Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1984)38CTR(SC)382
: By the court - In our opinion this appeal will have to be allowed in view of the decision of this court in Jamnaprasad Kanhaiyalal v. CIT 2. Counsel for the assessee, however, urged before us that two points arise for decision in this case and that the decision of this Court in Jamnaprasad Kanhaiyalas case (supra) does not cover both the points which have been decided by the High Court in favour of the assessee. WE are unable to accept this contention, for a careful perusal of that decision will show both the aspects are covered and the entire basis of the impugned judgment of the High Court has been rightly overruled. On the question whether the immunity enjoyable by the declarants u/s 24 of the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1965 under the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme should be confined to the declarants or could be extended to the assessment of a third party (the assessee before the ITO), the aforesaid decision has ruled that such immunity is confined to the declarants alone. The order as...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC990; 1983(2)SCALE84; (1983)4SCC131
1. Though for all practical purposes, this appeal had become futile and inconsequential by sheer lapse of time, some; life came to be infused into it because of a subsequent development which prompted the learned advocate to move this Court for hearing the appeal. The Judgment dated August 9, 1983 in Civil Appeal No. 952 of 1975. development and the event would be referred to at the relevant places in course of the judgment.2. A disciplinary enquiry was initiated against appellant Narendra Singh, Advocate on the roll of the Bar Candy of Uttar Pradesh on the complaint of Sh. Chhotey Singh and Shri Faqir Chand. Broadly stated, the allegation was that the appellant was annoyed with one Sh. Udaibir Singh Saxena, who was, at the relevant time, Assistant Registrar, Kanungo and actuated with a desire to implicate him in a criminal case, he forged an application by ante-dating it from 6th July, 1968 to 3rd July, 1968. The application was in connection with acquisition of Bhumidari rights. Pres...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC1107; (1984)1SCC200
1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner Jiwan Mal Kochar under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging certain remarks made against him by this Court in Criminal Appeals 97 to 101 of 1965 and by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal 428 of 1962, to both of which the petitioner was not a party. The petitioner's case is that those remarks have been obtained against him by respondents 3 to 10 in the Writ Petition behind his back and that he has filed this Writ Petition for obtaining complete justice in his Civil Appeal 859 of 1978 and Criminal Review Petition 3 of 1980. The second prayer in the Writ Petition is for award of adequate damages and compensation to the petitioner against the Union of India and other respondents including the State of Madhya Pradesh for all losses, direct or indirect, and humiliations and indignity suffered by him.2. In the view we take in regard to the reliefs prayed for in this long Writ Petition running into ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC1102; (1983)4SCC148
A. Varadarajan, J.1. This appeal by special leave is by the appellant in Letters Patent Appeal 119 of 1971 which was dismissed by the Delhi High Court. The L.P.A. was filed by the appellant against the order of a learned single Judge of that High Court dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant against the order of the President of India, dated 25-1-1964 compulsorily retiring him from service with immediate effect. The appellant was an officer of the Madhya Pradesh cadre of the Indian Administrative Service. The said order was passed as a result of disciplinary proceedings instituted against the Appellant under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 in which he was found guilty of the whole of Charge No. 7 and a part of Charge No. 9.2. The appellant, born on 21-1-1912, joined service in the erstwhile Gwalior State on 10-1-1938 and later came into the Indian Administrative Service. He was appointed as General Manager of the Madhya Bharat Roadways of the Madh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC1199; 1983(2)SCALE336; (1984)1SCC160
ORDER1. Rule nisi.2. Petitioner appears in person. We heard Mr. Altaf Ahmed, learned Counsel for the State of Jammu and Kashmir.3. Mr. Altaf wanted us to examine the operational area of the Government order dated March 23, 1979. It was urged that on a true interpretation of this order, the petitioner would not be qualified for selection and admission to Post-Graduate course or registration in the speciality course for General Medicines for M.D. degree in the Government Medical College at Jammu. To appreciate this submission, it would be necessary to refer to the advertisement issued by the Principal, Government College, Jammu, on July 25, 1981 inviting applications for selection and admission to Post-Graduate Course in General Medicines in Government Medical College at Jammu. The selection for admission was to be made on the basis of minimum qualifications set out in the advertisement. In respect of two aspects there is a contradiction between the Government order dated March 23, 1979 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC1108; 1983(2)SCALE241; (1984)1SCC645; [1983]3SCR545; 1983(2)SLJ258(SC)
A. Varadarajan, J.1. These appeals by special leave are directed against the Judgments of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in Representation Petitions 595 of 1977 and batch and transferred Writ Petition 941 of 1976. C. As. Nos. 1652 to 1659 of 1978 have been filed against the common judgment dated 31.8.1978 in Representation Petition 595 of 1977 and batch in which common issues arose for consideration while CA. No. 415 of 1979 has been filed against the separate judgment, dated 31.8.1978 in Transferred Writ Petition 941 of 1976. All these appeals by the petitioners before the Tribunal were heard together in this Court and will be disposed of by a common judgment.2. The main judgment of the Tribunal in Representation Petition 595 of 1977 and batch is in Representation Petition 595 of 1977 in accordance with which the other Representation Petitions in the batch have been disposed of as stated elsewhere in this judgment. Representation Petition 595 of 1977 was filed b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC920; 1983(2)SCALE58; (1983)4SCC616; [1983]3SCR536
Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J.1. By these Writ Petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioners challenge the constitutional validity of the Jammu & Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 17 of 1976, on the ground that the Act violates the provisions of Articles 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution. This challenge is met by the State of Jammu & Kashmir with the short answer that the impugned Act being a measure of agrarian reform, Article 31A of the Constitution precludes a challenge to its validity on the ground that it violates the provisions contained in Articles 14, 19 and 31.2. The petitioners are mostly small land-holders owning agricultural lands in the State of Jammu & Kashmir. The Government of Jammu & Kashmir introduced several land reforms in the State, beginning with Tenancy Act VII of 1948. Jagirs and Muafis were abolished under that Act as a result of which, approximately 9000 owners of agricultural lands lost their proprietary interest in about 4.5 lakh acres of land. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC925; 1983(2)SCALE63; (1983)4SCC36; [1983]3SCR525
D.A. Desai, J.1. On May 3, 1983 we made the following order :Special leave granted. The appeal is allowed.The order of the High Court refusing the request of the appellant to examine his 54 witnesses who, according to him, were kept present is varied. The election petitioner-appellant herein shall produce all those witnesses and examine all or any of them whomsoever he wants to examine out of them and in respect of whom, the Court did not grant permission to examine. The examination shall be taken up day to day. No Court assistance need be rendered for procuring the presence of all or any of them and the examination shall be completed within a span of 7 days commencing from the date on which the High Court commences examination of witnesses. Subject to the convenience of the learned Judge and the parties recording of evidence shall be taken up on this side of the summer vacation of the High Court.In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Reasons to follow.H...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1983SC915; 1983(2)SCALE57; (1984)1SCC199
1. Special Leave is granted.2. Appellant, an Assistant in the employment of the Western Railway, filed a suit asking appointment in one of the 24 upgraded posts of non gazetted cadre Clerks sanctioned in March 1957 with effect from April 1, 1956. The requisites to be satisfied for enjoying the advantage were that the employee should be a graduate on the date of the order, viz., November 12, 1957, and should be entitled to be considered on the basis of seniority. The plaintiff was placed in the 21st position according to seniority and was already a graduate by the relevant date. He was, however, not given one of those upgraded posts as four out of the 24 upgraded posts were reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe employees. Ultimately when employees of the reserved category were not available the posts were dereserved. Yet plaintiff was not given one of those posts. He, therefore, filed the suit.3. The Railway Administration took the stand that plaintiff had not 15 passed the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1983LabIC1670; (1984)ILLJ161SC; 1983(2)SCALE713; (1983)4SCC225
ORDER1. The appellants in these two appeals were members of the Police Force in the State of Punjab belonging to various ranks such as Constables, Head Constables, Assistant Sub Inspectors and Sub Inspectors of Police. There are 65 appellants in Civil Appeal No. 3183 of 1983 and there are 52 appellants in the cognate appeal. Thus we have before us the case of 117 persons.2. To begin with, the factual matrix. Dissatisfaction about the conditions of service of members of the Police Force in the State of Punjab led to an agitation which at its height was in the form of a procession and some demonstration. The State of Punjab initiated disciplinary action and dismissed about 1100 members of the Police Force on the ground that they had participated in an agitation which was impermissible under the rules governing the discipline in the Police Force of the State of Punjab. A number of criminal prosecutions were filed against the participants in the agitation. Some of the members of the Police...
Tag this Judgment!