Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(4)ALD389; 2002(4)ALT9
S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. These two writ petitions are filed by the students who had appeared for the Engineering Agricultural and Medical Common Entrance Test - 2001 (EAMCET-2001) and who are aspiringfor admission in engineering courses challenging the order of the Government in G.O. Rt. No.550 Higher Education (EC2) Department dated 30-7-2001 whereby and whereunder the Government in purported implementation of the judgment of this Court dated 23-2-2000 in WP No.26404 of 1999 and WA No.795 of 2000 and batch and in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ritesh RShah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul, : [1996]2SCR695 , issued the impugned instructions (infra) to be followed in the present EAMCET counselling started from 30-7-2001.FACTS:2. The petitioners herein had appeared in EAMCET-2001 (Engineering) and secured - 021550th, 04617th, 002168th, 021624th, 013715th, 001480th, 014259th, and 013355th- ranks respectively.3. Admissions into various Government Engineering Colleges, University Colleges, R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(1)ALD423; 2002(2)ALT77
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. These writ petitions involving common questions of fact and law were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The controversy centres round the validity of the notification issued in G.O.Ms.No. 3, SocialWelfare (TW.EDN. II) Department dated 10-1-2000.Facts in Brief :2. The fact as stated in Writ Petition No. 19392 of 2000 are being considered for the purpose of deciding the questions involved.3. The writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 19-9-2000 passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 2138 of 2000 whereby and whereunder the learned Tribunal allowed the OA., field by the respondents 1 to 5 herein and quashed G.O.Ms.No. 3, dated 10-1-2000, wherein it was directed that the posts of teachers in the Schools in the Scheduled Areas in State shall be filled in by the local Scheduled Tribe candidates only out of whom 33 1/3% shall be women.4. The writ petitioners challenged the impugned order of the learned Tribu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1971All138; 1971CriLJ453
Seth, J.1. This criminal reference has come up before us on a reference made by D. D. Seth, J. as he thought that there was conflict between the opinions of Mulla, J. and Desai, J., on the point involved in this case, as expressed by them in the cases of Ram Kishore v. Smt. Bimla Devi : AIR1957All658 and Ramji Malviya v. Smt. Munni Devi. : AIR1959All767 .2. Facts giving rise to this reference are that on 21st of June, 1960. the City Magistrate Allahabad made an order under Section 488 (1), Criminal P. C. directing Noor Mohammad (hereinafter referred to as the opposite party) to pay maintenance to his wife Smt. Mehrunnisa (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month. The order was made on the finding that as the applicant became incapable of bearing children, opposite party ill-treated her and turned her out of his house. The applicant had sufficient reason to live away from her husband and the opposite party had sufficient means to maintain her, but he r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [1967]63ITR572(All)
M. C. DESAI C.J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, has, at the instance of the assessee, submitted under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act this statement of case inviting this court to answer the following two questions :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the department correct in making the assessment under section 34(1)(a) 2. If the answer to the first question is in the negative, then was the Tribunal correct in alternating an assessment made under section 23(3)/34(1)(a) into an assessment under section 23(3)/34(1)(b) when it was satisfied that the requisites of section 34(1)(b) were found on the record ?'The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. In its capital account there were two credit entries, one of Rs. 12,000 and odd made on December 12, 1953, and the other of Rs. 14,000 and odd made on January 13, 1954. The assessees explanation for the credit entries was disbelieved and the amounts were held by the Income-tax Officer t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Reported in : [1976]103ITR418(Orissa)
R.N. Misra, J. 1. This is a reference made under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act of 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), at the instance of the revenue, of the following question for determination of this court :' Whether the Tribunal is justified in law in holding- (i) that only the provisions of Section 147(b), if at all, applied to the facts of this case (ii) that there was no basis for treating the issue of the notice as one under Section 147(b) in this case and (iii) that even if there was any basis for the issue of the notice under Section 147(b), the issue of such notice and reassessment under Section 147(b) were barred by limitation ?' 2. The assessee is an individual and maintains accounts according to the calendar year. For the accounting period ending on December 31, 1957 (assessment year 1958-59), he was assessed to income-tax on January 29, 1960. The accounts showed a cash credit of Rs. 30,000 on February 2, 1957. The assessee claimed that it was a loan from o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : [1975]101ITR112(P& H)
M.R. Sharma, J.1. The petitioner, Shri H. L. Sibal, is an advocate of this court. On October 17, 1974, while he was, working in his office at about 7-30 a.m., respondent No. 3 entered his office and showed him a warrant under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), authorising him to search the premises of the petitioner. Respondent No. 3 was at that time accompanied by respondent No. 4 and some other officials of the income-tax department. He also brought Major D. S. Brar and Shri P. L. Verma, retired Chief Engineer--Panch witnesses--to witness the search.2. The case of the petitioner is that he informed respondent No. 3 that he had to appear in some cases before this court including a part-heard case in which he was to represent the Punjab State and the Punjab State Electricity Board, but he was ordered by respondent No. 3 not to leave his premises. The reason given was that the latter had been ordered by his superior officers in that behalf.3. The son...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC101; (1991)1CompLJ1(SC); JT1990(3)SC725; 1991LabIC91; (1991)ILLJ395SC; 1991Supp(1)SCC600; [1990]Supp1SCR142; 1991(1)SLJ56(SC)
ORDERSabyasachi Mukharji, CJ.1. These civil appeals, special leave petitions and civil miscellaneous petitions deal with the question of constitutional validity of the right of the employer to terminate the services of permanent employees without holding any inquiry in certain circumstances by reasonable notice or pay in lieu of notice. The facts involved in these matters are diverse but the central question involved in all these is one, i.e. whether the clauses permitting the employers or the authorities concerned to terminate the employment of the employees by giving reasonable notice or pay in lieu of notice but without holding any inquiry, are constitutionally valid and, if not, what would be the consequences of termination by virtue of such clauses or powers, and further whether such powers and clauses could be so read with such conditions which would make such powers constitutionally and legally valid? In order to appreciate the question the factual matrix of these cases so far a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1982)3SCC24; [1983]1SCR145a
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. This reference to the Constitution Bench raises a question in regard to the constitutional validity of death penalty for murder provided in Section 302, Penal Code, and the sentencing procedure embodied in Sub-section (3) of Section 354 of the CrPC, 1973.2. The reference has arisen in these circumstances :Bachan Singh, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 273 of 1979, was tried and convicted and sentenced to death under Section 302, Indian Penal Code for the murders of Desa Singh, Durga Bai and Veeran Bai by the Sessions Judge. The High Court confirmed his death sentence and dismissed his appeal.3. Bachan Singh's appeal by special leave, came up for hearing before a Bench of this Court (consisting of Sarkaria and Kailasam, JJ.). The only question for consideration in the appeal was, whether the facts found by the Courts below would be 'special reasons' for awarding the death sentence as required under Section 354(3) of the CrPC 1973.4. Shri H.K. Puri, appearing as Amicu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC372; [1961]41ITR191(SC); [1961]2SCR241
Das Gupta, J.1. This appeal is against an appellate decision of a Bench of the Calcutta High Court by which in reversal of the order made by the Trial Judge the Bench rejected the present appellant's application under Article 226 of the Constitution. The appellant is a private limited company incorporated under the Indian Company's Act and has its registered office in Calcutta. It was assessed to income-tax for the assessment years, 1942-43, 1943-44 and 1944-45 by three separate orders dated January 26, 1944, February 12, 1944, and February 15, 1945, respectively. These assessments were made under section 23(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act upon returns filed by it accompanied by statements of account. The first two assessments were made by Mr. L. D. Rozario the then Income-tax Officer had the last one by Mr. K. D. Banerjee. The taxes assessed were duly paid up. On March 28, 1951, three notices purporting to be under section 34 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, were issued by the Inco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1991(61)FLR73]; JT1990(2)SC490; (1990)IILLJ70SC; 1990(1)SCALE878; (1990)3SCC682; [1990]3SCR111; 1990(2)LC293(SC); (1990)3UPLBEC2119
K.N. Saikia, J. 1. This analogous cluster of seventeen appeals by special leave, and a special leave petition involves a common question of law though they arise out of the following respective facts:C.A. Nos. 3241-3248 of 19812. These eight appeals by the Land Development and Reclamation Corporation. Chandigarh are from the Judgment and Order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing its writ petitions challenging the Award dated 2.8.1980 of the Labour Court, Chandigarh holding that the respondents were entitled to reinstatement with back wages except Yaspal (C.A.No. 3242 of 1981) who was to get wages up to 10.10.1978, with benefits of continuity of service. The respondents were workmen under the management of the Corporation and their services were terminated on the ground that the Chairman had no power to appoint them. The Labour Court in its Award held that their services were terminated illegally without payment of retrenchment compensation under the Industrial Disputes Act,...
Tag this Judgment!