, and therefore, all of them could be held liable under section 302/34 ipc. on the question of sentence mr., sinha, learned senior counsel submitted that three officers have been rightly awarded the death sentence and the high court perhaps was ..... is established in the chain of circumstances to complete the chain and, therefore, the high court was wholly justified in recording a conviction under section 302/34 ipc. mr. sinha, learned senior counsel also urged that looking at the brutality with which three innocent persons were murdered from a close range by firing at them ..... held responsible? the liability of one person for an offence committed by another in the course of a criminal act perpetrated by several persons will arise under section 34 of the indian penal code only where such criminal act is done in furtherance of a common intention of the persons who join in committing the crime. direct proof .....
Tag this Judgment!