Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC907; (1981)21CTR(SC)339; [1981]128ITR315(SC); 1981(1)SCALE276; (1981)2SCC135; [1981]2SCR808; 1981(13)LC169(SC)
Venkataramiah, J.1. The short question which arises for consideration in this petition for special leave to appeal filed under Article 136 of the Constitution is whether it is open to the Income-tax Officer while computing the liability of an assessee to tax under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to include in the income of the assessee any amount calculated in accordance with Section 23(2) of the Act in respect of a house in the occupation of the assessee for the purposes of his own residence. The petitioner who is an assessee under the Act contended before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution that inclusion of any amount under Section 23(2) of the Act in his income was unconstitutional as there could be no income at all in such a case accruing to him in the true sense of that term, the liability that was sought to be imposed under the Act in respect of his residential house was, therefore, in its pit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC806; 1981CriLJ407; 1981(1)SCALE292; (1981)2SCC150; [1981]2SCR789
KOSHAL, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against a judgment dated the 20th February, 1980, of a learned Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court dismissing an application made by the appellant under sections 482 and 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that the proceedings pending in the Court of the Assistant District Magistrate, Aizawal which have been initiated through a police report against the appellant with a prayer that he be punished for offences under sections 307, 326 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code alleged to have been committed by him on the 30th May, 1978, be quashed or, in the alternative, that the proceedings be transferred to a competent court beyond the territory of Mizoram.2. The relevant facts are not in dispute and may be stated briefly. On the 30th May, 1978, a case was registered at the Vairengte Police Station at the instance of one Thanugura alleging that men of the Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as CRPF), of which the appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC858a; 51(1981)CLT568(SC); [1981(42)FLR252]; (1981)ILLJ453SC; 1981(1)SCALE297; (1981)2SCC159; [1981]2SCR817; 1981(1)SLJ377(SC); 1981(13)LC204(SC)
Varadarajan, J.1. These appeals by special leave have been filed against two judgments of a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court (C.A. No. 389 of 1981) arising out of the judgment in Original Jurisdiction Case No. 832 of 1977 and C. As. Nos. 2119-2121 of 1979 arising out of Original Jurisdiction Cases Nos. 1261 of 1976 and 833 and 834 of 1977 respectively. P.N.L. Das, the respondent in C.A. No. 389 of 1981 was appointed as a Booking Clerk in the South Eastern Railway in 1955 and had been duly confirmed at that post. M.B. Patnaik, the respondent in C.A. No. 2119 of 1979, was working as a confirmed Commercial Clerk at Khurda Road in the South Eastern Railway, having been appointed in January-February 1964. D. Sahu and S.C. Mitra, the respondents in C.As. Nos. 2120 and 2121 of 1979 respectively were working as confirmed Booking Clerks in the South Eastern Railway at about the same time. A departmental enquiry was initiated against these four respondents and three others, namely, Ch. N....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC852; [1981(42)FLR258]; (1981)ILLJ308SC; 1981MhLJ517(SC); 1981(1)SCALE268; (1981)2SCC238; [1981]2SCR796; 1981(1)SLJ420(SC); 1981(13)LC255(SC)
Sen, J.1. The controversy in these two appeals by special leave against a judgment of the Bombay High Court and an order of the President, Industrial Court, Bombay, turns on the construction of the expression 'continuous service' as defined in Section 2(c) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.2. The facts giving rise to these appeals are these : Eighty-five permanent employees of the respondent who were on the regular muster roll, on termination of their employment, made a claim for payment of gratuity for the entire period of their service, i.e., in respect of every year during which they were in permanent employment, irrespective of the fact whether they had actually worked for 240 days in a year or not. Twenty-five badli employees of the respondent, who were on the badli register, upon being made permanent, made a similar claim for payment of gratuity for the badli period, i.e. in respect of the period prior to their being made permanent, irrespective of the fact whether in those ye...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC911; 1981CriLJ618; 1981(1)SCALE285; (1981)2SCC166; [1981]2SCR771
Chandrachud, C.J.1. A college-going boy called Vijay Bhan Kishore was shot dead on the morning of November 2, 1976 near the Hathi Park, Dayanand Marg, Allahabad. The appellant was convicted for that offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code by the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad and was sentenced to death. The order of conviction and sentence having been confirmed by the High Court of Allahabad by its judgment dated August 23, 1979, the appellant has filed this appeal by Special Leave.2. Vijay Bhan Kishore alias Pappoo was the son of an Advocate called Brij Bhan Kishore who died in about 1967 leaving behind a widow, three daughters and Pappoo. The youngest of the three daughters was married while the two elder were working as school teachers. Out of those two, Ranjana Kishore was a teacher in the St. Anthony's Convent.3. The appellant, Dudh Nath Pandey, who was a motor-car driver by occupation, used to live as a tenant in an out-house of a sprawling bungalow belong...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1169; (1981)83PLR593; (1981)2SCC758; 1981(13)LC217(SC)
D.A. Desai, J.1. Dr. A G. Ajwani, Deputy Health Officer of the petitioner Municipal Corporation of Delhi - accompanied by an Inspector of C.B.I. and some Food Inspectors employed by the petitioner, visited the premises of the respondents where they being manufactures of various articles of food stored the same for sale, and took number of samples of various spices like the red chillies kutti, haldi powder rise kinky add red chillies whole as well as some others. These samples nine in all involved in the present petition, on analysis by the Public Analyst were found to be adulterated, the adulteration consisting of use of artificial coaltar dye, presence of foreign extraneous matter to the extent of 90%, ash in percentage higher then the permissible limit, etc. Initially the complaint was filed against respondent 1 but subsequently on collecting further evidence prosecution was launched against respondents 1 to 7. When the matter was being heard by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1537; [1981(43)FLR185]; (1981)ILLJ314SC; 1981(1)SCALE281; (1981)2SCC155; [1981]2SCR782; 1981(2)SLJ206(SC); 1981(13)LC224(SC)
Tulzapurkar, J.1. This appeal by special leave raises the question about the eligibility of the appellant to a higher pay scale under G.O.M. No. 574 P.R. dated October 20, 1975 with effect from November 1, 1974.2. The facts giving rise to the question may be stated : the appellant passed Diploma in Ayurvedic Medicine (DAM) from Kerala University in the year 1962, having studied this course for four years and nine months with one more year of House Surgeoncy. Besides Ayurvedic Medicine this course consisted of Modern Medicine also. This Diploma is also included in the Second Schedule to the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970. According to the appellant the Government of Kerala had treated the holders of D.A.M. on par with holders of G.C.I.M. (Graduate of the College of Integrated Medicine) and L.I.M. (Licentiate in Indigenous Medicine) in regard to registration of medical practitioners in modern medicine, and all the three were also entitled to Class 'A' Registration Certificate ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1982)3SCC369
V.D. TULZAPURKAR, J.1. Special leave granted.2. After hearing counsel on either side we are satisfied that in this case the husband had not been served with notice when the matter was decided against him ex parte by the learned Trial Magistrate. We accordingly set aside the Order dated November 25, 1979, passed by the High Court in revision as also the ex parte order passed by the learned Trial Magistrate in original complaint under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code. The matter is remanded back to the learned Trial Magistrate for being disposed of afresh in accordance with law. There will be no fresh service on the husband. The counsel for the appellant has assured us that the appellant waives service and will appear before the Trial Magistrate. The learned Trial Magistrate is directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible preferably within four months from the date of the receipt of this order. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1982)3SCC370
O. Chinnappa Reddy and; S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, JJ.1. It appears that in the same case in respect of two other accused this Court acquitted those accused persons by an Order dated October 3, 1980 in Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 1976. On perusal of the judgment referred to above we are satisfied that the case against the appellant as against the accused acquitted by this Court is exactly the same and this Court rejected the case of the prosecution in its entirety. There is thus no legal evidence to support the conviction. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the appellant acquitted. The appellant will be set at liberty forthwith and if he is on bail he will be discharged from bail....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1982)3SCC374
A.D. Koshal,; R.B. Mishra and; v.B. Eradi, JJ.1. Learned counsel for the State makes a fervent prayer that the case be adjourned for hearing to Wednesday, February 11, 1981 at the earliest so that he has an opportunity for filing a return. The service on the Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi was effected on January 29, 1981, which was just about a week ago, and which gave sufficient time to the government to make arrangements for filing its return before today. A perusal of the writ petition indicates that the petitioner has a good prima facie case. Under the circumstances the detenue is directed to be released provisionally on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs 10,000, with two sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras.2. The matter to be listed on February 13, 1981....
Tag this Judgment!