Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC1474; (1976)3SCC433; [1976]3SCR1010; 1976(8)LC535(SC)
A.N. Ray, C.J.1. This appeal by special leave turns on the question whether the State can be asked by a writ of mandamus to make a reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. The appellant was employed by the respondent company Hindustan Dowidat Tools Ltd. The services of the appellant were terminated on September 4, 1972. The appellant thereafter demanded reinstatement. The Conciliation Officer stated conciliation proceedings under Section 12 of the Act. No settlement could be arrived at. The Conciliation Officer sent a report to the State Government under Section 12(4) of the Act. Then State Government by letter dated 7 June, 1973 informed the appellant that tie Government had considered the appellant's case not fit for reference to the Labour Court for adjudication. The Government in the letter stated as follows:The Government have not found your case fit for adjudication to a Labour Court because you were working as an Electr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC1703; (1976)4SCC420; [1976]3SCR1022; 1976(8)LC486(SC)
ORDERDefendants do pay Rs. 77, 286-0-2 and the cost of the suit to plaintiff with future interest at 6 per cent from 1st January, 1955. The plaintiff should pay the remaining Court fees within a month. Defendants to bear their own cost.7. Two cross-appeals were filed against the judgment and decree of the trial court. One appeal was by the defendant company praying for the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit. The other appeal was by the plaintiff firm claiming for enhancement of the amount decreed by the trial court. One of the contentions advanced by the defendant-company was as under:The plaintiff firm was not entitled to file a suit as the plaintiff-firm was differently constituted from the firm of Mohatta Brothers as on 31st July 1950, and, in any event, as the minor Shashi kumar had become major in 1953 and had become a partner of the plaintiff-firm Mohatta Brothers, Ahmedabad, and as even the name of Satyavati Devi who was the partner suing did not appear in the entry in the regist...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1976CriLJ1373; 1976LabIC1750; (1976)3SCC1; [1976]3SCR1005
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. The common question referred to the Constitution Bench in these two cases is: Whether the Supreme Court while granting Special Leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution, against an order of acquittal on a capital charge, has the power to issue a non bailable warrant for the arrest and committal to prison of the accused respondent who had been acquitted by the High Court? 2. Mr. R.K. Garg Counsel for the accused-respondents herein, contends that while the Legislature has, in its wisdom, empowered the High Court to cause an accused person to be arrested and committed to prison pending the disposal of the appeal against acquittal, no such power has been conferred on the Supreme Court by the Code or any other statute. According to Counsel, in the absence of a specific statutory provision, the inherent power of the Court to do complete justice under the Code or even under Article 142 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to order deprivation of the liberty of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1976)5CTR(SC)356
Ray, C.J. - This appeal by special leave is on the question whether the appellant is exempt from inter-State tax on the sales of poles and cables to the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking by reason of the provisions contained in Section 5(2)(a) (iv) of the Punjab Sales Tax Act hereinafter referred to as the State Act.2. Section 5(2)(a)(iv) of the State Act is as follows :'5. (2) In this Act the expression 'taxable turnover' means that part of a dealers gross turnover during any period which remains after deducting therefrom -(a) his turnover during that period on - (iv) sales to any undertaking supplying electrical energy to the public under a licence or sanction granted or deemed to have been granted under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (IX of 1910), of goods for use by it in the generation or distribution of such energy.'3. Under Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, hereinafter referred to as the Central Act, every dealer, who in the course of inter-State trade or commerce sells ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC1711; (1976)4SCC27; [1976]3SCR992; [1976]38STC108(SC); 1976(8)LC455(SC)
M.H. Beg, J.1. This appeal by special leave is on the question whether the appellant is exempt from inter-State tax on the sales of poles and cables to Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking by reason of the provisions contained in Section 5(2)(a)(iv) of the Punjab Salts Tax Act hereinafter referred to as the State Act.2. Section 5(2)(a)(iv) of the State Act is as follows:5(2) In this Act the expression 'taxable turnover' means that part of a dealer's gross turnover during any period which remains after deducting therefrom.(a) his turnover during that period on -(iv) sales to any undertaking supplying electrical energy to the public under a licence or sanction granted or deemed to have been granted under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, of goods for use by it in the generation or distribution of such energy.3. Under Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act hereinafter referred to as the Central Act, every dealer, who in the course of inter-State trade or commerce sells to the Government any ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC1745; (1976)4SCC32; [1976]3SCR998; 1976(8)LC450(SC)
A.C. Gupta, J.1. These seven appeal by certificate have been preferred by the Union of India against a common judgment of the Allahabad High Court disposing of seven appeals under a Section 39(i)(vi) of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The appeals turn on the true meaning and scope of Section 38 and 30 the Act, Section 8 is in these terms:8(1) In any of the following cases-Power of Court (a) where an arbitration agreement provides to appoint arbi- that the reference shall be to one or more trator or urn- arbitrators to be appointed by consent of umpire. the parties, and all the parties do not, after differences have arisen, concur in the appointment or appointments; or (b) if any appointed arbitrator or umpire neglects or refuses to act, or is incapable of acting, or dies, and the arbitration agreement does not show that it was in- tended that the vacancy should not be supplied, and the parties or the arbitrators, as the case may be, do not supply the vacancy; or (c) where the parties or the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC1830; (1976)4SCC20; [1976]3SCR983; 1976(8)LC541(SC)
P.K. Goswami, J.1.This is an appeal on certificate from the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.2. The two plaintiffs in the original suit are the appellants. They brought a suit in the court of the Subordinate Judge. Rajahmundry for evicting defendants 1 to 3 from the properties in Schedule A, B and C and for delivery of possession of A and C Schedule properties either to the first plaintiff or to the second plaintiff. The suit properties were owned and possessed by Meenavalli Subbarayudu of Vedurupaka (hereinafter to be described as Subbarayudu). Subbarayudu was the husband of the second plaintiff and father of the first plaintiff. He had no male issue. He had only two daughters plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 4 who was the elder of the two Subbarayudu made various dispositions of his property by executing several documents during his life time in favour of his daughters. So did his wife the second plaintiff. While nuking such dispositions he was careful enough to make provis...
Tag this Judgment!