Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC2034; JT1987(3)SC424; 1987(2)SCALE289; (1987)4SCC671; [1987]3SCR949; 1987(2)LC490(SC)
1. This appeal on a certificate raises a short but an important question as to the Constitutional validity of the Andhra Pradesh Commissionerate of Higher Education Act, 1986 (Act No. 26 of 1986) (called shortly 'The Commissionerate Act'). The question is whether the enactment falls within Entry 66 List I or Entry 25 List III-Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has upheld its validity by holding that the Act falls under the latter Entry, but granted a certificate for leave to appeal to this Court under Article 133(1) of the Constitution.2. The said Act was enacted on the basis of the recommendations of a high power committee constituted by the State Government to study the higher education system in the State of Andhra Pradesh with special reference to its curricula, courses of study, finance and management. The Committee in its report submitted to the Government observed, inter-alia, that there is no proper coordination and aca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC611; JT1988(4)SC154; 1988(2)KLT903(SC); 1988(2)SCALE1181; (1989)1SCC44; [1988]Supp3SCR380
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This petition is for leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution from the judgment and order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 9th October, 1987. The question that was urged before the High Court and the question which is sought to be raised in this petition is whether the respondent-Andhra Pradesh Rayons Ltd. which is manufacturing Rayon Grade Pulp, a base material for manufacturing of synthetics or man-made fabrics is an industry as mentioned in Schedule I of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) cess Act, 1977 for the purposes of levy of Water Cess under the Act. The water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 was passed by the Parliament to 'provide for the prevention and control of water pollution and the maintaining or restoring of wholesomeness of water, for the establishment, with a view to carrying out the purposes aforesaid, of Boards for the prevention and control of water pollution, for conferring on and assign...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000(3)SCALE354; [2000]Supp5SCR249
M. Jagannadha Rao, J.1. On an earlier occasion, in this very case, this Court in A.P. Pollution Control Board (1) v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu : [1999]1SCR235 (dated 27.1.1999) referred to the 'precautionary principle' and the new rule of 'burden of proof in the matter of environmental pollution. This Court in that judgment emphasised the need for scientific inputs before adjudicating complicated issues of pollution to environment. The said approach of this Court was based upon contemporary trend in the adjudication of environmental matters in various countries and was not intended to restrict the powers of this Court under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to safeguard environment from pollution.2. Our efforts to get at the best scientific evidence on the issues involved in the case, have yielded satisfactory results in the sense that we have today greater confidence about the correctness of our conclusions and further that this is a fit case for affirming the orders of the appellant (A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC233; JT1992(4)SC538; 1992(1)SCALE1068; (1992)3SCC455; [1992]3SCR1; 1992(2)LC441(SC)
ORDERN.M. Kasliwal, J.1. All the above Special Leave Petitions by builders in the city of Pune are directed against the judgment of the Divisional Bench of the Bombay High Court dated 18.10.1991 dismissing the writ petitions filed by the petitioners. The Learned Judges in their order dated 18.10.1991 stated that the controversy raised in the petition before them stood concluded by an earlier decision of the Division Bench dated 15.4.1987. Thus, no reasons have been recorded in the impugned order and in order to decide the controversy before us learned Counsel referred to the decision of the High Court dated 15.4.1987.2. The factual matrix of the above cases may be slightly different, but the legal controversies are common to all the cases and as such we are disposing of all the matters by one common order. It was pointed out during the course of arguments that many more cases are pending in the various courts at different stages and the fate of those cases also hinges on the decision o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC1553; JT1995(4)SC102; 1995(2)SCALE919; (1995)4SCC320; [1995]3SCR684
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. Leave granted. Heard counsel for the Parties.2. The Orissa State Electricity Board is questioning in this appeal the correctness of the judgment of the Orissa High Court declaring the proviso to Regulation 46 of the Orissa State Electricity Board (General Conditions of Supply) Regulations, 1981, (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulations') as unreasonable, arbitrary and illegal. Having struck down the proviso - i.e., the proviso as substituted by Notification dated June 25, 1987 - the High Court has directed the Board to revise the bills issued to the respondent-writ petitioner 'on the basis of proportionate reduction taking into account the actual consumption of energy'.3. The respondent-writ petitioner (M/s. IPI Steel Limited) has a mini steel plant in Orissa. On August 16,1984, it had entered into an agreement with the appellant-Board whereunder the Board undertook to supply power 'up to but not exceeding a maximum demand of 7778 KVA/7000 KW'. The agreemen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1234; (1986)88BOMLR662; [1987]61CompCas373(SC); (1986)2CompLJ261(SC); 1986(1)SCALE657; 1986Supp(1)SCC117; [1986]2SCR187
A.P. Sen, J.1. These appeals on certificate directed against the judgment and order of the Bombay High Court dated June 13, 1983 raise a question of far-reaching public importance. By the judgment under appeal, a Division Bench of the High Court on a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by Messrs Shree Sitaram Mills Limited, Bombay (for short 'the petitioners') while upholding the constitutional validity of the Textile Undertakings (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1983 insofar as it provides by Section 3(1) of the Act for the taking over by the Central Government of the management in the public interest of Messrs Shree Sitaram Mills a textile undertaking owned by it and specified in the First Schedule to the Act, held that the surplus land appurtenant to the Mill was not an 'asset in relation to the textile undertaking' within the meaning of Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act, on the ground that the business of real estate carried on by the Company was separate and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC37; JT1987(4)SC129; 1988LabIC225; (1988)ILLJ263SC; 1987(2)SCALE798; (1987)4SCC691; [1988]1SCR546
E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. The important question which arises for determination in this appeal by special leave is whether Sections 9-A, 10, 11-A, 12 and 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') are applicable to educational institutions established and administered by minorities which are protected by Clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution of India.2. The first respondent - Christian Medical College Vellore Association, Vellore, is an association registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The object of the association is 'the establishment, maintenance and development of Christian Medical Colleges and Hospitals in India where women and men shall receive an education of the highest grade in the art and science of Medicine and Nursing or in one or other of the related professions to equip them, in the spirit of Christ, for service in the relief of suffering and the promotion of health'. Dr. Ida Shudder, a daughter of an American Med...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC2005; JT1993(3)SC82; 1993(2)SCALE593; 1993Supp(4)SCC136; [1993]3SCR199
ORDERS. Mohan, J.1. Leave granted.2. These civil appeals are directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in Southern Steel Ltd. v. A.P. State Electricity Board, Hyderabad MR 1990 AP 58. The facts briefly are as under:3. The Andhra Pradesh Stale Electricity Board is constituted under Section 5 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The said Board is engaged in generation, distribution and supply of electricity in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Electric energy is supplied for industrial, commercial, agricultural and domestic purposes. To such of these industries, using energy about a particular level, it is supplied at a higher voltage. They are classified as high tension consumers (H.T. consumers). All the appellants herein belong to that category.4. Section 49 of the Act empowers the Board to notify the tens and conditions upon which it will supply electricity to a person. It is also empowered to frame unifo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995CriLJ2107; JT1995(2)SC391; 1995(3)SCALE279; (1995)3SCC507; [1995]1SCR1010; 1995(1)LC583(SC)
ORDER1. The facts leading to contempt proceedings are as under:1. On 8.10.1980, an auction was held by the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the 'DDA') of the Commercial Tower Plot, Jhandewalan, Block E, New Delhi ad measuring about 2540 sq. mtrs. The first respondent, M/s. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Skipper') was the highest bidder, its bid being Rs. 9.82 crores. As per the conditions of the auction, Skipper deposited 25% of the bid amount. The said bid was confirmed by the DDA on 14.10.1980. Skipper was called upon to make the balance of payment of 75% of the bid amount within 90 days as per the conditions of the auction.2. The Government of India issued directions to the DDA to accept the request of Skipper and to grant an indulgence to it and directed the DDA to reschedule the recovery of 75% of the bid amount with interest from the Skipper. Consequent to this, DDA called upon the Skipper to enter into fresh agreement, l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC3487; [1997]227ITR764(SC); JT1997(7)SC372; 1997(5)SCALE415; (1997)7SCC56; [1997]Supp3SCR140
ORDERSen, J.1. The point that falls for determination in this case is whether a sum of Rs. 79 lakhs representing Debenture Redemption Reserve was includible in computing the capital of the assessee-Company for the purpose of Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964.2. The High Court took the view that the amount set apart to redeem the debentures has to be treated as 'provision' and not as 'reserve'. The facts stated by the High Court in this regard are as follows:From the balance-sheets for the said periods, we find that in the calendar year 1965, the development rebate reserve was Rs. 79,00,000. However, in the next calendar year 1966, which is relevant to the assessment year 1967-68, the figure of debenture redemption reserve has gone up to Rs. 1,12,00,000. A perusal of the balance-sheet further shows that the assessee-company had floated and actually issued 6 1/2 per cent secured redeemable mortgage debentures, as pointed out earlier, against the security of land, buildings and machine...
Tag this Judgment!