Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1986Supp(1)SCC663
E.S. Venkataramiah and; O. Chinnappa Reddy, JJ.1. It appears that an amount of Rs 59,702 has been deducted towards, Income tax from the back wages directed to be paid to the workman and paid to Income Tax Department. The employer is directed to pay the sum of Rs 59,702 to the employee. He may, however, deduct the employee's contribution towards provident fund and pay the balance within four weeks from today. With regard to the amount paid to the Income Tax Department the employer may seek adjustment from the department against future tax payable by the employer. We are told that if the employee's income is spread over as contemplated by Section 89 of Income Tax Act no tax will be payable by the employee. That is the reason for making this order in the present terms In regard to payment of bonus Mr Sibal, learned counsel for employer states that employer is willing to pay the bonus. The employer may pay the bonus within four weeks from today. The employer's contribution towards providen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC349; 1987CriLJ329; 1987(1)Crimes102(SC); 1986(2)SCALE906; 1986Supp(1)SCC533; [1987]1SCR376
Acts/Rules/Orders: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 173(8) and 321Prior History: From the Judgment and Order dated April 12, 1983 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Crl. Revision No. 1427 and 1428 of 1980OrderRanganath Misra and G.L. Oza, JJ.1. These two special leave petitions and a writ petition were filed for a common purpose-the writ petition questioning the vires of Section 321 of the CrPC of 1973 and these two special leave petitions questioning the correctness of the order of the (High Court by which it affirmed the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Bhiwani, according permission under the same Section 321 for withdrawal of a prosecution against the respondents excepting the State of Haryana. We have already dismissed the writ petition and now proceed to dispose of the special leave applications. As lengthy arguments were advanced we propose to make a brief but speaking order. 2. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties we are inclined to think that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC242; 1986(2)SCALE996; (1987)1SCC180; [1987]1SCR379; 1987(1)LC207(SC)
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1124 of 1973. From the Judgment and Order dated 29.11.1972 of the Madras High Court in C.R.P. No. 1066 of 1972. K. Ramkumar for the Appellant. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by THAKKAR, J. The view taken by the High Court that a tenant sought to be evicted on the ground of unlawful sub- letting under Section 10(2)(ii)(a)1 of the Tamil Nadu Build- ings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 must himself have been guilty of the contravention and that the alleged con- travention by his father when he was a tenant can be of no avail for evicting him is assailed in this appeal by special leave. The High Court has so pronounced in the backdrop of the admitted fact that respondent had himself not created any sub-tenancy after he became the tenant in 1968 upon the death of his father. The plea raised by the appellant that the tenancy created in 1952 by the father of respondent rendered him liable to be evicted in the suit instituted by the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1987]164ITR231(SC)
ORDER1. Having regard to the decision of this court in M. Ct. Muthiah v. Controller of Estate Duty : [1986]161ITR768(SC) , this appeal is allowed. Counsel for the appellant is allowed to withdraw the relief No. (ii) in C.M.P. No. 30393 of 1986 as he proposes to claim that relief in another forum.2. The civil miscellaneous petition and the civil appeal are disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1987Supp(1)SCC27
E.S. Venkataramiah and; O. Chinnappa Reddy, JJ.1. The only question in this appeal is about the vires of Section 96(1)(c) of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act, 1961. This provision has been struck down by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Rasiklal Patel v. Kailasgauri Ramanlal Mehta1. We have perused the judgment of the Gujrat High Court and we are unable to find any justification for interfering with the view taken by the Gujarat High Court. We may also add that the decision of the Gujarat High Court has stood for sixteen years and many thousands of transactions must have taken place on the basis of correctness of this judgment. We see no justification for interference in this case. The decision in Maganlal Chhagganlal (P) Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay2 on which reliance was placed by learned counsel for the appellant has no relevance whatsoever. These appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC1801; (1988)ILLJ328SC; 1989(1)SCALE1526; 1986Supp(1)SCC651
R.S. Pathak, J.1. We have carefully considered the matter and after hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we direct that the employees of the Andhra Pradesh State Construction Corporation Limited whose services were sought to be terminated on account of the closure of the Corporation shall be continued in service on the same terms and conditions either in the Government departments or in the Government Corporations.2. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. There is no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1986Supp(1)SCC664
A.P. Sen and; S. Natarajan, JJ.1. Shri S.C. Patel, learned counsel appearing for both the appellants undertakes to withdraw the allegations made against the Minister for Public Health. Shri G.S. Grewal, learned Advocate-General appearing for the State Government undertakes that on withdrawal of the insinuations, the State Government will recall the impugned order recalling the services of the appellants who were on deputation with the Chandigarh Administration. The learned Advocate General assures us that the impugned order was not actuated with any intention to penalise the appellants and that it was issued due to exigencies of the services, but we do not wish to enter into the controversy.2. We record the statements of learned counsel for the parties and direct that the appellants shall be paid their salary by the Chandigarh Administration and there will be no break in continuity of their services.3. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1986Supp(1)SCC680
M.M. Dutt and; Ranganath Misra, JJ.1. The short point involved in the appeal is as to whether the suit instituted by the present appellant challenging the order under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code was barred by limitation on the date of its institution. Admittedly to this suit Article 47 of the First Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1908 applied and that prescribed a period of three years from the date of the final order for the purpose of instituting the suit. The order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was passed on September 8, 1960 and the cause of action in the plaint was rightly shown to have accrued on that date. It is not disputed that a revision petition had been preferred to the Additional District Magistrate and a further revision was taken to the High Court when the first revision was not successful. If the order of the High Court is taken as the relevant date the same having been passed alter the Limitation Act, 1963 came into force, the plaintiff would be entit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC350; 1987CriLJ330; 1986(2)SCALE900; (1987)1SCC1
A.P. Sen, J.1. Appellant Balwinder Singh @ DalbirSingh @ Billa stands convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34, Penal Code, 1860, for having committed the murder of the taxi-driver Santokh Singh and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The other two co-accused Balwinder Singh and Amar Singh have also been convicted along with him under Section 302 read with Section 34 and sentenced to imprisonment for life, but have not preferred an appeal.2. The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows. On July 25, 1973 at about 6 p.m. the appellant Balwinder Singh @ Billa came to the taxi-stand Kot Atma Singh in Amritsar along with his three companions Balwinder Singh, Amar Singh and Balkar Singh and hired the taxi of the deceased Santokh Singh, an Ambassador car bearing No. PUA 5885 for going to Batala, some 32 miles away. The taxi was hired in the presence of the other taxi-drivers, namely, Kashmira Singh, brother of the deceased, P. W. 3, Fauza Singh, P.W. 4, Suba Singh and Ajit Si...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1986Supp(1)SCC665
M.M. Dutt and; Ranganath Misra, JJ.1. The respondent was a lecturer in one of the intermediate colleges in Uttar Pradesh. He faced certain proceedings and was put under suspension but later he was reinstated on April 3, 1976. It was alleged by him that on the following day he was sent for by the management and taking advantage of the fact that it was the period of emergency, he was threatened to resign otherwise he was told that he would be taken into custody. Respondent 1 took the stand that under the threat he resigned. Immediately after emergency was over he made representation to the District Inspector of Schools disclosing his stand that the resignation was not a valid one as it had been taken under threat. The District Inspector accepted the stand of the respondent and directed reinstatement on April 10, 1978. On the same date Respondent 1 reported to duty. Against this order the management preferred an appeal to the Regional Deputy Director of Education. It is alleged that on th...
Tag this Judgment!