Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-24-2002
Reported in : JT2002(9)SC549
ORDER1. These two appeals are being disposed of by this common order. Both the appeals are against the judgment dated 10-3-1999. In this judgment parties will be referred to in their capacity in civil appeal 594/2000. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:-The appellant is the landlord of a flat in 'Oyster Apartments' Pilot Bunder Road, Coloba, Mumbai 400005. The appellant was a naval officer and as such was being posted to various places in India. Therefore, the appellant, by an agreement dated 21.2.1969 gave the said flat on leave and licence to the 1st respondent - company. Clause 5 (c) and (f) are relevant for our purpose. They read as follows:- '5: (c) To use and occupy the said premises as residence only for their officers and employees and for no other purpose. The licensees have however informed the licensor that the said premises shall in the first instance be occupied by Dr. Surinder P.S. Pruthi one of the licensees' officers. (f) Not to allow any person other than their of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Oct-25-2002
Reported in : (2003)1MLJ129
K. Gnanaprakasam, J.1. The plaintiff is the appellant. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to declare his date of birth as 16.8.1935 and for a direction to the defendants to effect the corrections in their official records. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that he was the only son to his parents and he was born in the month of August, 1935. The plaintiff lost his father when he was nine months old and his mother was illiterate. At the time when the plaintiff was admitted in the school, his date of birth was wrongly given by his mother as 8.10.1932 and the same was not correct. The plaintiff completed his school final in the year 1956 and in the certificate issued by the second defendant, his date of birth was wrongly entered as 8.10.1932. The plaintiff joined in the first defendant-Corporation on 26.5.1961 and there also, he has given his date of birth as 8.10.1932. It is stated that on 3.10.1988, he has obtained a certified extract of birth from the Taluk office, Villupuram and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Decided on : Oct-25-2002
Reported in : (2003)(85)ECC349
1. This appeal arises from Order-in-Original No. 14/2000 dated 1.5.2000 by which the CCE Trichy has passed the order on account of his earlier order being set aside by the Tribunal and matter being remanded for de novo consideration. The question that was referred back to the Commissioner for de novo consideration was as to whether assembly of various parts and accessories at site would bring into existence generator set for the purpose of classification under Chapter Heading 85.02 of CETA 85 of it is an immovable property as contended by the department, as it is set up as power plant brick by brick and fixed to the earth and make it an immovable property. Therefore, it is not exigible. The department did not produce any evidence of any experts or any other material, technical or oral for the purpose of considering the activity to be of manufacture of goods and not an immovable property. However, the department had relied on the statement of Shri S. Viswanathan recorded on 8.7.93 and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Decided on : Oct-25-2002
M.L. Visa, J.1. Ram Bali Prasad, the sole appellant, the this appeal has assailed the judgment dated 1.9.1997 and order dated 3.9.1997 of 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Sessions Trial No. 354/95 convicting and sentencing him to undergo RI for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code fin short, IPC) and RI for 5 years under Section 27 of Arms Act and ordering both the sentences to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 18.4.1995 at about 9.30 a.m. an altercation took place between the informant Ram Bachan Prasad (PW 5) and the appellant when appellant who has got his house adjacent to the house of informant was constructing a brick wall just adjacent to the land of informant. When Siya Ram Prasad, son of informant, came there the appellant went running to his house and brought a country made rifle and fired hitting on the left side of the chest of Siyam Ram Prasad who fell down and died at the spot and appellant fled away towards...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-28-2002
Reported in : AIR2003SC87; (2002)8SCC237
Acts/Rules/Orders: Constitution of India - Articles 69, 69(2), 75, 79, 83, 85, 85(1), 85(2), 87, 88, 94, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 106, 107, 107(5), 109, 110, 111, 123, 143, 143(1), 145(1), 147, 153, 159, 163, 164, 168, 169, 164(2), 164(4), 170, 171, 172, 172(1), 174, 174(1), 174(2), 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 193, 196, 196(5), 197, 197(2), 198, 202, 209, 213, 289, 290, 324 to 329, 352, 355, 356, 356(1), 360 and 368; Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Sections 14, 15, 15(2) and 73; Government of India Act, 1915 - Sections 63, 63D, 63D(1), 72B, 72B(1), 204(1) and 213; Government of India (Amendment) Act, 1919 - Sections 8, 8(1), 21 and 21(1); Government of India Act, 1935 - Sections 18, 18(4), 19, 19(1), 19(2), 60, 61(3), 62, 62(1) and 62(2); Representation of People Act, 1918 - Section 21(3); Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, 2000; Constitution (First Amendment) Act, 1951 - Section 8; Government of U...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-29-2002
Reported in : 2003CriLJ1090
M.C. Jain, J.1. The appeal has been filed by Salamatullah and his son Subedar against judgment dated 5-2-1981 passed by Sri B.K. Sharma, the then IV Additional Sessions Judge, Sharanpur in S.T. No. 107 of 1980. Subedar has been convicted under Section 324, I.P.C. and sentenced to 2 1/2 years rigorous imprisonment. Salamatullah has been convicted under Section 324 read with Section 109, I.P.C. and sentence to same period of rigorous imprisonment.2. The facts may be narrated in nutshell. The occurrence took place on 27-7-1978 at about 2 p.m. in Village Idaratpur Chack Bakenia Police Station Nigohi, District Sharanpur where the parties reside. Jwar and chilli crops were there in the fields of the complaiant Devi Giri PW 2 and the cattle of the appellants entered into his fields, grazed and devastated the crop. The complainant remostrated to the appellants who were standing in the lane. They got annoyed and two sides traded abuses. The appellant Salamatullah asked his son Subedar to bring ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-30-2002
Reported in : AIR2003SC258; 2003(1)ALD(Cri)100; 2003(1)ALT(Cri)201; 2003CriLJ434; JT2002(9)SC257; 2003(1)KLT3(SC); (2003)1SCC259
Sema, J. 1. Four appellants - Anthony D'Souza, Anil Kumar @ Anil D'souza, Seril D'souza and George D'souza @ Babli were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur and convicted for the offences under Section 143 IPC. Section 396 read with 149 IPC and Section 201 read with 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo SI for six months for the offence under Section 143 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 396 read with Section 149 IPC and a fine of Rs. 5000/- each. In default of payment of fine SI for three months and to undergo two years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each for the offence under Section 201 read with Section 149 IPC in default of payment of fine, SI for three months. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. On appeal their conviction and sentence is confirmed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. 2. Briefly stated facts are as follows:-3. Deceased Vittal Shetty and Paul were employed as driver and cleaner in a l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin
Decided on : Oct-30-2002
Reported in : (2004)90ITD248(Coch.)
These appeals are by the assessee and pertain to the assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92. They are directed against the order dated 13-11-2000 of the Commissioner (Appeals)-II, Kochi, confirming the penalty of Rs. 3,68,800 and Rs. 3,14,800 respectively for the assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92, levied under section 272A(2)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed returns for the assessment years 1990-91 & 1991-92 disclosing a loss of Rs. 24,42,200 and Rs. 24,68,020 respectively. Returns were processed under section 143(1)(a) of the Act on 21-3-1991 and 23-9-1991 respectively.Subsequently the assessments were completed under section 143(3) of the Act. The assessee produced a feature film named 'Oru Sayahnathinte Swapnom' and was released on 28-9-1989 and another feature film named 'Arangu' which was released on 22-3-1991. The assessing officer was of the view that the assessee was required to file a statement in Form No.52A, cont...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin
Decided on : Oct-30-2002
Reported in : (2004)268ITR109(Coch.)
1. These appeals are by the assessee and pertain to the assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92. They are directed against the order dated 13-11-2000 of the CIT (Appeals)-II, Kochi, confirming he penalty of Rs. 3,68,800/- and Rs. 3,14,800/- respectively for the assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92, levied under Section 272A(2)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed returns for the assessment years 1990-91 & 1991-92 disclosing a loss of Rs. 24,42,200/- and Rs. 24,68,020/- respectively. Returns were processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act on 21-03-1991 and 23-09-1991 respectively. Subsequently the assessments were completed under Section 143(3) of the Act. The assessee produced a feature film named 'Oru Sayahnathinte Swapnom' and was released on 28-9-1989 and another feature film named 'Arangu' which was released on 22-3-1991. The assessing officer was of the view that the assessee was required to file a statement in form No. 5...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-31-2002
Reported in : AIR2003SC355; 2003(51)BLJR158; JT2002(9)SC1; 2003(1)KarLJ1; (2002)8SCC481; (2002)3UPLBEC2817
ORDER TO DETERMINE THE EXISTENCE OF A RELIGIOUS OR LINGUISTIC MINORITY IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 30, WHAT IS TO BE THE UNIT - THE STATE OR THE COUNTRY AS A WHOLE?74. We now consider the question of the unit for the purpose of determining the definition of 'minority' within the meaning of Article 30(1).75. Article 30(1) deals with religious minorities and linguistic minorities. The opening words of Article 30(1) make it clear that religious and linguistic minorities have been put at par, insofar as that Article is concerned. Therefore, whatever the unit - whether a state or the whole of India - for determining a linguistic minority, it would be the same in relation to a religious minority. India is divided into different linguistic states. The states have been carved out on the basis of the language of the majority of persons of that region. For example, Andhra Pradesh was established on the basis of the language of that region. viz., Telugu. 'Linguistic minority' can, therefore, logically...
Tag this Judgment!