Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1681; (1980)1SCC599; [1980]45STC194(SC); 1980(12)LC250(SC); 1979()WLN783
ORDERP.N. Bhagwati, J.1. This application for Review is directed against certain observations made by this Court in the course of the judgment in Civil Appeal No. 1122 of 1976. The question which arose in that appeal was whether, in sales of cement effected by the appellant under the Cement Control Order 1967, the amount of freight formed part of the sale price 'so as to be exigible to sales tax under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. 1954. This Court held that having regard to the terms of the Cement Control Order 1967, the amount of freight formed part of the 'sale price' and was liable to be included in the turn-over for the purpose of taxability under both the Central and the State Acts. However, it was stated before us by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in the course of the arguments that the appellant had entered into a large number of transactions of sale of cement with the Central Government through the Director General of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1960; (1979)12CTR(SC)190; [1979]119ITR996(SC); (1979)4SCC248; [1980]1SCR442; 1980(12)LC305(SC)
R.S. Pathak, J.1. Can the view expressed by ah internal audit party of the Income Tax Department on a point of law be regarded as 'information' for the purpose of initiating proceedings under Section 147(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Opinion on the question has been divided among the High Courts, and accordingly the present cases have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 257 of the Act. 2. The assessee, Messrs. Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society, is a society registered under the Indian Companies Act. It is a professional association of newspapers established with the principal object of promoting the welfare and interest of all newspapers. The assessee owns a building in which a conference hall and rooms are let out on rent to its members as well as to outsiders. Certain other services are also provided to the members. The income from that source was assessed to tax all along as income from business. It was so assessed for the years 1960-61, 1961-62, 196...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC104; 1980LabIC1; (1979)4SCC368; [1980]1SCR456; 1980(12)LC108(SC)
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1.This petition under Article 32 has been filed against the order of the Governor of Bihar accepting recommendations of the High Court and superseding the petitioner Rameshwar Prasad by promoting other subordinate Judges as Additional District Judge, Mr. Sarjoo Prasad appearing in support of the petitioner mainly raised two points before us. In the first place it was contended that the judicial career of the petitioner was without any blemish and there was nothing against him to justify his supersession when the High Court recommended the case of promotion of the Sub-Judges for appointment as Additional District Judge and hence the order impugned is violative of Article 16 of the Constitution. There is, however, abundant material on the record to show that the case of the petitioner was fully considered by the High Court and he was not considered fit for promotion by the High Court, hence his case was not recommended for promotion as Additional District Judge. I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
A.P. Sen, J.1. In these appeals, one of which is by special leave and the other two on certificate, brought from a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated June 12, 1978, the short question is whether that Court was justified in setting aside the alleged sale of 37 items of jewellery belonging to H. E. H. The Nizam's Jewellery Trust, effected by the Board of Trustees in exercise of their discretionary power of sale under Clause 13 of the Trust deed in favour of the appellants and other successful tenderers for Rs. 14.43 crores, and accepting instead the offer of the eighth respondent, Peter Jansin Fernandez for Rs. 20.25 crores made during the pendency of the appeal before it.2. The facts of the case, so far as they are material, are not now in dispute, and are as follows:3. The late H. E. H. Nawab Mir Sir Osman Ali Khan Bahadur, the Nizam of Hyderabad, by an indenture dated March 29, 1951, created a trust called H. E. H. The Nizam's Jewellery Trust, in respect of 107 items of e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC115; 1979LabIC1362; (1979)IILLJ371SC; (1979)4SCC440; [1980]1SCR420
Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J.1. This is a group of nine Writ Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution raising the questions as to whether the petitioners are employees of the 'Central' Government; if so, whether their conditions of service are governed by rules which apply to temporary employees of the Central Government; and lastly, whether the orders of retrenchment proposed or passed against them are violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.2. There are in all 542 petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 359&, 4369, 4423, 4376 and 4391 of 1978. This group consists of Engineers, Overseers, Teachers, Sub-divisional Clerks, Clerks, Act-counts Clerks, Time-keepers, Research Assistants, Store-keepers, Meter Readers, Daughtsmen, Tracers and Steno-typists. In these five Writ Petitions orders of retrenchment were proposed to be passed against the petitioners but those orders have been stayed by this Court during the pendency of the Writ Petitions. In Writ Petition No. 565 of 1979, there...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC478; (1980)82BOMLR470; (1980)1SCC596; 1979(11)LC727(SC)
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. The first defendant in the Suit is the appellant before us. The suit was filed by the plaintiff, the daughter of one Shiv Prasad Rajaram for a declaration that she is the lawful tenant of the two defendants and for an injunction restraining the defendants from executing decree in R A.E. Suit No. 1945 of 1957. In the plaint, the plaintiff claimed that her father Shiv Prasad Rajaram was a tenant and after his death, she became the statutory tenant. She further pleaded that though the first defendant had obtained a decree against her mother in R A.E. Suit No. 1945 of 1957, he could not execute the decree against her as the first defendant had sold the property during the pendency of the earlier suit to the second defendant and thus the second defendant has become the landlord. In the suit, the second defendant did not file any written statement. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. But in Revision, the High Court decreed the suit mainly ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1905; (1979)4SCC209; [1980]1SCR396; 1980(12)LC266(SC)
E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. This appeal by special leave is filed against the order dated March 12, 1969 passed in Civil Revision Petition No. 1791 of 1967 on the file of the High Court of Madras.2. On the date of the commencement of the Tamil Nadu Land Re-forms (Fixation of Ceiling of Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') i.e. April 6, 1960, the appellant owned approximately 47 acres of Agricultural lands. He was required to file a statement under Section, 8 of the Act within, 90 days from the date specified in the Notification issued by the Government in that behalf in respect of all lands held or deemed to have been held by him furnishing the particulars mentioned in that provision to the Authorised Officer within whose jurisdiction his holding or major part thereof was situated. Accordingly, he filed his return. In the course of the enquiry, the Authorised Officer found that under a will made by Sivagami Achi, the mother of the appellant, who died on April 20, 1962, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC198; 1980(1)KarLJ1; (1980)1SCC19; [1980]1SCR404
P.S. Kailasam, J.1. This appeal is by special leave granted by this Court against the judgment and order of the High Court of Mysore in C.R.P. No. 931 of 1967 allowing a revision against the order passed by the Civil Judge, Mangalore, in R.I.A. No. 2266 of 1966 in O.S. No. 91 of 1950.2. The facts of the case may be briefly stated. The parties to this litigation are governed by the Aliyasanthana law prevalent in the district of South Kanara. They were members of a kutumba descended from a common ancestress by name Manjekke. One Parameshwari and her son and daughter instituted Original Suit No. 91 of 1950 before the Court of the subordinate Judge at South Kanara for partition of properties in accordance with the provisions of the Madras Aliyasanthana Act, 1949, (Madras Act IX of 1949). The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court upholding the defence raised that a certain award decree made in Original Suit No. 314 of 1924 on the file of the District Munsiff, Mangalore, amounted to a partit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC1; (1979)4SCC642; [1980]1SCR368
Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J.1. These seven appeals by certificate are directed against the judgment dated August 25, 1967 given by the High Court of Mysore in Writ Petitions Nos. 1649, 1650 and 1651 of 1964, Writ Petitions Nos. 1575, 1576 and 1579 of 1965 and Writ Petitions No. 1439 of 1966. These Writ Petitions were filed by the appellants under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that the demand notices issued by the Commissioner for Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments of Mysore be quashed and for a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents from taking any action in pursuance thereof.2. Until November 1, 1956, when the States Re-organisation Act, 37 of 1956, came into force the District of South Kanara was a part of the former State of Madras. As a result of the States Reorganisation Act that District became a part of the State of Mysore, now the State? of Karnataka. 3. The Madras Legislature passed an Act. called the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 19 of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1937; (1979)4SCC429; [1980]1SCR354; 1980(12)LC312(SC)
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. This is a plaintiffs appeal directed against a judgment, and decree, dated March 26, 1964, of the High Court of Madras, passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 18 of 1961, The relationship of the main contesting defendants will be apparent from the following genealogical table : Thanuvan | ________________________________________ | | Madhavan Sivathanu | | | | Madhavan Thanuvan Padmanabhan Pillai | =Ammalu Animal (D-4) Valliamma 1 | Chempaka Pillai _________________________ (Pltf.) | | | Sivathanu Easwara Velayudha Pillai Pillai Pillai (Dfdt. 1) (Dfdt. 2) (Dfdt. 3) _________________________________________________________________2. Valiramma, appellant herein is the original plaintiff. She is the grand-daughter of Madavan. Respondents 1 to 3 are the original defendants 1 to 3. They are the grand-sons of Sivathanu. The properties in dispute are items 31 to 42 and 44 detailed in the plaint.3. Between the years 1881-1882, the two brothers Madhavan and Sivathanu mortgaged t...
Tag this Judgment!