Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1198; (1977)3SCC1; [1977]3SCR485
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. The defendant-tenant is the appellant and the appeal is by special leave. The landlord sued for ejectment on the ground of arrears of rent as provided in Section 3 of the United Provinces (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947. Section 3(1)(a) states, among one of the grounds of eviction,that the tenant is in arrears of rent for more than three months and has failed to pay the same to the landlord within one month of the service upon him of a notice of demand.In the present case, the complaint of the plaintiff was that the rent was not paid but was deposited into court regularly. The trial Court as well as the High Court took the view that such prompt deposits of rent into court did not satisfy the provisions of Section 3(1)(a) since it is not equivalent to payment of rent to the landlord. Counsel for the appellant contends that Section 7-C(6) of the Act strikes a different note. It reads:In any case where a deposit has been made, as aforesaid, it sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1548; 1977(1)ELT24(SC); (1977)2SCC870; [1977]3SCR472
A.C. Gupta, J.1. The respondent is a partnership firm manufacturing non-woven felts from woollen fibres which are utilised for the purpose of filtration in heavy industries. Between August 25, 1965 and January 5, 1967 the Excise Authorities compelled the respondent to pay Rupees 55,055/87 p. as excise duty on its products. The respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad for quashing the order levying excise duty on the felts manufactured by the respondent treating them as 'woollen fabrics' covered by Entry 21 in Sch. 1 to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The High Court allowed the writ petition holding that the respondent's products were not 'woollen fabrics' and directed refund of the sum of Rs. 55,055/87 p. collected as excise duty from the firm. The Union of India has preferred this appeal on certificate of fitness granted by the High Court questioning the correctness of the decision.2. The only question in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1285; [1977]47CompCas581(SC); (1977)3SCC227; [1977]3SCR455
M.H. Beg, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Section 55 of the Monopolies & Restrictive Trade Practices Act. 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), against the order and judgment of the Monopolies & Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commission'), in proceedings started under Section 10(a)(iv) of the Act against the appellant M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company'), upon information furnished by Bhogilal Manilal Shah of M/s. Shah Manilal Motichand & Sons of Poona (hereinafter referred to as the 'informant').2. The informant was a redistribution stockist of the appellant company carrying on business regulated by the terms of an agreement, known as the redistribution stockists' agreement of the company, found in a standard printed form entered into with each stockist. The agreement has 23 terms or clauses in it. The clauses complained of are 6 and 9, which may be reproduced here:5. The Redistribution Stockist ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1977)2SCC847; [1977]40STC246(SC)
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. Whether, on the facts of this case, the contract dated June 15, 1968, between the Union of India and the Central India Machinery . (Wagon & Structural Division), Bharatpur (hereinafter called the company), for the manufacture and supply of wagons, was a contract of sale or a works contract, is the principal question that falls to be determined in this appeal by certificate, filed by the Union of India against a judgment dated January 31, 1969, of the High Court of Rajasthan. It arises out of these facts:The company, respondent No. 1 herein, entered into a contract No. 67/RS(I)/954/l5/396 dated June 15, 1968, with the Union of India through the Railway Board for the manufacture and supply of 258 BG Bogie covered BCX type wagons and 812 MG covered wagons of MBC type to the railways. The sales tax authorities of the State (respondent No. 3 herein) under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, levied the sales tax treating the contract as one of sale and delivery of wagons. Under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1977)6CTR(SC)220; 1977()WLN313
Sarkaria, J. - Whether, on the facts of this case, the contract dated June 15, 1968 between the Union of India and the Central India Machinery . (Wagon & Structural Division) Bharatpur (hereinafter called the Company) for the manufacture and supply of wagons, was a contract of sale or a work contract, is the principal question that falls to be determined in this appeal by certificate, filed by the Union of India against a judgment dated January 31, 1969 of the High Court of Rajasthan. It arises out of these facts :2. The Company, Respondent No. 1 herein, entered into a contract (No. 67/RS (1)/954/15/396, dated June 15, 1968 with the Union of India through the Railway Board for the manufacture and supply of 258 BG Bogie covered BCX type wagons and 812 MG covered wagons of MBC type to the Railways. The sales-tax authorities of the State (Respondent 3 herein) under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, levied the sales tax treating the contract as one of sale and delivery of wagons. Under a simila...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1680; (1977)2SCC806; [1977]3SCR428
P.N. Shinghal, J.1. Respondent Nawab Hussain was a confirmed Sub-Inspector of Police in Uttar Pradesh. An anonymous complaint was made against him and was investigated by Inspector Suraj Singh who submitted his report to the Superintendent of Police on February 25, 1954. Two cases were registered against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Penal Code. They were also investigated by Inspector Suraj Singh, and the respondent was dismissed from service by an order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police dated December 20, 1954. He filed an appeal, but it was dismissed on April 17, 1956. He then filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court for quashing the disciplinary proceedings on the ground that he was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to meet the allegations against him and the action taken against him was mala fide. It was dismissed on October 30, 1959. The respondent then filed a suit in the court of Civil Judge, Etah, on January 7, 1960, in which he challe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1616; 1977CriLJ1120; (1977)2SCC583; 1977(9)LC364(SC)
Y.V. Chandrachud, J.1. Clause 28 of the Iron and Steel (Control) Order, 1956, provides by Sub-clause (a) that the Controller may, with a view to securing compliance with the Order, 'require any person to give such information in his possession in respect of stocks of iron or steel or of scrap acquired by him.' 2. It is undisputed that the appellant was acquitted in a separate proceedings of the charge that he had acquired any stocks of iron, steel or scrap. In that view of the matter, it is impossible to hold that the appellant can still be convicted under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, for violation of Clause 28(a) of the Iron and Steel (Control) Order of 1956. The High Court, in our opinion, is wrong in view which it has taken that a person can be held guilty of the violation of Clause 28(a) even if he has not acquired the stocks of iron, steel or of scrap. 3. We, therefore, allow this appeal set aside the judgment of the High Court and acquit the appellant. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1621; 1977CriLJ1101; (1977)3SCC512; 1977(9)LC365(SC)
Y.V. Chandrachud, J. 1. We have compared the disputed labels and are quite surprised to find that the High Court thought that there is a 'vital difference' between the two sets of labels. Far from there being any such difference, we find that in all material respects the labels are similar in lay-out and design. In any event, this was hardly a matter in which the High Court, in the exercise of its revisional powers, should have interfered with the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the Courts below that there was an imminent and real possibility of deception of an unwary purchaser on account of the similarity of the labels. 2. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and restore that of the Sessions Judge. Madurai, dated April 26, 1972. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1657; [1977]107ITR922(SC); (1977)2SCC798; [1977]3SCR418
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This appeal raises a rather difficult but interesting question of law relating to valuation for the purpose of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 of leasehold interest in land, when there is a covenant in the lease that the lessee shall not be entitled to assign the leasehold interest without obtaining the prior approval in writing of the lessor and the lessor shall be entitled to claim and recover from the lessee a certain specified proportion of the unearned increase in the value of the land at the time of the assignment. 2. The controversy in this appeal relates to the assessment year 1968-69, the relevant valuation date being 31st December, 1967. The assessee is assessed to wealth tax as an individual. His net wealth on the valuation date included a property situate on plot learned Counsel 12, Block learned Counsel 39, Kautilya Marg, Chanakyapuri. The property consisted of leasehold interest in the land together with a house built upon it. The land belonged to the Preside...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1599; 118(2005)DLT176(SC); (1977)2SCC814; [1977]3SCR412; 1977(9)LC283(SC)
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. So heartening to the Judges' become is the happy ending of a bitterly fought litigation where the law is declared by the Court and justice is accomplished by the parties setting the differences, assisted by constructive counselling by advocates. Such is the pleasing culmination of this case which relates to an ejectment proceeding under Section 14A of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (Act 59 of 1958). The controller directed eviction, refusing leave to the tenant to contest the application for eviction. The High Court, in the revision filed by the tenant, went into an elaborate discussion on many matters but somehow missed a plea fatal to the landlord's claim and affirmed the relief of eviction although on different grounds. The aggrieved tenant sought special leave to appeal which was granted and thanks to the landlord appearing by caveat even at the preliminary hearing, leave was granted and the appeal itself was heard the very next day. Thus at the Supreme Co...
Tag this Judgment!