Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC2075; 1981(3)SCALE1543; (1981)4SCC634; [1982]1SCR842; 1981(13)LC886(SC)
D.A. Desai, J.1. Interminable, time consuming, complex and expensive court procedures impelled jurists to search for an alternative forum, less formal, more effective and speedy for resolution of disputes avoiding procedural claptrap and this led them to Arbitration Act, 1940 ('Act' for short). However, the way in which the proceedings under the Act are conducted and without an exception challenged in Courts, has made lawyers laugh and legal philosophers weep. Experience shows and law reports bear ample testimony that the proceedings under the Act have become highly technical accompanied by unending prolixity, at every stage providing a legal trap to the unwary. Informal forum chosen by the parties for expeditious disposal of their disputes has by the decisions of the Courts been clothed with 'legalese' of unforeseeablecomplexity. This case amply demonstrates the same.2. A contract dated 4th April, 1972 for construction of a building was entered into between the appellant and the 1st r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC2059; (1981)22GLR1208; (1981)4SCC660; [1982]1SCR860; 1982(14)LC127(SC)
Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J.1. These appeals raise a question of some importance from the point of Insurance Companies which insure motor vehicles against third party risks and more so, from the point of view of the general public which, by reason of the increasing hazards of indisciplined and fast moving traffic, is driven in despair to lodge claims for injuries suffered in motor vehicle accidents. In case of air accidents, the injured and the dependents of the deceased receive, without contest, fairly large sums by way of compensation from the Air Corporations. We have still to awaken to the need to evolve a reasonably comparable method for compensating those who receive injuries or die in road or train accidents. The victims of road accidents or their dependents are driven to wage a long and unequal battle against the Insurance Companies, which deny their liability on every conceivable ground and indulge in an ingenious variety of factual disputations from 'who was driving the vehicle' to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC2069; 1981CriLJ1698; 1981(3)SCALE1510; (1981)4SCC559; [1982]1SCR836; 1981(13)LC870(SC)
Baharul Islam, J.1. This is a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution by the petitioner who has been detained under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter 'the Act'). The facts material for the purpose of disposal of this petition and not disputed before us may be stated thus: The order of detention was passed by the District Magistrate, Dhanbad, Bihar, on April 30, 1981. The grounds of detention which were three in number were served on the petitioner on May 1, 1981 and the State Government approved the order of detention on May 7, 1981. In pursuance of Section 10 of the Act, the State Government referred the matter to the Advisory Board constituted under the Act on May 19. The petitioner submitted his representation against this detention on May 31, 1981. A copy of the representation was sent to the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board by its report dated June 29, 1981 gave its opinion that there was sufficient ground for the detention of the petitioner...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC130; 1981(3)SCALE1597; (1981)4SCC554; 1981(13)LC725(SC)
A.P. Sen, J. 1. In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause 18 of the Rajasthan Trade Articles (Licensing & Control), Order, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Order'), the State Government of Rajasthan, on May 23, 1981, with the prior concurrence of the Central Government, by a notification fixed the maximum limit of wheat to be possessed by a dealer at any time at 200 quintals. The petitioners who are dealers in foodgrains challenge the constitutional validity of the impugned notification as violative of their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.Clause 18 of the Order reads as follows:18. No person shall, either by himself or by any person on his behalf, store or have in his possession at any time any trade article mentioned in Schedule I and Schedule II in quantity exceeding the limits fixed -(i) under an order issued by the Central Government; or(ii) by the State Government with prior concurrence of the Central Government by issuing a notifica...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC2105; (1981)25CTR(SC)186; [1981]132ITR559(SC); 1981(3)SCALE1483; (1981)4SCC435; [1982]1SCR789
V.D. Tulzapurkar, J.1. In these Civil Appeals and Tax Reference Cases certain common questions of law arise for our determination and hence all these are disposed of by this common judgment. The common questions raised are whether amounts retained or appropriated or set apart by the concerned assessee company by way of making provision (a) for taxation, (b) for retirement gratuity and (c) for proposed dividends from out of profits and other surpluses could be considered as 'other reserves' within the meaning of Rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 (or Rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Company's (Profits) Sur-tax Act, 1964) for inclusion in capital computation of the Company for the purpose of levying super profit tax The first three matters concerning Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd; Hyderabad, Ballarpur Industries, Ltd; and M/s. Bengal Paper Mills Co. Ltd. Calcutta arise under the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 while the the Tax Reference Cases concerning M/s....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1981)4SCC516; 1981(13)LC855(SC)
Amarendra Nath Sen, J. 1. In view of our judgment in Civil Appeals Nos. 554 to 555 of 1981-State of M.P. and Am. v. Kumari Nivedita Jain and Ors-we allow the appeal and dismiss all the petitions in which the very same question comes up for consideration. We, however, direct that the students who have already been admitted to a Medical College on the basis of any order passed by this Court or the High Court will be allowed to continue their studies as regular students of the College and the order of dismissal of the petitions will not entitle the authorities to remove their names from the rolls of the Colleges where they are studying. There will be no order as to costs in any of these petitions....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC61; (1982)3SCC227
A.P. Sen, J.1. The two points involved on this appeal by special leave from a Judgment from the Rajasthan High Court are first as to the competency of the reference made by the Collector under Section 18 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the Act), at the instance of the State Government, for reduction of the amount of compensation awarded by him and second, as to whether the Collector by his award having made an offer on behalf of the State Government, could have made a reference under Section 18 of the Act at all. For obvious reason these questions were not raised before the High Court. The acquisition was not under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 but under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act 1953, As compared with Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 the provisions of Section 18 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 are much wider in scope.2. The facts are few and are not in dispute. The Land Acquisition officer awarded a total compensation of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC2001; 1981(3)SCALE1420; (1981)4SCC535; [1982]1SCR750; 1982(14)LC42(SC)
ORDERA.P. Sen, J.1. The only question involved in this and the connected Special Leave Petitions directed against a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court is whether the Madhya Pradesh (Food-stuffs) Civil Supplies Public Distribution Scheme, 1981, formulated by the State Government under Sub-clause (d) of Clause 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Food-suffs (Distribution) Control Order, 1960, introducing a new scheme for running of Government fair price shops by agents to be appointed under a Government scheme giving preference to cooperative societies, in replacement of the earlier scheme of running such fair price shops through retail dealers appointed under Clause 3 of the Order, is violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.2. To give a short resume. The Madhya Pradesh Foodstuffs (Distribution) Control Order, 1960 (hereinafter called the 'Control Order') was made by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC2045; 1981(3)SCALE1512; (1981)4SCC296; [1982]1SCR759
Amarendra Nath Sen, J.1. The validity of the executive order dated 9th September, 1980 passed by the State Government completely relaxing the conditions relating to the minimum qualifying marks for selection of students to Medical Colleges of the State in respect of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes categories forms the subject matter of these appeals by Special Leave.2. The facts material for the purposes of these appeals may be stated:Kumari Nivedita Jain, one of the Respondents in the present appeals, was a candidate for admission to a Medical College in the State of Madhya Pradesh. In the State of Madhya Pradesh there are six Medical Colleges affiliated to different Universities in the State. The total number of seats in all these Colleges is 720. By an order dated 2nd April, 1980 the State Government made rules for admission to Medical Colleges, the College of Dentistry Indore and Government Ayurvedic Colleges of the State and the said Rules are called ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1982SC25a; 1981(3)SCALE1472; (1981)4SCC544; 1981(13)LC779(SC)
E.S. Venkataramiah, J. 1. These three appeals by special leave are directed against a common judgment and order dated August 27, 1980 of the Calcutta High Court in three Civil Rules Nos. 260-262 arising under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act.').2. The first respondent in each of these appeals is Deb Kumar Sen Sarma. He was working as a Sub-Inspector of Police, Calcutta in the year, 1977 and was residing in a Government building being flat No. 8, on the third floor of premises No. 20A, Lower Range. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Headquarters, Calcutta issued a notice to him to vacate the above mentioned flat forthwith as he owned a residential building in the name of his wife bearing No. 22/E, Lower Range, Calcutta-17 which was in the occupation of tenants, the appellants herein and another person by name Ahmed Hussain Molla. The appellants in each of these cases and the said Ahmed Hussain Molla were occupying under separate leases diff...
Tag this Judgment!