Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC27; (1976)3SCC284; [1976]1SCR884
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. This appeal relates to the election to the Parliament from the Fazilka constituency in Punjab held on 5th March, 1971. The Parliamentary constituency consisted of eight assembly constituencies of Malout, Muktsar, Gidderbha, Fazilka, Jalalabad, Abohar, Lambi and Faridkot. The votes were counted on 10th and 11th of March at five different places. The counting of the votes of the Malout Assembly constituency was held on 10th March by Mr. Aggarwal, Assistant Returning Officer, of Muktsar and Gidderbha on 10th and 11th by Mr. Sayal, of Fazilka and Jalalabad on the 10th and 11th by Mr. Mahajan, of Lambi and Abohar on the 10th and 11th by Mr. Ram Lal and of Faridkot on the 11th by Mr. Carg. 6409 votes were declared invalid and the 1st respondent was declared elected having secured 1,52,677 votes. The appellant obtained 1,47,354 votes. There were six other candidates about whom it is not necessary to refer.2. A number of allegations were made in the election petition abou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC490; 1976LabIC395; (1976)ILLJ376SC; (1976)2SCC310; [1976]1SCR906
ORDERGovernment are pleased to order that the period of temporary exemption granted to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the G. O. read above from passing all tests (unified and special or departmental tests) be extended from 13-1-1974 to cover a period during which two tests are held by the Public Service Commission and results thereof published so that each individual gets two chances to appear. Government also order that these categories of employees will not be given any further extension of time to acquire the test qualifications.50. Respondent No. 1 passed all the tests by November 2, 1971. The other respondents, who are members of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes and who too were lower division clerks working in the Registration Department of the State, were promoted as upper division clerks even though they had not passed the tests mentioned above. Respondent No. 1 was not, however, promoted despite the fact that he had passed the requisite tests. In 1972 out of 51 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC448; (1976)1SCC800; [1976]1SCR875; 1975(7)LC934(SC)
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. Brevity will do no inequity in this appeal where three points were urged but only one survives for serious scanning. The subject matter is the validity of land acquisition proceedings whereby a Municipality compulsorily purchased the appellant's land for the stated public purpose of running a country fair or market (Mondha) under the Hyderabad and Acquisition Act for short, the Act) which is closely similar to the Land Acquisition Act, 1923 (Central Act). The first charge is that the High Court dismissed the Writ petition in limine Seven years after the 1968 event, we cannot consider sending back the case even if there be justice in the submission. We have therefore heard counsel Shri Deshpande on his substantive grievances The second contention is that there is no 'public purpose' to support the acquisition which is allegedly ultra vires the municipality's powers. We disagree. Providing a village market is an obvious public purposes and a municipal facility. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC49; (1976)1SCC194; [1976]1SCR847
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. These two batches of appeals stem from the same judgment but, raise two different questions of law under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (Punjab Act X of 1953) (for short, the Act), the forensic focus being turned on two different facets of Section 18 of the Act. The first set of appeals relates to the right of the tenants to purchase the ownership of the common landlord, Teja, while the second set of appeals turns on principles of compensation awardable to the landlord pursuant to the vesting of ownership in the tenant.2. Teja, the landlord, was admittedly a large land-owner under whom there were three tenants. Each of them applied for purchase of ownership under Section 18(1) of the Act. The Assistant Collector, who is the primary authority, found them eligible, fixed the price and the installments of payment, and they duly deposited the first installment. The statutory consequence of such deposit was that title to the property vested in the tena...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1975]101ITR457(SC)
Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. These appeals are by the Income-tax Officer, ' A ' Ward, Indore, against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and involve a question of law regarding the interpretation Section 220, Sub-sections (2) and (3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In order to understand the scope and ambit of the question involved, it may be necessary to mention a few facts leading to these appeals.2. The respondent firm carries on the business of manufacturing cloth. In 1947 the then Maharaja of Gwalior granted to the firm exemption from tax for a period of twelve years from the date when the firm started its factories. Under the Part B States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1950, the Commissioner of Income-tax of the region concerned approved of the exemption only to the weaving division of the respondent for ten years, but deferred decision regarding the staple fibre division until the factory started functioning in 1954. The Commissioner was approached again for granting exemptio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC43; (1975)2SCC721
S. Murtaza Fazl Ali, J.1. These appeals are by Income-tax Officer, 'A' Ward, Indore, against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and involve a question of law regarding the interpretation of Section 220 Sub-sections (2) and (3) of the Income-tax Act. 1961. In order to understand the scope and ambit of the question involved, it may be necessary to mention a few facts leading to these appeals.2. The respondent firm carries on the business of manufacturing cloth. In 1947 the then Maharaja of Gwalior granted to the firm exemption from tax for a period of twelve years from the date when the firm started its factories. Under the Part B States (Taxation Concession) Order, 1950 the Commissioner of Income-tax of the region concerned approved of the exemption only to the weaving division of the respondent for ten years, but deferred decision regarding the staple fibre division until the factory started functioning in 1954. The Commissioner was approached again for granting exemption bu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC1; (1976)1SCC214; [1976]1SCR863
S. Murtaza Fazl Ali, J.1. This is the plaintiffs' appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Madras dated November 22. 1963 by certificate. The appeal arises out of a partition suit filed by plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 4 for cancellation of partition made between the father of the plaintiffs who is defendant No. 5, and defendant No. 1 the elder brother of defendant No. 5. It appears that as far back as May 10, 1940 the two brothers, namely S. M. Kuppuswami Chettiar defendant No. 1 and S. M. Ranganatham Chettiar defendant No. 5. who were originally members of Undivided Hindu Family partitioned their shares by virtue of a registered partition deed dated May 10, 1940. At the time when the partition was made plaintiffs Nos. 2 to 4 were minors and defendant No. 3 was also a minor. Under the partition deed both immovable and moveable properties were divided between the two brothers voluntarily through the aid and assistance of D.W. 3 K. Narayan swami who was the family auditor of defendant No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC2130; (1975)2SCC785; [1976]1SCR878; 1975(7)LC936(SC)
N.L. Untwalia, J.1. This appeal by special leave has been filed by the tenant defendants. The plaintiff-respondents, the landlords, filed a suit against the appellants in the Court of second Civil Judge, Class II, Gwalior for a decree for eviction from the suit premises and for certain other reliefs. The appellants eviction was sought on statement of facts mentioned in paragraph 3 of the plaint which squarely fell within Clause (f) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Madhya Pradesh accommodation Control Act; 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), The appellants filed a written statement and in paragraph 3, they denied the respondents' assertion in plaint, paragraph 3. It appears that the suit which was filed in the year 1966 proceeded to trial in October, 1967 and some evidence was addused. But eventually, the parties entered into a compromise, filed a petition to that effect in the Trial Court which passed a decree for eviction and other reliefs in January, 1968 in accordanc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1561; 1980LabIC986; (1975)IILLJ466SC; (1976)2SCC901; [1976]1SCR815
A.N. Ray, C.J.1. These appeals are by special leave against the judgment dated 15 December, 1972 of the High Court of Mysore.2. The appellants in the writ petition asked for quashing the Gradation List of Officers published by the State on 13 January, 1972. The consequential prayer 5s for assigning correct ranks to the appellants.3. The principal question is the relative seniority between direct recruits and promotees to the cadre of Assistant Commissioners of Mysore Administrative Service Class I (Junior Scale).4. By a notification dated 13 January 1972 the Government published the Gradation List which was prepared as on 1 January, 1972. In the Gradation List respondents Nos. 2 to 24 were placed at serial Nos. 214 to 236. The appellants are placed in the Gradation List at serial Nos. 273 to 280. The appellants challenge the seniority of the respondents in the Gradation List.5. On 2 December, 1957 the Mysore Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules 1957 hereinafter referred to as the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC348; [1975]101ITR796(SC); (1976)1SCC324; [1976]1SCR830
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. These four appeals raise but one question, turning on the meaning of 'charitable purpose', as defined in Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act No. XLIII of 1961) (for short, the Act). They may be disposed of by one common judgment, although the two High Courts (Calcutta and Kerala) from where the appeals have come have taken contrary views on the single point in issue.2. What are the bounds set for earning exemption by a combined application of Section 11(1) read with Section 2(15) of the Act? What is the parameter of the legal concept of charitable purpose? Are the triune activities, which have yielded income and have been assessed to tax, eligible for exemption as falling within the scope of Section 2(15) as it now stands? These points of law, in the conspectus of facts presented in the case, have been argued in the light of conflicting decisions of the High Courts and illumined in part by a very recent renouncement of this Court in Loka Shikshana Tru...
Tag this Judgment!