Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC1676; JT1991(2)SC439; 1991(1)SCALE617; 1991Supp(1)SCC430; [1991]2SCR105
ORDERS. Ranganathan, J.1. These are connected batches of Civil Appeals and Special Leave Petitions. We grant special leave to appeal in all the petitions (condoning the delay in the filing of the unnumbered one referred to below) and proceed to dispose of all the appeals by this common judgment. The details of the appeals and petitions are, for sake of convenient reference, tabulated below: High CourtDate of judgmentCivil Appeal/ S.L.P. Nos.Name of Appellant1. Orissa17-4-1980C.A. 2053-2080/80Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.7-3-1983C.A. 4353-4354/83Orissa Cement Ltd.22-12-1989S.L.P. 1479/90State of Orissa22-12-1989S.L.P./90Orient Paper &Industries; Ltd. & Anr.13-7-1990S. O. P. 11939/90- do-2. Bihar10-2-1986C.A. 592/86Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.3. Madhya Pradesh28-3-1986C.A. 1641-1662/86State of M. P.2. We shall discuss later the manner in which these appeals and petitions have arisen. THE ISSUE3. The validity of the levy of a 'cess', based on the royalty derived from mining lands, by the State...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1962SC1621; 1963(1)SCR778
VENKATARAM AIYAR, J.The petitioner is a partner in a firm called Messrs. Mohan Lal Hargovind Das, which carries on business in the manufacture and sale of biris in number of States, and is dealer registered under the U.P. Sales Tax Act 15 of 1948 with its head office at Allahabad. In the present petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioner impugns the validity of a levy of sales tax made by the Sales Tax Officer, Allahabad, by his order dated December 20, 1958.On December 14, 1957, the Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a notification under section 4(1)(b) of the Act exempting from tax, sales of certain goods including biris, provided that the additional Central Excise duties leviable thereon had been paid. In partial modification of this notification, the Government issued another notification on November 25, 1958, exempting from tax unconditionally sales of biris, both machinemade and handmade, with effect from July 1, 1958. The effect of the two notifications ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1991(3)SC325; 1991(2)SCALE221; (1991)3SCC617
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court rejecting the claim of the appellant Corporation for covering the factories of the respondents under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (The Act).2. Section 1(4) excludes 'seasonal factory' from the scope of the Act, The 'seasonal factory' is defined under Section 2(12) of the Act which is extracted hereunder:Seasonal factory means a factory which is exclusively engaged in one or more of the following manufacturing processes, namely, cotton ginning, cotton or jute pressing, decortications of groundnuts, the manufacture of coffee, indigo, lac, rubber, sugar (including our) or tea or any manufacturing process which is incidental to or connected with any of the aforesaid processes.3. The factories of the respondents were excluded from the operation of the Act since they were declared to be the seasonal factories within the meaning of the above sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC129; [1991(63)FLR423]; [1991]3SCR307a; 1991(2)LC596(SC)
ORDERK. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court rejecting the claim of the appellant-Corporation for covering the factories of the respondents under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (the Act).2. Section 1(4) excuses 'seasonal factory' from the scope of the Act. The 'seasonal factory' is defined under Section 2(12) of the Act which is extracted hereunder:Seasonal factory means a factory which is exclusively engaged in one or more of the following manufacturing processes, namely, cotton, ginning, cotton or jute pressing, decortications of groundnuts, the manufacture of coffee, indigo, lac, rubber, sugar (including gur) or tea or any manufacturing process which is incidental to or connected with any of the aforesaid processes.3. The factories of the respondents were excluded from the operation of the Act since they were declared to be the seasonal factories within the meaning of the abov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC2272; JT1991(4)SC75; 1991LabIC2222; 1991(2)SCALE769; (1992)1SCC105; [1991]Supp1SCR415; 1992(1)LC134(SC)
ORDERKasliwal, J.1. Special Leaves granted. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that University of Rajasthan invited applications for the post of Professor in the department of Botany. The Selection Committee constituted under Section 5 of the Rajasthan University Teachers and Officers (Selection for appointment) Act of 1974 (herein after referred to as the 'Act of 1974) held interviews on 20th June, 1989 and selected Dr. G.S. Nathawat for the post of Professor in Botany. The name of Dr. Uma Kant was mentioned in the reserve list by the Selection Committee. The syndicate of the University approved the list and appointed Dr. Nathawat on the said post. Dr. Nathawat retired on 30th September, 1989 and Dr. Uma Kant who was already selected and kept in the reserve list was appointed as Professor in the department of Botany. Dr. Bhikalal, Dr. Shiv Sharma, Dr. Sudhakar Mishra and Dr. T.N. Bhardwaj who were not selected filed a writ petition in the High Court initially challenging the appointment ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC412,JT1992(1)SC600,1992(1)SCALE338,1992Supp(2)SCC651,[1992]1SCR686
ORDERM.N. Venkatachaliah, J.1. In these petitions the constitutional validity of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution introduced by the Constitution (Fifty-Second Amendment) Act, 1985, is assailed. These two cases were amongst a batch of Writ Petitions, Transfer Petitions, Civil Appeals, Special Leave Petitions and other similar and connected matters raising common questions which were all heard together. On 12.11.1991 we made an order pronouncing our findings and conclusions upholding the constitutional validity of the amendment and of the provisions of the Tenth Schedule, except for Paragraph 7 which was declared invalid for want of ratification in terms of and as required by the proviso to Article 368(2) of the Constitution. In the order dated 12.11.1991 our conclusions were set out and we indicated that the reasons for the conclusions would follow later. The reasons for the conclusions are now set out.2. This order is made in Transfer Petition No. 40 of 1991 and in Writ Petition ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1992)94BOMLR853; JT1992(2)SC116; (1992)2MLJ55(SC); 1992(1)SCALE530; (1992)2SCC524; [1992]2SCR1; 1992(2)LC181(SC)
M. Fathima Beevi, J. 1. We have to consider in this appeal the question whether the second respondent is a necessary or proper party to be joined as defendant under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, in the suit instituted by the appellant against the first respondent.2. Under the Dealership Agreement of 1974, the appellant is in possession of the service station erected on the land held by the second respondent herein, the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited as lessee. The service station consists of a petrol pump in the ground floor and a structure with an open terrace for parking of vehicles. The first respondent, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay issued notice dated 5.8.1988 under Section 351 of the Municipal Corporation Act to the appellant for demolition of two chattels on the terrace on the ground that these were unauthorised constructions. The appellant instituted the suit No. 6181 of 1988 before the City Civil Court, Bombay, challenging the validity of the notice and fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : I(1993)DMC394SC; JT1992(2)SC125; (1992)2MLJ52(SC); 1992(1)SCALE552; (1992)2SCC507; [1992]2SCR30; 1992(2)LC21(SC)
S.C. Agrawal, J. 1. The question for consideration in this appeal relates to the genuineness of a will said to be executed by one Ganga Singh whereby he bequeathed all his property to his distant cousin, Atma Singh, respondent No. 1, the grandson of the brother of the grandfather of Ganga Singh. Ganga Singh had a brother Ranga Singh and a sister Banti. Both, Ranga Singh and Banti had died during the life time of Ganga Singh. Smt. Guro, the appellant herein, is the daughter of Banti. At the time of his death, on October 10, 1968, Ganga Singh was having one-third share in land measuring 148 kls. 11 mls. in Village Dall, Tehsil Patti, District Amritsar. On October 2, 1968, Ganga Singh is said to have executed the will in question whereby he bequeathed his entire property to respondent No. 1. After the death of Ganga Singh, proceedings regarding mutation of the lands in his share were initiated and in those proceedings Respondent No. 1 sought mutation in his favour on the basis of the will...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC978; JT1992(3)SC243; (1993)IILLJ750SC; 1992(1)SCALE1179; 1992Supp(2)SCC318; [1992]3SCR133; 1992(2)LC645(SC)
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. This writ petition is an instance of the classic dispute between promotees and direct recruits. The writ petitioners are Assistant Engineers in the Central Engineering Service-Class III (Gazetted Officers) in the Central Public Works Department (C.P.W.D.). Appointment to the category of Assistant Engineers' service is governed by the Central Engineering Service, Class-II Recruitment Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as '1954 rules'). These rules are divided into six parts. Part I is general, It contains the interpretation clause. Part-II deals with the method of recruitment. Rules 3 to 5, relevant for our purpose occur in this part. The Rules before their amendment in 1977 and 1978 read as follows: 3. Recruitment to the Service shall be made by any of the following methods:(a) By competitive examination in India in accordance with Part HI of these Rules.(b) By direct appointment in accordance with Part IV of these Rules of persons selected in India other...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC2100; 1992CriLJ3454; 1992(3)Crimes5(SC); JT1992(4)SC73; 1992(II)OLR(SC)209; 1992(2)SCALE9; (1992)3SCC700; [1992]3SCR480
ORDER1. General A.S. Vaidya, the then Chief of the Armed Forced was, on the orders. of the then Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi, assigned the difficult and delicate task of flushing out militants who had taken refuge in the Golden Temple at Amritsar. During this operation, known as the Blue Star Operation, some militants were killed and a part of the Golden Temple known as Harminder Saheb was damaged. Both the then Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi and General Vaidya had, therefore, incurred the wrath of the Punjab militants for what they called the desecration of the Golden Temple. They, therefore, vowed to average the deaths of their colleagues and punish all those who were responsible for the damage to the Golden Temple. After the assassination of Smt. Gandhi on 31st October, 1984, it is the prosecution case, they waited for General Vaidya to retire on 31 st January, 1986 so that the security cover which would then stand reduced may not be difficult to penetrate. After his retirem...
Tag this Judgment!