Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC349; [1968(17)FLR179]; 1968LabIC360; (1968)IILLJ120SC; [1968]1SCR407
Ramaswami, J.1. This appeal is brought, by special leave, from the judgment of the Mysore High Court dated January 15, 1963 in Writ Petition No. 48 of 1962 granting a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the appellants to accord to the respondent the benefit of both the revised higher pay scales for the Matriculate Tracers with effect from the respective dates on which they came into force. 2. The respondent, Narasing Rao was employed as a tracer in the Engineering Department in the Ex-Hyderabad State on the scale of pay Rs. 65 - 90. In the cadre of tracers of that State, there were matriculates as well as non-matriculates. But there was no distinction made in the scale of pay for that reason and all the tracers were placed in the same scale. The respondent was a non-matriculate. There was re-organisation of States in 1956 and as a result of the re-organisation a part of the area of Hyderabad State became part of the new Mysore State. The respondent was allotted to the new Mysore S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC250; (1968)70BOMLR131; 1968MHLJ232(SC); [1968]1SCR424
Sikri, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and decree of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 598 of 1960, where the High Court confirmed the judgment and decree dated January 30, 1960, passed by the Extra Assistant Judge, District Court, Ahmednagar, in Regular Appeal No. 300 of 1958, confirming the decree dated April 7, 1958, passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ahmednagar, in Civil Suit No. 609 of 1948. 2. The relevant facts for the determination of the points raised before us by the learned counsel for the appellant mortgagee, are as follows : The respondents before us filed a suit for the redemption of the mortgage of a bungalow at Ahmednagar alleging that the sale-deed in respect of this bungalow for Rs. 5,000 was in fact a possessor mortgage. One of the terms of this deed, dated August 4, 1928, was : 'However, a condition is laid down that if we pay you within three years from this day Rupees five thousand relating to this sale-deed, and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC389; [1968]1SCR415; [1968]21STC403(SC)
Mitter, J.1. This appeal, by special leave, is from a judgment and order of the High Court of Kerala dated August 16, 1963 passed in tax Revision Case No. 17 of 1962 filed by the respondent Cochin Coal Co. Ltd. against the order of the Sales Tax Appellant Tribunal, Trivandrum. 2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows. The respondent-assessee was a non-resident dealer (not resident in Travancore-Cochin) during the year 1955-56. The period we are concerned with here ends on September 4, 1955. It used to supply to consumers in Travancore Cochin State which later became Kerala. For the assessment year in question (1955-56) the assessee was asked to file statements showing its turnover of supplies of coal made to purchasers in the State of Kerala and in reply to the notice under s. 12(2)(b) of the Travancore Cochin General Sales Tax Act, it stated that the sales of coal to steamers arriving and berthed in Travancore Cochin State waters were not taxable because t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1968]1SCR381; [1968]21STC51(SC)
Ramaswami, J. 1. This appeal is brought, by special leave, from the Judgment of the Madras High Court dated September 23, 1963, in Tax Case No. 246 of 1962. 2. The respondent who was a Beedi manufacturer in Gudiyatam, Madras State was assessed to sales tax on a taxable turnover of Rs. 1,73,502/11/10 for the assessment year 1955-56 by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer. Against this order of assessment dated February 15, 1957 the respondent appealed to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Sales disputing the inclusion of a sum of Rs. 1,11,299/- and odd on the ground that the said amount represented either second purchases or purchases made outside the State of Madras. Pending the appeal the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959 was passed and the earlier Act 1939 was repealed and by face of the processions in the 1959 Act, the appeal was finally disposed or by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Salem. By his order dated July 2, 1960, the Appellate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC244; (1968)70BOMLR128; 1968MhLJ358(SC); [1968]1SCR401
Shelat, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the High Court of Maharashtra quashing the order dated November 20, 1961 passed by the first appellant under section 5(1) of the Bombay Land Requisition Act 23 of 1948 as extended to the Vidarbha area by the Bombay Land Requisition (Extension and Amendment) Act 33 of 1959. 2. The respondents are the owners of the land in question situate in the village Kasarkhed, District Akola. It appears that in 1959 there were floods in the area which affected the residents living in the gaothan of Kasarkhed. Once again there were floods in 1961 more serious than in 1959 affecting as many as 470 persons whose houses were either washed away or seriously damaged. There was therefore an urgent necessity of rehabilitating those sufferers at some other place where they could build their houses and complete them before the arrival of the next monsoon. In these circumstances the first appellant under powers conferred on him by secti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC247; 1968CriLJ236; [1968]1SCR394
Vaidialingam, J. 1. The sole point, which arises for consideration, in this appeal, by special leave, directed against the order or the High Court of Delhi, dated November 21, 1966 is about the validity of the complaint filed by the Deputy Chief Controller of imports and Exports, New Delhi, the respondent herein, under s. 5 read with s. 6 of the Imports & Exports (Control) Act, 1947 (Act XVIII of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as the Act.) Section 6 of the Act, relating to cognizance of offences, is as follows : '6. No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under section 5 except upon complaint in writing made by an officer authorized in this behalf by the Central Government by general or special order, and no Court inferior to that of a Presidency Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class shall try any such offence.' 2. The respondent filed a complaint, on December 31, 1962, before the first Class Magistrate. Delhi, alleging that the appellants, before us, and four ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC384; 1968(16)BLJR114; [1968]1SCR372
Hegde, J.1. This appeal by the Collector of Varanasi by special leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution is directed against the decision dated 11-11-1963 of the High Court of judicature at Allahabad, in First Appeal No. 60 of 1960 on its file, which in its turn arose from the award made by Shri S. B. Malik, District Judge, Varanasi, in certain land acquisition proceedings under clause (b) of sub-s. (1) of s. 19 of the Defence of India Act, 1939 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. Before considering the contentions urged on behalf of the parties, to it is necessary to set out the salient facts. For the purpose of constructing the Babatpur aerodrome near Varanasi, the Government acquired in the year 1946 about 500 acres of land. Compensation in respect of most of the lands acquired was settled by agreement. But in respect of the lands with which we are concerned in this appeal 48.01 acres in extent, no settlement was arrived at. Therefore, the question of compensation in resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC366; (1968)70BOMLR353; [1968]1SCR362
Sikri, J. 1. These two appeals, by special leave, are directed against the judgment of High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Nagpur Bench), dated January 7, 1963, allowing two Civil Revision applications Nos. 294 of 1962 and 295 of 1962, filed by Paramsukhdas, a respondent before us. The High Court, by this judgment, quashed orders dated April 9, 1962, in the Land Acquisition Cases No. 189 of 1961 and No. 190 of 1961 (as amended subsequently on July 6, 1962) and remitted the matter to the Court of the Civil Judge, Akola, for a fresh decision on merits with advertence to the remarks in the judgment. The High Court further directed that Paramsukhdas be allowed to be impleaded as a non-applicant in the two proceedings and all parties will be allowed to amend their pleadings or make fresh pleadings with respect to the alleged compromise as filed before the High Court in Special Civil Application No. 232 of 1960. 2. Mr. S. T. Desai, the learned counsel for the appellant, contends : (1) That t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC240; [1968(16)FLR432]; 1968LabIC216; (1968)IILLJ125SC; 1968MhLJ48(SC); [1968]1SCR355
Shelat, J.1. Prior December 17, 1947 the appellant was serving as an Overseer in the Public Works Department of the Central Provinces and Berar Government. On December 17, 1947 he was suspended from service and prosecuted under section 161 of the Penal Code. The trial resulted in his conviction but that was set aside in appeal on the ground that no proper sanction for prosecution was obtained. He was again prosecuted on the same charge but the Special Judge trying him quashed the charge sheet on the ground that the investigation had not been carried out by the proper authorities. In revision the High Court of Nagpur held that the Special Judge was in error in so holding but recommended that the prosecution should not be proceeded with as nearly 10 years had gone but since it was launched against the appellant. Following the recommendation the prosecution was dropped but a department inquiry was held on the same charges. The Inquiry Officer found the appellant not guilty but the Governm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC346; 1968LabIC357; [1968]1SCR349
Bachawat, J.1. This appeal raises a question of the validity of the latter part of r. 9(2) of the Mysore Recruitment of Gazetted Probationers' Rules, 1959 framed by Governor of Mysore in exercise of his powers under the proviso to Art. 309 of of the Constitution. The Rules came into force on September 11, 1959. Rule 3 requires that for a period of five years, two-thirds of the number of vacancies as determined by the Government arising in the cadres in the State Civil Services specified in the schedule shall be filled by recruitment of candidates selected under the Rules. The schedule lists two Class I and twelve Class II cadres. The two Class I cadres are those of (1) Assistant Commissioners in the Mysore Administrative Service and (2) Assistant Controllers in the Mysore State Accounts Service. Both cadres are in the pay scale of Rs. 300 - 25 - 500 -50 - 30 - 700. Rule 4 provided that the recruitment shall be made on the basis of the results of written and viva voice examinations cond...
Tag this Judgment!