Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC209; [1978]115ITR524(SC); (1979)3SCC14; [1979]2SCR16; 1978(10)LC818(SC)
V.D. Tulzapurkar, J.1. The short question raised in these appeals by special leave is whether the cost of materials supplied by the Government (M.E.S. Department) for being used in the execution of works is liable to be taken into consideration while estimating the profits of a contractor and the question has assumed general importance as it affects the entire class of contractors who undertake works on behalf of the Government and in view of a conflict of decisions on the point among different High Courts.2. The facts in all the three appeals are substantially the same though the assessees are different. In Civil Appeal No. 1701 of 1974 the material facts are these : The assessee (M/s. Brij Bhushan Lal Praduman Kumar of Ambala Cantonment), a registered firm, is a Military Engineering Services (M.E.S.) contractor and as such carries on the business of executing contracts and works on behalf of the Government. For the execution of the works undertaken by the assessee certain material su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC272; (1979)1SCC273; [1979]2SCR1
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal by special leave against a judgment dated 10th October, 1966 of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court dismissing the plaintiff's suit.2. The facts of the case lie within a very narrow compass and after hearing counsel for the parties we propose to decide only one point, viz., the question as to whether or not the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree of ejectment against the defendants in respect of the house in question on the ground of personal necessity, and, therefore, we shall narrate only those facts which are germane for this purpose.3. The property in suit was a four-storeyed building situated at Maisuma Lal Chowk, Srinagar and belonged to one Peer Ali Mohammad, the ancestor of the plaintiffs. This building was leased out to the defendants by a registered lease deed dated 1st December 1947 for a period of 10 years. Under the lease the lessor had provided some furniture and crockery to the lessees. Furthermore, it was clearly stipu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC220; (1978)4SCC336; [1979]1SCR1089; 1979(1)SLJ105(SC)
Shanghal, J.1. This case for rehearing the appeal has come up before us in these circumstances.2. Appellant K.N. Bahl was B.Sc. (Agriculture) when he was appointed Overseer, Government Archaelogical Gardens in Lahore, in 1935. After the partition of the Country, he was employed as Sub-divisional Officer (Horticulture) P.W.D.B.&R.; (Development) by the Government of East Punjab. He was selected for appointment as Assistant Superintendent of Archaelogical Gardens in Delhi by the Union Public Service Commission and took up that appointment in 1950 with the concurrence of the East Punjab Government. While serving on that post, he went to U.S.A. for further studies in Harvard and Cornell Universities in 1951. While he was still there, the Punjab Government issued an advertisement, in 1952, inviting applications for the post of Landscape Architect, Capital Project, Chandigarh, in the scale of Rs. 625-1275. He applied for the post, and was appointed as Landscape Architect on a temporary basis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC87; 1979CriLJ33; (1979)2SCC305; [1979]1SCR1114; 1979(11)LC172(SC)
Kailasam, J.1. These appeals are by State of Orissa by certificate granted by the Orissa High Court against the judgment in Criminal Miscellaneous Cases Nos. 131 to 138 of 1973.2. The eight respondents before this Court filed a batch of eight criminal miscellaneous petitions under Section 561-A/and 562 of the CrPC for a review of the orders passed by the High Court in Criminal Reference Nos. 13 and 15 to 21 of 1972 on 7-5-73, enhancing their sentence of fine of Rs. 2,000/- to one of rigorous imprisonment for six months.3. The facts of the case are briefly as follows : On 1-2-1967, the Vigilance police filed nine criminal cases against certain firms and their partners or proprietors under Section 20(e) of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952 (Act 74 of 1952). The cases were tried by the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Cuttack. The District Magistrate found the firms and persons, in management of the business, guilty of the offences with which they were charged and inf...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1271; 1979CriLJ862; 1979(4)ELT1(SC); (1979)2SCC279; [1979]1SCR1104; 1979(11)LC77(SC)
Jaswant Singh, J.1. On the basis of recovery of 30 gold ingots bearing foreign markings effected by the Central Excise and Customs Headquarters Staff, Preventive Branch, Bangalore on April 16, 1964 from the suit case which the respondent was alleged to be carrying on alighting from Guntakal-Bangalore Train No. 85 at Yeshwanthpur Railway Station without a permit granted by the Administrator as required by Rule 126-H(2)(d)(ii) of the Defence of India (Amendment) Rules, 1963 relating to gold control (hereinafter referred to as 'the D.I. Rules') and without including the same in the prescribed declaration as required by Sub-rules (1) and (10) of Rule 126-I of the D.I. Rules, the respondent was proceeded against in the Court of the Magistrate, Ist Class, Bangalore under Section 135(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Rules 126-P(2)(ii) and 126-P(1)(i) of the D.I. Rules. On a consideration of the evidence adduced in the case, the Magistrate acquitted the respondent of the charge under Section 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC281; (1979)1SCC308; [1979]1SCR1054; 1978(10)LC838(SC)
Krishna Iyer, J.1. We agree wholly with our learned brother Sen, J., that the appellant is guilty of gross professional misconduct and deserves condign punishment. But conventional penalties have their punitive limitations and flaws, viewed from the reformatory angle. A therapeutic touch, a correctional twist, and a locus penitentiae, may have rehabilitative, impact, if only we may experiment unorthodoxly but within the parameters of the law. Oriented on this approach and adopting the finding of guilt, we proceed to consider the penalty, assuming the need for innovation and departing from wooden traditionalism.2. A middle-aged man, advocate by profession, has grossly misconducted himself and deceived a common client. Going by precedent, the suspension from practice for one year was none too harsh. Sharp practice by members of noble professions deserves even disbarment. The wages of sin is death.3. Even so, justice has a correctional edge, a socially useful function, especially when the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1149a; 1979CriLJ927a; (1979)2SCC196a; [1979]1SCR1070
Jaswant Singh, J.1. During the course of on spot check carried out by him on December 29, 1964 of B.P. sheets lying in appellant No. I's factory at Sonepat, the Development Officer (LME-1) of the Directorate General of Technical Development, New Delhi, discovered from an examination of the said appellant's account books that it had during the period intervening between January 1, 1964 and January 12, 1965, acquired black plain iron sheets of prime quality weighing 60.03 metric tons from various parties at a rate higher than the maximum statutory price fixed for such sheets by the Iron and Steel Controller (hereinafter referred to as 'the Controller') in exercise of the powers vested in him under Clause 15(1) of the Iron and Steel (Control) Order, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Control Order. After the Special Magistrate had framed the charges and secured in the Court of the Special Magistrate, Ambala Cantt. for an offence under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC373; [1978]115ITR519(SC); (1979)1SCC250; [1979]1SCR1047; 1978(10)LC825(SC)
Bhagwati. J.1. These are two references made by the Tribunal to this Court under Section 257 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in view of a conflict in the decisions of High Courts on the question as to whether interest on monies borrowed for investment in shares is allowable expenditure under Section 57(iii) when the shares have not yielded any return in the shape of dividend during the relevant assessment year. The preponderance of judicial opinion is in favour of the view that such interest is admissible, even though no dividend is received on the shares, but there are two High Courts which have taken a different view and hence it is necessary for this Court to set the controversy at rest by finally deciding the question. Since the question is purely one of law turning on the true interpretation of Section 57(iii), it is not necessary to set out the facts giving rise to these two references in any detail. It would be sufficient to state that the assessees in these two references are broth...
Tag this Judgment!