Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC418; 1986CriLJ378; 1986(1)Crimes370(SC); 1986(8)ECC133; 1985(2)SCALE1429; (1986)1SCC544; [1985]Supp3SCR1061; 1986(1)LC444(SC)
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J. 1. These several Criminal Appeals raise a common question and may be disposed of by a single judgment. It is sufficient if we state that the facts in one case : Criminal Appeal No. 371 of 1985. On 29.6.84 an order of Detention under the COFEPOSA was made by the Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Finance Department against Satar Habib Hamdani. The grounds of Detention were served on him on July 1, 1984. On July 13, 1984 the COFEPOSA was amended by an Ordinance which was replaced by an Amending Act. We will presently refer to the provisions of the Act. Purporting to act under Section 9(1) of the COFEPOSA as amended, the Additional Secretary to the Government of India made a declaration that he was satisfied that 'Shri Satar Habib Hamdani abets and is likely to abet the smuggling of goods into and through Porbandar which is an area highly vulnerable to smuggling, as defined in Explanation 1 to Section 9(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC585; [1986]157ITR802(SC); 1985(2)SCALE1467; (1986)1SCC541; [1985]Supp3SCR1069; 1986(1)LC157(SC)
ORDERV.D. Tulzapurkar, J.1. Leave granted.2. Heard Counsel for the parties as also for CBDT and Wealth Tax Officer.3. The short question raised in this appeal is whether inspection of the jewellery and other valuable articles of personal use contained in six boxes lying in Srinagar Toshakhana which boxes are at present kept under lock and seal of the Commissioner appointed by the J & K High Court under its order dated June 22, 1984 - was improperly declined by the learned single Judge by his order dated July 20, 1985 pending disposal of the main writ petition No. 122 of 1984. The learned Judge has rejected the appellant's prayer for inspection by observing thus:Be that as it may, at this stage without speculating on the merits of the petition, 1 find that no useful purpose will be served by granting relief to the petitioner which he has prayed in the present CMP.4. According to the appellant there were two matters before the Government of India (i) whether the appellant was the owner o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC431; 1986(34)BLJR479; [1986(52)FLR308]; (1986)ILLJ435SC; 1985(2)SCALE1433; (1986)1SCC458; 1986(1)SLJ475(SC); 1986(1)LC263(SC)
ORDER1. The short point involved in this Special Leave Petition directed against the judgment and order of the Karnataka High Court dated April 11, 1985 is whether the learned Single Judge was right in issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the petitioners to extend the benefit of the revision of pay-scales from January 1, 1967 to January 1, 1973 upon the view that denial to the respondent R.G. Kashikar, who was an Instructor Grade II in the National Fitness Corps, of the benefit of revision of pay-scales as accorded to all other Central Government employees, was tantamount to denial of equality before law or equal protection of law and was thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.2. Facts giving rise to the Special Leave Petition are these. In 1954, the Government of India in the Ministry of Education introduced the National Discipline Scheme which, in the year 1965, came to be redesignatedas the National Fitness Corps. The respondent was appointed as an Instructor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC743; 1985(2)SCALE1493; (1986)1SCC623; 1986(1)LC217(SC)
D.P. Madon, J.1. The Appellant, Ganesh Sugar Mills, is a partnership firm carrying on the business of manufacturing sugar in the District of Gorakhpur in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act, 1961 (U.P. Act IX of 1961) (Hereinafter referred to in short as 'the Act'), levies a tax on the purchase of sugar-cane by the owner of a factory or a unit at the rates specified in the said sub-section to be collected in the manner prescribed by rules made under the Act. Sub-sections 3 and (5) of Section 3, as originally enacted, provided and Sub-sections (4) and (8) of Section 3 provide as follows:(3) Any tax payable under this Act, if not paid by the date prescribed for payment thereof, shall carry interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from such date till the date of payment.(4) Where any tax payable under this Act, or interest thereon, or both, as the case may be, remains unpaid for a period exceeding fifteen days beyond the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC452; 1985(2)SCALE1457; (1986)1SCC556; [1985]Supp3SCR880; 1986(1)LC160(SC)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. Special Leave Petition Nos. 632 and 3386 of 1985 by M/s. Bansal & Co. and M/s. Orient Distributors respectively and the Writ Petition No. 43 of 1985 by M/s. Bansal & Co. under Article 32 of the Constitution challenge the validity of the order issued by the North East Frontier Railway dated 21st December 1984 whereby the said railways sought to implement the judgment and order of the High Court of Gauhati in Civil Rule No. 619 of 1984.2. By the said order, it was held that M/s. Vicky Coal Concern, Calcutta as well as M/s. Mangalam Enterprises were entitled to priority 'E' and not to priority 'C'. None of the parties, it was declared by the Gauhati High Court by its order passed on 11th December, 1984, fulfilled the requisite conditions for obtaining priority 'C' of the Preferential Traffic Schedule of the Railways (for short PTS). It was declared also that there could not be any discrimination whatsoever between any trader and consumer whether privately sponsor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC434; 1985(2)SCALE1470; (1986)1SCC657; [1985]Supp3SCR894
A.P. Sen, J.1. The issue involved in this appeal on certificate from a judgment and order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated January 4, 1972 is as to the powers of the State Government under Section 106 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats Act, 1962 to modify or alter the constituencies of a block once delimited by a notification issued thereunder after the process of election of members of the Janapada Panchayat has started; particularly, without affording an opportunity to the electorate to raise any objection. On the question involved, conflicting views have been expressed by two Division Benches of the High Court and the High Court certifies that the question raised is one of frequent occurrence and great importance.2. By the judgment under appeal, a Division Bench of the High Court has held that the provisions of the Act do not confer any power on the State Government to modify or alter the constituencies once fixed by a notification issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 106 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC749; 1985(2)SCALE1489; (1986)1SCC632; 1986(1)LC274(SC)
D.P. Madon, J.1. This Appeal by certificate is directed against the judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the Appellant Firm challenging the validity of a notice dated April 21, 1970, demanding Rs. 1,76,788 on account of interest on delayed payment of purchase tax under the U.P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act, 1961 (U.P. Act No. IX of 1961), and a recovery certificate dated March 6, 1970 for Rs. 80,072.95 on account of cane price and interest thereon under the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 (U.P. Act No. XXIV of 1953), issued by the Cane Commissioner, U.P. and a notice dated April 21, 1970, from the Tehsildar, Khalilabad, demanding payment of the said sum of Rs. 80,072.95.2. The facts which have given rise to this appeal lie within a narrow compass. The Appellant Firm carries on the business of manufacturing sugar at Khalilabad in the District of Basti in the State of Uttar Pradesh. By his notice dated December ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC468; 1985(2)SCALE1437; (1986)1SCC581; [1985]Supp3SCR1025
E.S. Venkataramiah, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is preferred against the judgment dated September 3, 1976 in Special Civil Application No. 1501 of 1976 on the file of the High Court of Gujarat filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in which the appellant had challenged the constitutional validity of the Town Planning Scheme No. VIII (Umarwada) in respect of certain lands situated at Surat City in the State of Gujarat, published under the provisions of the Bombay Town Planning Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in so far as the said scheme pertained to the land of which the appellant was the lessee, alleging inter alia that it was vocative of Article 14, 19(1)(f) and 31 of the Constitution of India.2. The land in question originally belonged to one Ladli Begum. She granted a lease in respect of the said land in favour of a company called Nawab of Belha Spinning, Weaving and . under a document dated November 15, 1882 for a period of 99 years with effect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC446; 1985(2)SCALE1478; (1986)1SCC512; 1986(1)LC209(SC)
D.P. Madon, J.1. This Appeal by Special Leave granted by this Court is directed against a common judgment and order of the High Court of Calcutta passed on January 28, 1981, allowing two applications Under Section 115 of the CPC, 1908, and setting aside the order of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Bankura, whereby the learned Additional Subordinate Judge in an application Under Rule 13 of Order IX of the CPC had set aside an ex-parte decree passed against the Appellant and Respondent No. 10.2. The parties are governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu law. Gopal Chandra Nandy and Jugal Kishore Nandy were brothers who both died prior to the litigation out of which this Appeal arises. Respondents Nos. 5 to 9 are the sons of Gopal Chandra. The Appellant and Respondent No. 10 are the sons of the 5th Respondent, Narender Nath. Respondent No. 1 is the son, Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are the daughters and Respondent No. 2 is the widow of Jugal Kishore. On October 14, 1974, Respondents Nos. 5 t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC1149; (1986)1SCC350; 1986(1)LC233(SC)
ORDERA.P. Sen, J.1. Dr. Chitale appearing for the petitioners, with his usual fairness, confines his submissions to the proposed amendment of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. He suggests that the provisions contained in Section 14(1)(d)(e) and (h) of the Act should be so structured as to make the Act more just and reasonable and strike a proper balance between the competing needs of the landlords and tenants.2. We are informed that there is a proposed Bill which is likely to be introduced. The Government will consider whether the changes suggested by the petitioners are necessary. Some of the proposed changes in the Bill practically put a class of landlords outside the purview of the Act which may not be in the public interest. We also feel that the Act should contain provisions for regulating the rents in view of the spiral rise of rents in the Metropolitan City of Delhi due to a provision like Section 21 of the Act which permits a lease for a limited period. There should also be an ...
Tag this Judgment!