Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998IIAD(SC)438; AIR1998SC1125; (1998)145CTR(SC)402; [1998]230ITR945(SC); JT1998(2)SC205; 1998(2)SCALE138; (1998)3SCC530; [1998]2SCR22
ORDERJudgement pronounced by Kirpal, J.Kirpal, J.1. The question involved in these appeals is whether the respondent is a local authority and, therefore, its income is exempt from tax under Section 10(20) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act').2. The U.P. Forest Corporation, the assessee herein, was constituted by Notification issued under Section 3 of the U.P. Forest Corporation Act, 1974. This Corporation was established for better preservation, supervision, development of forest and better exploitation of forest produce within the state of Uttar Pradesh. It took over the work which was formerly done by the forest contractors and its income was from the exploitation of forest produce and sales thereof.3. These appeals relate to the assessment year 1977-78, 1980-81 and 1984-85. During the course of assessment proceedings, the respondent had claimed its status to be that of 'local authority' and, therefore, its income was liable to be exempted from levy of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC492; (1964)66BOMLR244; [1964]4SCR299
Wanchoo, J. 1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Bombay High Court by which the two respondents were acquitted. The prosecution case briefly was that one Dongarsingh, a discharged truck driver from the army, was in need of employment. Towards the end of October 1955 he made an application to the District Soldiers' Board, Dhulia praying for help in securing employment. This application was forwarded to the Divisional Controller of the State Transport Corporation at Dhulia and Dongarsingh was asked by the Corporation to make a formal application on a printed from to be obtained on payment of As. 0-2-0. Accordingly Dongarsingh applied for a printed form sometime in November 1955 which he received on November 19, 1955. Thereafter Dongarsingh met Sheikh Ahmed (respondent No. 2) who was in service in the said department at Jamner and asked him for help. Sheikh Ahmed told Dongarsingh that Jagatsingh (respondent No. 1) who was an officer in the State Transport Corp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(4)AWC3467(SC); 2005(4)CTC269; [2005(107)FLR105]; [2006(2)JCR63(SC)]; JT2005(7)SC512; 2005(4)KLT91(SC); (2005)IIILLJ786SC; RLW2005(4)SC2512; (2005)7SCC447; 2005(3)SLJ45
ORDER OF TERMINATION IN THE PRESENT MATTER WHERE THE RESPONDENT WAS ON PROBATION CAN BE HELD TO BE INVALID? 28. The order of termination in the present case is termination simpliciter order and does not amount to any stigma. In this respect following cases are important:(i) This Court in the case of Champaklal Chimanlal Shah v. The Union of India reported in : (1964)ILLJ752SC has held and observed:-'...The mere fact that some kind of preliminary enquiry is held against a temporary servant and following that enquiry the services are dispensed with in accordance with the contract or the specific service rules (e.g. Rule 5 in this case) would not mean that the termination of service amounted to infliction of punishment of dismissal or removal within the meaning of Article 311(2)....'(ii) This Court in the case of Shamsher Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab reported in : (1974)IILLJ465SC (7 Judges Bench) has held and observed as under:-'The fact of holding an enquiry is not always conclusiv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2000(10)SC479; (2002)10SCC401
ORDER1. We have considered the explanation for the delay. Though the delay is apparently very long it has been sufficiently explained. We accept the explanation and condone the delay.2. Leave granted.3. The order impugned in this appeal has been passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on 3.10.1996 in Criminal Petition No. 1878 of 1996. The factual backdrop is necessary for understanding the scope of this appeal. A criminal case has been charge sheeted against respondent Nos. 1 to 5 on a complaint lodged by the appellant alleging offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Some of the respondents filed a petition before the High Court on 13.6.1994 in Criminal M.P. No. 1264 of 1994 praying for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against them. However, that petition for quashment was dismissed by the High Court by order dated 28.1.1995. It must be further mentioned that appellant was also heard by the High Court before passing the said orde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2001)IILLJ391SC; (2002)10SCC404
ORDERS. Rajendra Babu, J.1. A dispute was raised by an employee (original respondent) who was serving in the establishment of the appellant as a driver challenging his dismissal from service. The facts in brief are as follows:2. The original respondent while performing the duty on route Hyderabad to Nagpur on September 9, 1982 caused an accident by colliding with a private lorry resulting in huge damage to the vehicle and injuries to 11 persons travelling in the bus. The contention of the appellant was that this was the result of rash and negligent driving of the said employee (original respondent) who did not drive the vehicle with due care. He was charge-sheeted on these facts and inquiry was held. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued to him as to why he should not be removed from service and he was removed from service and that was challenged before the Labour Court.3. The Labour Court held that the domestic inquiry was vitiated and the appellant was allowed to adduce evidence i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC1926; (1971)73BOMLR85; (1969)2SCC746; [1970]2SCR319
1. The appellant, the State Corporation, constituted under the Road Transport Corporation Act (LXIV of 1950), challenges in this appeal, by special leave, the order of the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court dated October 5, 1967 in Special Civil Application No. 770 of 1967.2. The appellant, as well as respondents 1 to 5 and 8 to 16, applied to the Regional Transport Authority, Nagpur, on various dates in the year 1964-65, under Section 46 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act IV of 1939) (hereinafter called the Act) for grant of stage carriage permits on the routes (a) Chanda to Chimur; (b) Arni to Manora; (c) Sakoli to Lakhandur; (d) Sond-kheri to Kalmeshwar; and (e) Chanda to Rajura. The appellant's applications in respect of routes (a) and (c) were for additional trips and timings. Regarding (b), (d) and (e), the appellant's applications were for grant of permits over the new routes opened for the first time. The applications were notified by the Regional Transport Authority under...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC1117; JT1989(1)SC498; 1989(1)SCALE552; 1989Supp(1)SCC267; [1989]1SCR936; 1989(1)LC677(SC)
ORDER1. Thirty-two petitioners in this application under Article 32 of the Constitution are Bus Conductors in the employment of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, respondent No. 1. They have alleged that the respondent-Corporation is a statutory organisation and is 'State' within the meaning of Article 12. The normal practice prevalent in the Corporation is to initially appoint Conductors on daily wage basis and regularise them in due course. According to them, 19 daily wage Conductors as mentioned in Annexure 'A' to the petition were regularised and brought on the time-scale of pay with effect from the original date of their employment as daily wage Conductors, while though the petitioners have served for quite a long period they have not yet been regularised. They have alleged discrimination and claimed relief on the basis of Article 14. They have asked for a direction to the Transport Corporation to bring them on the time-scale by regularisation from the date each of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. Leave granted. 2. The appellants, Bihar State Electricity Board and its Chairman were the defendants in a suit filed by respondents 1 to 8, the plaintiffs. The respondents were the workmen of the Board and at the material time, i.e., in the year 1974 they were working as security guards at Patratu Thermal Power Station, Hazaribagh. They were proceeded against on certain charges of misconduct. In the domestic enquiry the charges were established and on the basis of the findings of the domestic enquiry, they were dismissed from service on November 11, 1975. After 4 years of dismissal from service they filed a suit (T.S. No. 95/1979) in the court of Munsiff V, Patna, seeking declarations that their dismissal was bad, unconstitutional and inoperative in law and they would be legally deemed to have continued in service. 3. The trial court allowed the suit by judgment and decree dated August 29, 1981. The appeal preferred by the appellants against the judgment and decree passed by the tri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1959SC308; [1959]Supp1SCR319
ORDER87. In view of the opinion of the majority the order approving the scheme is hereby quashed and a direction issued to the first respondent to forbear from taking over any of the routes in which the petitioners are engaged in transport business. This will not preclude the State Government from making the necessary enquiry in regard to the objections filed by the petitioners in accordance with law. The petitioners will have liberty to file additional objections, if any. The parties to bear their own costs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1950SC188; (1950)NULLLLJ921SC; (1950)ILLJ921SC; [1950]1SCR459
Kania, C.J.1. I have read the judgments prepared by Messrs. Fazl Ali, Mahajan and Mukherjea JJ. in this case. As the views in those judgments in respect of the nature of the duties and functions of the Industrial Tribunal do not show agreement I consider it necessary to add a few words of my own. 2. In my opinion, the functions and duties of the Industrial Tribunal are very much like those of a body discharging judicial functions, although it is not a Court. The rules framed by the Tribunal require evidence to be taken and witnesses to be examined, cross-examined and re-examined. The Act constituting the Tribunal imposes penalties for incorrect statements made before the Tribunal. While the powers of the Industrial Tribunal in some respects are different from those of an ordinary civil court and it has jurisdiction and powers to give reliefs which a civil Court administering the law of the land (for instance, ordering the reinstatement of a workman) does not possess in the discharge of...
Tag this Judgment!