Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC946; (1984)2CompLJ48(SC); (1984)39CTR(SC)158; [1984]146ITR552(SC); 1984(1)SCALE445; (1984)3SCC393; [1984]3SCR37; 1984(16)LC318(SC)
V.D. Tulzapurkar, J.1. The only question raised in these appeals is whether the two sums of Rs. 5,49,041 (in the case of M/s. J.K. Cotton Ltd.) and Rs. 21,61,788 (in the case of J.K. Jute Ltd.) being the balance of the demands payable as a result of the findings and orders of the Income-tax Investigation Commission in the settlements made under the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act (30 of 1947) are deductible as debts owed by them in determining the net-wealth of these companies?2. The question arises in these circumstances:M/s. J.K. Cotton ., the assessee, is a limited company engaged in the manufacture of cotton textiles, etc. and the assessment involved is the wealth-tax assessment for the year 1957-58 based on the valuation date 30.9.1956. It appears that as a result of proceedings taken and a settlement arrived at in 1952 under the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act 1947, a sum of Rs. 15,99,041 was determined as payable by the assessee company on its...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC919; 1984(1)SCALE399; 1984Supp(1)SCC239; [1984]3SCR31; 1984(16)LC326(SC)
Ranganath Misra J.1. Each of these appeals is by special leave and is directed against the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in separate writ petitions. A common question is involved in all the three matters and that relates to a correct interpretation of Rule 27.1(a) in Chapter III of the Punjab University Regulations.2. Respondents in each of these appeals was a student of the Punjab University for the Master Degree in Law (LL.M.). RuleHigh Court went wrong in taking the view that when a candidate reappeared to clear a paper or a subject on being found eligible to do so, Clause (a) was attracted. The language of Clause (b) is such as would squarely apply to such a situation. Having taken the view that Clause (a) governed the matter, the High Court had no occasion to express any opinion as to if Clause (b) applied what benefit the candidate would have got. The provision in Clause (b) is clear and on reappearing the candidate becomes entitled to grace marks of up to one ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC956; 1984(1)SCALE440; (1984)3SCC339; [1984]3SCR22; 1984(16)LC313(SC)
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. As these appeals involve common points of law, we propose to decide them by one judgment.Civil Appeal No. 3702 of 19822. This appeal arises out of election to '375-Iglas Assembly Constituency, Aligarh to the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly' which was held on May 28, 1980 and the result of which was declared on June 1, 1980, in which the appellant was declared elected. Respondent No. 1, Smt. Usha Rani had also contested the above mentioned election but was defeated. Aggrieved by the result of the aforesaid election, Smt. Usha Rani filed an election petition on July 15, 1980, at the residence of the Registrar of the Allahabad High Court. Thereafter, on September 24, 1981, the appellant filed a petition before the High Court for rejection of the election petition filed by the respondent, on the ground that the copy of the petition served on him was neither attested to be a true copy nor a correct copy of the original petition, as contemplated by the provision...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : II(1984)ACC81; AIR1984SC953; 1984(1)SCALE407
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. The path of nationalisation of Motor Bus transport can hardly be said to have been smooth in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The cases now before us illustrate this point. To take an example, the route Lucknow to Kanpur was notified under the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Act of 1951. The effect of the Notification was to totally exclude private operators from plying their State Carriages on the whole or any part of the route, Lucknow to Kanpur. But the Uttar Pradesh Act No. 2 of 1951 and the Notification were struck down by this Court in Saghir Ahmed v. State of Uttar Pradesh : [1955]1SCR707 . However, the Uttar Pradesh Legislature enacted Uttar Pradesh Act No. 9 of 1955, by Sections 19 and 20 of which the Notifications issued under the Uttar Pradesh Act No. 2 of 1951 were revalidated with effect from June 18, 1951. Hindustan Transport Company and Smt. Chunni Devi the petitioners in writ petition Nos. 76 and 77 of 1979 held permits to ply State Carriages betw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC905; 1984(1)SCALE392; 1984Supp(1)SCC77; [1984]3SCR10; 1984(16)LC306(SC)
A. VARADARAJAN1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of Madras High Court dismissing Election Petition No. 4 of 1980 with costs quantified at Rs. 1000/-. The Election Petition was filed for declaring the election of the second respondent V. Arangarajan alias V. Rangarajan alias Perumal to the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly from No. 157, Uppiliapuram Scheduled Tribes reserved Assembly Constituency in Thuraiyur taluk, Tiruchirapalli district, in the election held on 28.5.1980 as void and further declaring that the appellant R. Palanimuthu has been duly elected from that constituency. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties we allowed the appeal on 17.12.1983 to the extent of setting aside the election of the second respondent for reasons to follow and directed the parties to bear the respective costs. Now we proceed to give our reasons.2. The polling took place on 28.5.1980 and the result was announced after the counting was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC681; 1984CriLJ610; 1984(1)Crimes651(SC); 1984(2)ECC137; 1984(1)SCALE402; (1984)2SCC427; [1984]3SCR1
A. Varadarajan, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Application No. 780 of 1981 filed by the respondent Haji Mastan Mirza, allowing the criminal appeal and declaring that the order of detention dated 19.12.1974 passed by the Minister of Finance, Government of India under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, (COFEPOSA) is illegal, null and void ab initio and inoperative, and quashing that order as well as the declaration under Section 5(1) of the COFEPOSA made on 18.1.1975 and also consequently quashing the notice under Section 6(1) and the order made under Section 7 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, (SAFEMA) 1976 and restraining the appellant from taking any action whatsoever on the basis of the order of detention dated 19.12.1974 and the declaration dated 18.1.1975 were quashed by the learned Judges of the....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC978; (1984)86BOMLR225; 1984LabIC557; 1984(1)SCALE323; (1984)2SCC675; [1984]2SCR719; 1984(1)SLJ378(SC); 1984(16)LC378(SC)
E.S. Venkataramian, J.1. The appellant in Civil Appeal No. 5999 of 19S3 is Shri B.V. Chavan and the appellant in Civil Appeal No 6000 of 1983 is Shri A.A. Halbe. The appellants in these two appeals are members of the Judicial Service of the State of Maharashtra. They were originally appointed as Civil Judges (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrates First Class in the Junior Branch of the Maharashtra State Judicial Service. Both of them in course of time were promoted in the year 1971 as Assistant Judges in the Senior Branch of the Maharashtra State Judicial Service. When they were both working as Assistant Judges, applications were invited from members of the Bar for filling in five posts of officiating Assistant Judges in the Judicial Service of the State of Maharashtra although the applications could be invited for the purpose of recruitment to the cadre of District Judges. Respondents Nos. 2 to 5 Shri I.G. Shah, Shri B.S. Bhirud. Shri H.H. Kantharia and Shri A.D. Mane alongwith ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC866; 1984(1)SCALE353; (1984)2SCC337; [1984]2SCR693; 1984(16)LC381(SC)
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. Special Leave Granted.2. This appeal by special leave raises a short question of law as to whether an order of requisition of premise's can be continued for an indefinite period of time or it must necessarily be of temporary duration. The facts giving rise to this appeal are few and may be briefly stated as follows :3. One Rukmanibai was the owner of a building bearing House No. 65, Police Station Road, Ville Parle West, Bombay. The ground floor of this building comprised of a flat which was in the occupation of one N.C. Shah as a tenant and since N.C. Shah was going to vacate the flat, Rukmanibai gave intimation of the proposed vacancy to the State Government and requested the State Government to allot the premises to the appellant who was her nearest relative. The appellant also addressed a letter dated 12th March 1951 to the Chief Officer of the Accommodation Department of the Government of Bombay requesting that he should be allotted the flat which was going to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC850; (1984)86BOMLR206; 1984LabIC608; 1984(1)SCALE316; (1984)3SCC36; [1984]2SCR703; 1984(1)SLJ370(SC); 1984(16)LC386(SC)
E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. The two questions urged in this appeal filed against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay are whether the appellant is entitled to reckon for purposes of his seniority in the cadre of District Judges the period during which he had worked as an Assistant Judge in accordance with the proviso to Sub-clause (b) of Clause (i) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of the Bombay Judicial Service Recruitment Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') and whether the appellant is entitled to get the salary and allowances in the selection grade scale or to be posted as an Inspecting Judge. Both the contentions were negatived by the High Court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. This appeal by special leave is preferred against the judgment of the High Court.2. The appellant was enrolled as an advocate on December 14, 1951. In response to a notification Inviting applications for the purpose of recruiting members of the Bar directly as Distric...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1984SC667; 1985(1)ARBLR361(SC); (1984)1CompLJ362(SC); 1984(2)ECC142; 1984(1)SCALE338; (1984)2SCC534; [1984]2SCR664; 1984(16)LC475(SC)
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. Nepal is our neighbour. Unfortunately Nepal is land-locked. Nepal's only access to the sea is across India. So, as one good neighbour to another with a view to 'maintain, develop and strengthen the friendly relations' between our two countries, by treaty and by International Convention, we allow a right of innocent passage in order to facilitate Nepal's international trade. One of the questions before us is the extent of this right : Does the right cover the transit of goods which may not be imported into India? May goods which may not be brought into India be taken across Indian territory? What does 'import' mean, more particularly what does 'import' mean in Section 53 of the Copyright Act? Can an unauthorised reproduction of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work or a record embodying an unauthorised recording of a record (which, for short, adopting trade parlance, we may call a pirated work), whose importation into India may be prohibited, but whose ...
Tag this Judgment!