Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1992)1MLJ172
Thanikkachalam, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree rendered in O.S. No. 250 of 1970 dated 5.11.1980 on the file of Sub-court, Dindigul. Defendants 3 to 5 are the appellants herein. The suit was filed in a representative capacity for cancellation of the suo motu scheme framed by the Special Officer, Wakf Board, dated 17.8.1968 in W.A. No. 9 of 1968 and for a direction to frame a single consolidated scheme for the suit Pallivasals. The trial court decreed the suit as prayed f6r with costs. It is against that judgment and decree the present first appeal has been filed by the defendants 3 to 5.2. In the plaint, the case of the plaintiffs is as under: In Cumbum town from ancient time, there was only one mosque called Vaveer Pallivasal or Bava Fakruddin Pallivasal or 'Big Mosque'. All the original Muslim in habitants of Cumbum used to pray in the said Mosque. They constituted a Jamath known as Cumbum town Jamath. There are two other Pallivasals, known as Mohideen An...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1992(6)SC273; 1993LabIC129; 1992Supp(3)SCC212; [1992]6SCR321
ORDER1. 'Equality of status and of opportunity...' the rubric chiselled in the luminous preamble of our vibrating and pulsating Constitution radiates one of the avowed objectives in our Sovereign, Socialist and Secular Democratic Republic. In every free country which has adopted a system of governance through democratic principles, the people have their fundamental inalienable rights and enjoy the recognition of inherent dignity and of equality analogous to the rights proclaimed in the 'Bill of Rights' in U.S.A., the 'Rights of Man' in the French Constitution of 1971 and 'Declaration of Human Rights' etc. Our Constitution is unquestionably unique in its character and assimilation having its notable aspirations contained in 'Fundamental Rights' (in part III) through which the illumination of Constitutional rights comes to us not through an artless window glass but refracted with the enhanced intensity and beauty by prismatic interpretation of the Constitutional provisions dealing with e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1991(5)SC301; 1991(2)SCALE1142; 1993Supp(233)SCC1; [1991]Supp3SCR30
N.D. Ojha, J.1. These two appeals by special leave have been preferred against the judgment dated 8th October, 1982 of the High Court of Kerala in A.S. No. 210 of 1979. Appellant in Civil Appeal No. 534 of 1983 instituted Original Suit No. 253 of 1976 against the since deceased respondent No. 1 (who shall hereinafter for the sake of convenience be referred to as the appellant and respondent No. 1 respectively) for partition and rendition of accounts in the court of Subordinate Judge, Trivandrum. Respondent No. 1 till the integration of the States of Travancore and Cochin on 1st July, 1949 was the Ruler of the erstwhile State of Travancore and thereafter until the formation of the State of Kerala on 1st November, 1956 he was the Rajapramukh of the State of Travancore-Cochin. The suit was instituted by the appellant on the assertion that defendants 1 to 34 (respondent No. 1 being the defendant No. l in the suit) were members of the Travancore Royal Family. This family according to the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1992)(61)ELT138TriDel
1. The appellants are aggrieved with the order-in-original No. 18/MP/91 dt. 18-3-1991 passed by the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Vadodara confirming the demands raised in the show cause notice dt.4-10-1990 and has demanded duty amounting to Rs. 3,02,67,299.90 (Three crores, two lakhs sixty seven thousand two hundred ninety nine and paise ninety only) Basic Excise duty Rs. 2,88,25,800.47 + Special Excise duty - Rs. 14,41,491.43) in respect of alleged illicit removal of Acrylic Fibre during the period October, 1989 to August, 1990 under the provisions of Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with proviso to sub-section (1) of Section- 11A of Central Excises and Salt Act,1944. (ii) imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 crore under Rule 209 of Central Excise Rules, 1944. (iii) Ordered confiscation of land, building, plant and machinery etc. belonging to them and used in the manufacture, production, storage and removals of Acrylic Fibre under the provisions of clause (a) to sub-rul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC244; JT1992(6)SC109; 1992(2)KLT886(SC); 1992(2)SCALE687; 1995Supp(4)SCC402; [1992]Supp1SCR699
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court dismissing the Second Appeal preferred by him.2. The suit property was mortgaged by one Raman Pillai in favour of Madhav Pillai. Plaintiff purchased the equity or redemption from the daughter of Raman Pillai. First defendant in the suit is the assignee of the mortgagee's right whereas defendants 2 to 5 are his children. The plaintiff filed the suit for redemption of the mortgage. The defendant pleaded inter alia that by virtue of Section 4-A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964, he should be deemed to be a tenant, entitled to fixity of tenure. Trial Court upheld his plea on the finding that he has been holding the land comprised in the mortgage for a continuous period of not less than 50 years immediately preceding the commencement of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1969 as contemplated by Section 4-A. On that basis, it dismissed the sui...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC477; [1992]Supp2SCR454; 1992DGLS(soft)768:1992Supp(3)SCC217
ORDER1. Judgment of The Chief Justice, M.N. Venkatachallah, A.M. Ahmadi and B.P. Jeevan Reddy, JJ. Delivered by B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.Forty and three years ago was founded this republic with the fourfold objective of securing to its citizens justice, liberty, equality and fraternity. Statesmen of the highest order the like of which this country has not seen since - belonging to the fields of law, politics and public life came together to fashion the instrument of change - the Constitution of India. They did not rest content with evolving the framework of the State; they also pointed out the goal-and the methodology for reaching that goal. In the preamble, they spelt out the goal and in parts III and IV, they elaborated the methodology to be followed for reaching that goal.2. The Constituent Assembly, though elected on the basis of a limited franchise, was yet representative of all sections of society. Above all, it was composed of men of vision, conscious of the his...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : [1993]200ITR27(Ker)
M. Jagannadha Rao, C.J.1. These six tax revision cases arise out of orders passed by the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and raise common questions. They relate to three assessment years 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78. Tax Revision Cases Nos. 106 and 143 of 1991 relate to the assessment year 1975-76, T. R. Cs. Nos. 111 and 162 of 1991 relate to the assessment year 1976-77 and T. R. Cs. Nos. 129 and 133 of 1991 relate to the assessment year 1977-78. There was a remand order earlier by the Tribunal and, after remand, the matter had again come up before the Tribunal, and that is the reason why two T. R. Cs. have been filed for each year. While T. R. Cs. Nos. 111, 133 and 143 of 1991, the first of the cases in each of the three years, relate to the original orders passed by the Tribunal at the time of remand, T. R. Cs. Nos. 106, 162 and 129 of 1991 relate to the orders passed by the Tribunal in the appeals which came up before the Tribunal subsequent to the earlier remand orders. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Dixon - 509 U.S. 688 (1992) OCTOBER TERM, 1992 Syllabus UNITED STATES v. DIXON ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No.91-1231. Argued December 2, 1992-Decided June 28,1993 Based on respondent Dixon's arrest and indictment for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, he was convicted of criminal contempt for violating a condition of his release on an unrelated offense forbidding him to commit "any criminal offense." The trial court later dismissed the cocaine indictment on double jeopardy grounds. Conversely, the trial court in respondent Foster's case ruled that double jeopardy did not require dismissal of a five-count indictment charging him with simple assault (Count I), threatening to injure another on three occasions (Counts II-IV), and assault with intent to kill (Count V), even though the events underlying the charges had previously prompted his trial for criminal contempt for violating a civil protection order (CPO) re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1993(1)ALT293
M.N. Rao, J.1. As all these matters are inter-connected, they are disposed of by this common order.2. Writ Appeal No. 1752 of 1987 arises out of W.P.No. 11437 of 1986 filed by Tallapaka Venkata Sreenivasacharyulu, the appellant herein, seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the Tirumala-Tirupathi Devasthanams (for short 'the T.T.D.') represented by its Executive Officer to pay compensation in respect of Ac.3-50 cents of land covered by Survey Nos. 679/2 and 645 situate at Tirumala village in Chandragiri Taluk, Chittoor District. The case of the appellant was that the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor in the proceedings under Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Andhra Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (for short 'the Inams Abolition Act') rendered a decision after enquiry that an extent of Ac.28-58 cents covered by Survey Nos. 586,645 and 679 of Tirumala village are inam lands in ryotwari village and not held by an institution. The appeal preferred by the T.T.D., aga...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
U.L. Bhat, CJ.1. These appeals are filed against the judgment and award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dibrugarh, in M.A.C. Case No. 6 of 1978. M.A. (F) 3 of 1986 is filed by the owner of the vehicle involved in the occurrence and M.A. (F) 15 of 1986 is filed by the claimants.2. Claimants are the heirs of Nandalal Kedia, who died in the accident which took place at 11.30 p.m. on 15.9.1977 at Lahoal when he was traveiling in car No. ASA 5171 from Dibrugarh to Tinsukia. Alleging that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the car, a sum of Rs. 22,00,000/- was claimed as compensation. The owner of the car filed a written statement stating that the car was in a mechanically sound condition and it was driven by duly licensed driver, that the car was given for the personal use of his friend Nandalal Kedia on that day and he himself came to know about the accident the next morning. According to him the accident was not the result of rash and negligent dr...
Tag this Judgment!