Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC1822; 1976CriLJ1385; (1976)2SCC33
Y.V. Chandrachud, J.1. The appellant had filed writ petition No. 205 of 1967 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh for challenging the order of his reversion from the post of Assistant Engineer to that of a Supervisor. The respondent, who was then an Assistant Secretary to the Government of Andhra Pradesh in the Public Works Department, swore to a counter-affidavit on behalf of the five respondents in the writ petition. He stated in that affidavit, inter alia that grave charges of misbehavior were made against the appellant by one Miss. G. L. Narayanamma, that the case in regard to those charges was pending in the Court of the Eighth City Magistrate, that the appellant's services as an Assistant Engineer were found unsatisfactory since November, 1963 and that the order of reversion was passed because his service record was not satisfactory. The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court but the appellant carried the matter to this Court and on remand, the writ petition eventually succ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC2224; 1976LabIC1628; (1976)1SCC813; 1976(8)LC72(SC)
1. At the hearing of the appeals, the parties have entered into a settlement and it is agreed that for each of the years 1963-64 and 1964-65 the bonus payable by Orissa Road Transport Co. Ltd. to its employees would be equal to two months' wages. The company would be entitled to deduct out of the bonus payable the amount already paid as advance bonus and shall pay the balance within two months from today. It is also agreed that the question as to whether Section 20 of the Payment of Bonus Act is applicable to the above mentioned, company shall remain open and may be agitated in the references which are now pending before the Tribunal for the years subsequent to 1964-65. The settlement in respect of payment of bonus for the year 1964-65 will not involve by implication a decision on the point that the above mentioned company is governed by Section 20 of the payment of Bonus Act. The appeals are accordingly disposed of in the above terms. The parties will bear their own costs throughout....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC2273; 1977LabIC1547; (1976)1SCC812; 1976(8)LC73(SC)
ORDERH.R. Khanna, J.1. The services of B.N. Bhasin were terminated by the appellant company with effect from May 1, 1966. Reference to whether the termination of the services of Bhasin was wrongful and unjustified and if so, to what relief he was entitled. The Labour Court as per award dated September 9, 1966 held that the termination of service of Bhasin was wrongful and unjustified and he was entitled to full back wages and continuity of service. The appellant company thereafter came up in appeal to this Court by special leave.2. At the hearing of the appeal, there has been a settlement between the parties and it has been agreed that instead of Bhasin being reinstated by the appellant company he be paid Rs. 10,000/- in full and final settlement of his claim. This would be without prejudice to the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant company as to whether salesman is a workman. A sum of Rs. 8,000/- is stated to have been already deposited by the appellant company. Bhasin res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC2128; (1976)2SCC416; 1976(8)LC77(SC)
H.R. Khanna, J.1. This is an appeal on certificate by Bhagat Ram Batra against the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the appellant against the Union of India and three others was dismissed in limine.2. The appellant is a displaced person. On October, 15, 1959 evacuee property 2 N.A.C. Ambala City was sold by public auction. The appellant gave the highest bid of Rs. 72,700/- and his bid was accepted; The, appellant wanted Rs. 45,620/05 piase, on account of compensation for the claim in respect of his property left in Pakistan, to be adjusted towards the sale price. Before the appellant could pay the balance of the price, he made are presentation to the rehabilitation authorities that there had been an encroachment upon the property for which he had given the bid by the owner of the adjoining property and that the area of the property auctioned in his (the appellant's) favour was less than the area mentio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1976)5CTR(SC)0106B
Untwalia, J. - In this appeal by special leave the question for determination is whether the appellant company is a dealer within the meaning of Section 2 (b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 hereinafter referred to as the Central Act, liable to pay sales tax thereunder.2. The appellant, Bagal Kot Cement Co. Ltd., is a manufacturer do cement. For the period 1st April, 1961 to 31st March, 1962 it filed a return before the Assessing Authority showing a total turn-over of Rs. 1,11,02,243/-. The entire sum was shown as taxable turnover of which an amount of Rs. 2,25,317.55 had been collected and paid as tax. No claim was made on behalf of the appellant before the assessing authority that it was not liable to pay any sales tax. The Authority accepted the Return and assessed the tax as per the appellants figure. It appears the appellant was advised thereafter to file an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and take the stand that in respect of the transactions in quest...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC357; (1976)1SCC336; [1976]2SCR852; [1976]37STC73(SC); 1976(8)LC80(SC)
N.L. Untwalia, J.1. In this appeal by special leave the question for determination is whether the appellant company is a dealer within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956-hereinafter referred to as the Central Act, liable to pay sales tax thereunder.2. The appellant, Bagal Kot Cement Co. Ltd, is a manufacturer of Cement. For the period 1st April, 1961 to 31st March, 1962 it filed a Return before the Assessing Authority showing a total turn-over of Rs. 1,11,02,243/-. The entire sum was shown as taxable turn-over on which an amount of Rs. 2,25,317.55 had been collected and paid as tax. No claim was made on behalf of the appellant before the Assessing Authority that it was not liable to pay any sales tax, The Authority accepted the Return and assessed the tax as per the appellant's figure. It appears the appellant was advised thereafter to file an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and take the stand that in respect of the transactions in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC373; (1976)1SCC354; 1976(8)LC68(SC)
M.H. Beg, J.1. The appellant is an Advocate against whom a complaint was made on 25th May, 1971 before the Bar Council of Maharashtra by the Respondent Naraindas M. Punjabi. As the complaint was not disposed of within six months of its receipt by the State Bar Council it was transferred to the Disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India under Section 36B of the Advocates Act, 1961 for disposal.2. The complaint alleged as follows:He was the co-owner with two others of certain premises of which one of the tenants was M/s. Hindustan Electric and Radio Corporation. He, together with the other co-owners, had Bled suits No. 840 of 1961 and 1040 of 1964 in the Bombay City Civil Court against the Corporation. These suits were off-shoots of a prior proceeding No. 4127 of 1960 in the small Causes' Court for the ejectment of the Corporation, which was dismissed on 10th March, 1961. S.C. Suit No. 840 of 1961 was, thereafter filed, but it was withdrawn on 19th September; 1963, with liberty t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC997; (1976)2SCC942; [1976]2SCR809
R.C. Ray, J.1. The question raised in these petitions is whether the petitioners are liable to pay tax under Bihar Taxation on Passengers and Goods (Carried by Public Service Motor Vehicles) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Bihar Act).2. The other petitioners raised similar question under Maharashtra Tax on Goods (Carried by Road) Act, 1962; Rajasthan Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1959; Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Taxation on Goods) Act, 1'962; Punjab Passengers and Goods Act, 1952; the Gujarat Carriage of Goods Taxation Act, 1962; the Mysore Motor Vehicles (Taxation on Passengers and Goods) Act, 1961.3. Reference may be made to the Bihar Act as typical of all the cases covered by these petitions. The pattern of all the Acts is similar.4. At the outset it may be stated that the validity of the Bihar Act was some years back challenged with regard to retrospective operation of the Act. This Court in Civil Appeals Nos. l6and 17 of 1963 Raja Ram Krishna v. State of Bihar d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1976)5CTR(SC)200
Ray, C.J. - The question raised in these petitions is whether the petitioners are liable to pay tax under Bihar Taxation on Passengers and Goods (Carried by Public Service Motor Vehicles) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Bihar Act).2. The other petitioners raised similar question under Maharashtra Tax on Goods (Carried by Road) Act, 1962; Rajasthan Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1959; Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Taxation on Goods) Act, 1962; Punjab Passengers and Goods Act, 1952; the Gujarat Carriage of Goods Taxation Act, 1962; the Mysore Motor Vehicles (Taxation on Passengers and Goods) Act, 1961.3. Reference may be made to the Bihar Act as typical of all the cases covered by these petitions. The pattern of all the Acts is similar.4. At the outset it may be stated that the validity of the Bihar Act was some years back challenged with regard to retrospective operation of the Act. This Court in Civil Appeals No. 16 and 17 of 1963 - Rai Ram Krishna & Ors. v. State of Bih...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC688; (1976)1SCC449; [1976]2SCR827
P.K. GOSWAMI, J. (for himself and Mathew, J.)1. In this appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree of the Allahabad High Court the only question that is raised relates to the plea of res judicata.2. The facts so far as material for the purpose of this appeal are as follows.3. The plaintiff (Respondent 1 herein) claims to be the adopted son of one Param Lal who is the original owner of the premises in suit. Ram Sahai is the father of Defendants 1 to 3 and husband of Defendant 4. Both Param Lal and Ram Sahai died sometime in 1946. The plaintiff brought a suit being OS No. 114 of 1952 in the Court of the Munsif of Etah, Uttar Pradesh, against Defendants 1 to 6. The allegations in the plaint were that Defendant 5, who is the maternal uncle of Defendants 1 to 3 and brother of Defendant 4 executed a rent note on November 13, 1946, on behalf of Defendants 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff. Since they were in arrears of rent for nearly 2½ years the suit was instituted for rent...
Tag this Judgment!