Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC1785; (1976)2SCC981; [1976]SuppSCR489
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This appeal by special leave raises a short question as to what is the correct amount of import duty chargeable on pot motors when imported separately from Rayon Spinning frames : do they fall within Item 72(3) or Item 73(21) of the First Schedule to the Indian Customs Tariff? The facts giving rise to the appeal are few and may be briefly stated as follows:2. Some time in 1956 a licence for setting up a plant for manufacture of Rayon was granted to one Kesoram Industries & Cotton Mills Ltd. under the Industries Development and Regulation Act, 1951. Since the machinery and equipment required for setting up the plant were not available in India, Kesoram Industries and Cotton Mills Ltd. applied for an import licence and on the basis of this application, import licence was granted to them for importing 'complete continuous filament Rayon plant--with spares and accessories' of the CIF value of Rs. 5.50 crores from general currency area excluding South Africa. It appears ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC1986; (1976)3SCC428; [1976]Supp1SCR486; 1976(8)LC569(SC)
A.N. Ray, C.J.1. This appeal is by certificate from the judgment dated 28 March 1969 of the High Court of Madras. The question in this appeal is whether the appellant in a writ petition can challenge the telephone rates and charges and obtain any relief in that behalf.2. The appellant is a retired District Manager (Telephones), Madras. He filed a writ petition in the High Court for a writ of prohibition, directing the General Manager (Telephones), Madras to forbear from enforcing the revised Telephone Tariff as per the Indian Telegraph Amendment Rules, 1966. Under the rules, the rental and call charges were increased by 50 per cent and Trunk call charges by about 30 to 35 per cent. The petitioner alleged that the telephone system is a public utility service and not a Revenue earning establishment and the charges can be only in the nature of a fee which must be commensurate with the cost of rendering the service. The petitioner further alleged that the loss incurred by the Government in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC2045; (1977)1SCC336; 1976(8)LC606(SC)
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. This judgment will govern the disposal of these right appeals filed on the strength of Certificates of fitness granted by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.2. The appellants have been carrying on business as liquor contractOrs. At the annual excise actions held for the year 1968 69, they were the highest bidders for the country liquor vends at various places in the State of Punjab, and the auctions were knocked down in their favour.3. Since the questions involved and basic facts with immaterial variations are common, it will be sufficient to refer to the facts of the case giving rise to Civil Appeal 1641 of 1971, in which only arguments have been specifically addressed to us by Shri T.S. Munjral, Counsel for the appellant. The appellant firm in this case gave the highest bids of Rs. 2,64,000/ and Rs. 1,03,000/-, respectively, and got licences in Form L-14 for retail country liquor vends at Jandiala and Bundala in Jullundur District. The material conditions of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC1797; 1976CriLJ1379; (1976)3SCC101; 1976(8)LC644(SC)
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. This appeal of Bhagwan Singh Rana is directed against the appellate judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated February 5, 1971, upholding the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, dated November 4, 1970, convicting him of an offence under Section 52 of the post Office Act but reducing the sentence in rigorous imprisonment for one year.2. The appellant was working as Sub-Post Master in Sohna Adda Post Office, in the leave vacancy of Raghu Ram (P.W. 6) on March 21, 1967. Navtej Singh (PW. 5) who was a student of the Junior Technical School Gurgaon, delivered a parcel containing a lady's wrist watch (Wx. 1) addressed to R.L Bhardwaj (P.W. 3), to the appellant on March 21, 1967, at the Sub-Post office. It was an unregistered parcel. The watch did not reach the addressee. R.L. Bhardwaj (P.W 3) went to Gurgaon in May, 1967, and contacted Navtej Singh (P.W 5) for obtaining the watch from him. Navtej Singh informed him that he had already sent the wat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1976]104ITR436(SC); (1976)4SCC489; [1976]SuppSCR478; 1976(8)LC668(SC)
Jaswant Singh, J.1. These appeals Nos. 1399 to 1403 of 1970 and 301 of 1974 by certificates granted by the High Court of Madras shall be disposed of together by this judgment as they raise common question of law and fact.2. The circumstances giving rise to these, appeals are The late R. Sridharan along with his father and brothers constituted a Hindu undivided family governed by Mitakshara law. On June 28, 1952, while he was still unmarried, a partition took place between him, his brothers and his father. As a result of this partition, a block of shares in T.V. Sundaram Iyengar and Sons Private Limited and three other limited companies fell to his share. On June 14, 1956, Sridharan married Rosa Maria Steinbchler, a Christian woman of Austrian descent, under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. On November 29, 1957, a son named Nicolas Sundaram was born out of this wedlock. For the assessment years 1957-58, and 1958-59, Sridharan was assessed to income tax and wealth tax in the status of an ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC1737; 1976LabIC1139; (1976)3SCC699; 1976(8)LC665(SC)
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated September 18, 1970, dismissing the appellant's writ petition. As a part of the controversy in the writ petition was the subject matter of an earlier appeal to this Court which was decided by the judgment in State of Punjab v. Khemi Ram (1), it will be enough to state those facts which bear on the subsequent controversy.2. Appellant Khemi Ram was employed as an officiating Assistant Registrar in the Co operative Department of the Punjab State. His services were placed at the disposal of Himachal Pradesh Administration, on deputation, for a period of two years. He was confirmed as an Assistant Registrar in Punjab, and his period of deputation to the Himachal Pradesh Administration was extended from time to time upto August 4, 1958, which was the date of his retirement on superannuation. It was during the period of deputation that the Himachal Pradesh Administration granted 19 da...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC1207; 1976CriLJ945; (1976)2SCC521; [1976]SuppSCR172; 1976(8)LC610(SC)
ORDERNew Delhi the 3rd November, 1962G.S.R 1464--In exercise pf the power conferred by Clause(1) of Article 359 of the Constitution the President hereby declares that the right of any person to move any court for the enforcement of the right by Article 21 and article 22 of the Constitution shall remain suspended for the period during which the Proclamation of emergency issued under Clause (1) of Article 352 thereof on the 26th October in 1962 is in force, if such person has been deprived of any such rights under the Defence of, India Ordinance, 1962 (4 of 1962) or any rule or order made thereunder.On November 6, 1962, the rules framed under the Ordinance by the Central Government were published. On November 11, 1962 the Presidential order reproduced above was amended and for the words and figure 'Article 21', the words and figures 'Articles 14 and 21' were substituted. The Defence of India Ordinance was subsequently replaced by the Defence of India Act and the rules framed under the Or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC1856; (1976)3SCC743; [1976]SuppSCR166; 1976(1)SLJ547(SC); 1976(8)LC593(SC)
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. These appeals by certificate are directed against the judgment of the Delhi High Court dated September 25, 1969, allowing Civil Writ Petition No. 405 of 1968 and connected petitions 'Nos. 478 to 487 of 1968. The High Court has quashed the orders of the Central Government notified in GSR 42 to 49, published in Gazette of India, Extraordinary, dated January 13, 1968, as well as the scheme for the formation of a joint cadre of the Indian Administrative Service, hereinafter referred to as the Service, for the Union Territories, and has held that the formation of the Delhi-Himachal cadre of the Service was also ultra vires the Constitution. As we shall show, the decision has turned on a short point of law, and it will be enough to refer to those facts which bear on it.2. A new cadre of the Service was constituted for the Union Territories of Delhi and Himachal Pradesh, and recruitment to that cadre was made directly without complying with the requirement of Rule 4(1) of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC1739; (1976)3SCC435; 1976(8)LC562(SC)
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. As this appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961, must succeed on three short points, it will be enough to state those facts which bear on them.Appellant Ram Bharosey Agarwal was practising as an advocate in Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh He was engaged by respondent Har Swarup Maheshwari, on behalf of his daughter Smt.Munni Devi, to pursue her application against her husband Jai Narain under Section 468 Gr. P.O. in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bulandshahr. The case was decided in favour of Smt. Munni Devi on September 5, 1963, and a maintenance allowance was granted to her. When the order was put into execution, Har Swarup Maheshwari engaged another lawyer to prosecute the execution application. In those proceedings the property of Jai Narain was attached. His father claimed that the attached property belonged to him, and his application to that effect was alleged to have been filed by the appellant. The first charge against the appellant was that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC112; [1977(34)FLR37]; 1976LabIC1789; (1977)3SCC576
Y.V. Chandrachud, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment D/- 9-2-1970 of the High Court of Orissa, setting aside the order dated August 21, 1968 passed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the order dated August 26, 1968 passed by the President of the Nayagarh Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. The Bank is the first appellant while its President is the second appellant in this appeal. Respondent No. 1, Narayan Rath, has filed the writ petition in the High Court asking that the aforesaid orders removing him from service should be set aside. Respondent No. 2 is the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bhubaneshwar, Orissa.2. Respondent No. 1 was functioning as a Secretary of the Nayagarh Co-operative Central Bank from May 25, 1955 till May, 13, 1968. On August 21, 1968, the Registrar passed an order disapproving the appointment of respondent No. 1 as secretary of the Bank on the ground that he was functioning as a secretary without his approval and that he was...
Tag this Judgment!