Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC97; [1975]98ITR167(SC); (1975)3SCC572; [1975]2SCR538
H.R. Khanna, J.1. Appeal No. 1353 of 1970 on certificate is directed against the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court whereby the High Court answered the following question on reference made to it under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the assessee and in favour of the revenue:Whether the interest payment of Rs. 2,38,614/- represents an element on the actual cost of the machinery, plant etc. to the assessee and as such depreciation and development rebate arc admissible with reference to this amount also? 2. The matter relates to the assessment year 1959-60, the corresponding accounting year for which ended on June 30, 1958. The assessee is a public limited company engaged in the manufacture and sale of sugar. The company went into production on January 22, 1958. The assessee company had borrowed considerable sum of money from the Industrial Finance Corporation of India for the installation of machinery and plant. During the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC511; (1975)3SCC459; [1975]2SCR553; 1975(1)SLJ42(SC)
N.L. Untwalia, J.1. The four petitioners in this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India are working as Additional District & Sessions Judges in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service at Delhi. Their prayers in this writ petition are to strike down Rules 9(a) and 11 of the Delhi Judicial Service Rules, 1970 as being ultra vires and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and to declare Rule 8 of Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970 as void and unConstitutional. Their further prayer is to quash the fixation of the seniority of the petitioners and respondents 3 to 6 and to place petitioners 1 to 4 above respondents 3 to 5 and petitioners 2 to 4 above respondent 6 in the gradation of seniority in Delhi Judicial Service and Delhi Higher Judicial Service.2. All the four petitioners originally belonged to the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial). Shri Joginder Nath, petitioner No. 1 joined the said service on 2.7.1956, Shri D. C. Aggarwal, petitioner No. 2 on 2.7.1957, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC2328; 1975CriLJ16; (1975)3SCC831; [1975]2SCR520; 1974(6)LC724(SC)
K.K. Mathew, J.1. When the special leave to appeal was granted, this Court limited it to the question of the nature of the offence committed by the appellant (accused) in causing the death of one Maya Devi by pouring acid on her body. 2. The prosecution case was as follows. Maya Devi, aged 19 years at the time of her death was the daughter of Raj Kumari (PAV. 1). Both the mother and daughter had taken to the protession of dancing and singing and used to live in an apartment on G. B. Road, Delhi. The accused had illicit connection with Maya Devi and he often used to go to the residence of the deceased. The accused wanted to marry Maya Devi but she declined as he was always married to another woman. A few days' before the occurrence, the appellant took Maya Devi with him to his house and she stayed there for about 12 days. Thereafter Maya Devi was brought back by the accused to her mother's apartment. On that occasion also the accused asked Maya Devi to marry him but she refused. The acc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC2319; 1974LabIC1436; (1975)3SCC628; [1975]2SCR526; 1974(6)LC715(SC)
M.H. Beh, J.1. The University of Cochin was granted special leave to appeal to this Court against the judgment and order of the Kerala High Court allowing a writ Petition of the respondent Dr. N. Raman Nair who had applied unsuccessfully on 15-10-1972 for the post of Reader in the Department of Hindi after coming into force of the Cochin University Act 30 of 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The High Court had quashed a resolution, passed by the Syndicate on 6-1-1973, for appointing Dr. A. Ramchandra Dev to the post. The High Court had also quashed the resolution of the Syndicate of the University passed on 17-7-1972, the relevant part of which runs as follows:Resolved that1. the rules mentioned under Section 6(2) of the Cochin University Act, 1971, be implemented in the case of teaching staff as a class except in the case of post of Professor which shah1 be filled up exclusively in consideration of merit: but the reservation quota against this category should be provided ad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC202; 1975LabIC147; (1975)3SCC621; 1974(6)LC670(SC)
Untwalia, J.1. The sole petitioner in this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has prayed for a Writ Mandamus or any other appropriate directions to the General Manager, Central Railways, Bombay-respondent No. 1, to the General Manager, Western Railways-respondent No. 2 and the Union of India, Ministry of Railways, Railway Board, New Delhi-respondent No. 3 to place the petitioner as an Executive Engineer above Shri C.S. Patanker-respondent No. 4 for the purposes of seniority, pay, grade, arrears of pay and further promotions to higher posts and also for a writ of Mandamus for placing the petitioner in the grade of Rs. 450-575 in the post of Inspector of Works from 1-4-1958 for all purposes. The petition has been resisted by respondent No. 1 on whose behalf a counter affidavit has also been filed. The petitioner has filed an affidavit in reply.2. As we proceeded to state the facts of the case, it would be clear that this writ petition has got to fail on the ground of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC813; 1978(2)ELT154(SC); (1975)1SCC636; [1975]2SCR511
K.K. Mathew, J.1. The appellants filed writ petitions before the High Court of Mysore under Article 226 of the Constitution for a declaration that the Mysore Elementary Education Act, 1941, and the amendments to it by the Mysore Elementary Education (Amendment Act XII of 1955) providing for levy and collection of Education Cess on items on which Education Cess is being levied as prescribed in the schedules of the respective Acts were beyond the competence of the Mysore State Legislature and for refund of the Educational Cess paid during 1951-52 to 1965-66 on shop rentals and tree tax in respect of toddy and duty of excise in respect of arrack and special liquor. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions by a common judgment and these appeals are directed against that judgment.2. The High Court of Mysore had, in D. Cawasji & Co. v. The State of Mysore and Ors. (1968) 2 MLJ 78, struck down the provisions of the Mysore Elementary Education Act and the amendments to it on May 2, 1968. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC824; (1975)4SCC628; [1975]2SCR491
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. The principal appeal, C. A. 2303 of 1968, has arrived in this Court by certificates, under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution, granted by the High Court of Delhi. (The other, C.A. 2248 of 1968 has been extinguished by efflux of time and even otherwise is not pressed, since counsel concedes the decision to be just).2. The subject matter is large, the rounds of litigation many, the arguments long and yet the issues of law and disputes of fact are few although their ultimate decision where justice and law have, we think, come to cordial terms, has been reached after uneasy hours but with an easy conscience. Hopefully, we avoid burdening the judgment with heavy historical material much of which has been wisely jettisoned to help turn the forensic focus on the three-pronged attack on the decree made by counsel for the appellant Shri S.T. Desai.3. Even so, the sequence and significance of events leading up to the current controversy, sprawling across India and Paki...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC522; 1975CriLJ439; (1975)4SCC598; [1975]2SCR470
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. The petitioner challenges the validity of the order of his detention made by the District Magistrate, Jodhpur under Section 3(1)(a)(iii) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (for short the Act) and prays for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus.2. The order of detention was passed on March 18, 1974. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner was taken into custody on March 19, 1974.3. The detention order (for short, the first order) which was served on the detenu at the time of his arrest on March 19, 1974. states:.whereas, the said Shri Bankat Lal has been indulging in rampant adulteration of essential foodstuff and supply thereof for consumption by the community at large, operating a factory and firm under the name and style of Laxmi Narain Moondra situated in Makrana Mohalla, Jodhpur for such adulteration, so much so that 170 odd bags of material which among other things, includes 7 tins of sawdust, 15 bags of colour (yellow and Gherwa), 70 bags of chilli...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC87; 1975CriLJ44; (1975)4SCC161
Y.V. Chandrachud, J.1. The three appellants to this appeal are brothers. They were tried along with the fourth brother, Bankey Singh, under Section 302 read with Section 34, Penal Code and for other incidental offences. The charge against them was that at about 6 p. m. on February 25, 1965 they committed the murder of one Brahmdeo Rai and caused injuries to two others: Ram Swaroop Yadav and Anup Rai. All the four accused were acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Monghyr. The appeal filed by the State of Bihar against the order of acquittal was allowed by the High Court of Patna which convicted the appellant Biran Singh under Section 302, Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The appellant Hiran Singh was sentenced to a similar term but under Section 302 read with Section 34. The appellant Hirday Singh was convicted under Section 323 and a sentence of four months was imposed on him. The fourth brother, Bankey Singh, died during the pendency of the appeal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC83; 1975CriLJ40; (1975)2SCC386; [1975]2SCR483
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. Can the income of the wife be taken into account in determining the amount of maintenance payable to her under Section 488 of the CrPC, 1898? This is the principal question for determination in this appeal by special leave.2. Respondent No. 1, Kamla Devi was married to the appellant Bhagwan Dutt on January 22, 1957 according to Hindu rites. Out of this wedlock a daughter, Respondent No. 2, was born on November 22, 1957. On October 18, 1966, Respondent No. 1 filed a petition against the appellant for judicial separation on the ground of desertion and cruelty. During the pendency of that petition, she filed an application under Section 488 of the CrPC, 1898, in the court of the Magistrate, 1st Class, Delhi, claiming maintenance for herself and for her minor daughter, on the ground that the appellant had neglected and refused to maintain them. At the date of the application Respondent No. 1 was employed as a stenographer on a monthly salary of Rs. 600/-. The appellant ...
Tag this Judgment!