Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1966; 1986(1)SCALE1365; (1986)2SCC501; [1986]1SCR891; [1986]62STC112(SC); 1986(2)LC176(SC)
Sabyasachi Mukhjarji1. This is an appeal by special leave from the decision of the High Court of Allahabad in Sales Tax Reference No. 603 of 1971 under Section 11(5) of the U,P. Sales Tax Act, 1943 (hereinafter called the 'Act'). The question referred to the High Court under Section 11(5) of the Act was as follows: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the dealer could be declared non-taxable on sales of yarn for Rs. 8,70,810, which he made against III-A Forms though the purchaser instead of selling the said yarn in the same condition, consumed the same? 2. The division bench of the Allahabad High Court was of the opinion that the controversy raised in the reference was covered by the decision of the Full Bench of the said High Court in Commissioner, Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh v. Shankar Lal Chandra Prakash, 26 S.T.C. 386 where it was held that the certificate in Form III-A was only a prima facie evidence of the fact that the goods had not been sold to a consumer. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1043; 1986LabIC796; 1986(1)SCALE475; 1986Supp(1)SCC285; [1986]1SCR855; 1986(3)SLJ235(SC); 1986(2)LC184(SC)
E.S. Venkaearamiah, J.1. This appeal by special leave is filed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad dated April 12, 1985 in Writ Petition No. 3961 of 1982 by which the High Court of Allahabad quashed the results of the competitive examination held by the District Judge of Kanpur in September, 1981 for selecting candidates for appointment to the vacancies in Grade III of the ministerial staff in the Subordinate Courts in the District of Kanpur.2. Before the commencement of the Constitution, recruitment to the ministerial establishment in the Subordinate Civil Courts of the United Provinces was regulated by the Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1947 Rules'). The said Rules were promulgated by the Governor of the United Provinces on August 1, 1947. The expression 'Ministerial Establishment' was defined by Rule 2(c) of the 1947 Rules as the staff Of the subordinate civil courts consisting of ministerial ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1653; 1986(34)BLJR434; 1986CriLJ1246; 1986(1)SCALE543; (1986)2SCC414
G.L. Oza, J.1. This appeal arises in peculiar circumstances. A complaint was filed in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj on 26th April, 1974. The complainant claimed to be the son of one of the partners of the firm M/s. Dhanraj Sagarmal Tamakhuwala which owned a flour mill at Sahibganj. The allegations made in the complaint were of failure of power supply for four days to the flour mill and the Bihar State Electricity Board and other officers were joined as accused persons and it was also alleged that it resulted in monetary Joss to the flour mill. No particular act or omission of any particular officer or Board who were arrayed as accused persons was mentioned. The offences alleged were under Section 42(b) of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 ('Act' for short) and Sections 166 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. Against the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the complaint, a petition was filed in the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC923; 1986(34)BLJR398; 1987CriLJ838; 1986(2)Crimes676(SC); 1986(1)SCALE534; (1986)2SCC476
G.L. Oza, J.1. This appeal arises out of the conviction of the appellant alongwith three others by the Sessions Court of Khamam District dated 1st March, 1976 in Sessions Case No. 8 of 1975 for imprisonment for life, maintained in appeal by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. Four persons were convicted by the High Court whereas seven persons were acquitted, the special leave petition was filed on behalf of the four convicted persons but that of appellant only was granted and hence this appeal by the appellant against his conviction.2. It is an unfortunate incident arising out of the trade union rivalry where a group of persons belonging to one trade union attacked and assaulted the leaders of the rival union and the two of the rival union who were attacked, succumbed to the injuries as a result of this incident. The incident is alleged to be of December 18, 1974 at 6.30 p.m. in a bus.3. It is alleged that at about 6.30 p.m. when this bus dri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1649; 1986(34)BLJR369; (1986)1CompLJ1242(SC); 1986CriLJ1242; 1986(2)Crimes364(SC); 1986(1)SCALE547; (1986)2SCC589
G.L. Oza, J.1. This appeal has been filed on behalf of two appellants Gupteshwar Nath Ojha and Bishwanath Ojha as the leave was granted in respect of these two from a judgment passed by a Division Bench of Patna High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 1971 dated 27th July, 1977 wherein the learned Judges altered the conviction of these two appellants and some others and convicted them for an offence under Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 I.P.C. and sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment. They are also convicted for offences like under Sections 323 and 324 for causing injuries to other prosecution witnesses and also under Sections 147 and 148 I.P.C.2. The learned Judges of the High Court acquitted the appellant Bishwanath Ojha from an offence under Section 304 read with Section 114, I.P.C.3. Before the High Court 12 persons filed their appeal out of whom three were convicted by the Sessions Judge under Section 302 I.P.C. and the rest under Section 302 read with Section 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1986)ILLJ428SC; (1986)2SCC336
1. Dr. L.M. Singhvi, learned Counsel appearing for the Union of India states on instructions that the Central Government has signified its willingness to refer to a High Power Committee the question regarding the revision of pay scales, additional D.A., compensatory and other allowances, and such other incidental aspects relating to the employees working in the public Sector Undertakings belonging to the Government of India governed by the Central pattern of pay scale and D.A. It is stated that a High Power Committee of two members consisting of a retired Judge of the Supreme Court of India and a senior civil servant of the Government of India, of which the retired Judge of the Supreme Court would be the Chairman to go into the various aspects relating to service matters viz., revision of pay scales, D.A., compensatory and other allowances and such other incidental aspects pertaining to the employees working in the public sector on the Central pay scale and D.A. pattern. He placed befo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1547; (1986)88BOMLR338; [1986]60CompCas1028(SC); (1986)2CompLJ119(SC); 1986(1)SCALE388; (1986)2SCC382; [1986]1SCR841; 1986(1)LC566(SC)
E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. At the conclusion of the hearing of the appeal on March 10, 1986 we passed the following order in the above appeal and the connected special leave Petition:Special leave granted. We do not agree with the view of the High Court that the loan in question should have been advanced under the Act in order to attract the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Bombay Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 1958. The judgment of the learned Single Judge and of the Division Bench of the High Court are set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Single Judge to consider the submissions to be made on other points involved in this case. It is open to the Union which has filed Special Leave Petition No. 3428 of 1986 to apply to the High Court for being impleaded and the High Court on such application being made will consider it in accordance with law. The appeal and Special Leave Petition No. 3428 of 1986 are disposed of accordingly. There is no order as to costs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1272; (1986)88BOMLR432; 1986(1)SCALE681; 1986Supp(1)SCC401; [1986]1SCR731; 1986(2)LC319(SC)
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. Unfamiliar as I am with the history, tradition and the lore of the city and the High Court of Bombay, I content myself by agreeing with the conclusion of my learned brother that no appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent lies to the High Court against the order of a single judge of the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, no less and no more. I do not have any doubt that the reference to Section 107 of the Government of India Act, 1915 in Clause 15 of the Letters Patent must necessarily be read as a reference to Article 227 of the Constitution. So read an appeal under Clause 15 is clearly not maintainable against an order made in exercise of the power under Article 227. This is the view taken by all the High Courts in India except the High Court of Bombay, where alone opinion has not been unanimous.D.P. Madon, J.2. The question which falls for determination in this Appeal is 'Whether an appeal lies under Clause 15 of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC479; 1987(35)BLJR510; [1987(54)FLR656]; (1986)2GLR1391; 1986LabIC1658; 1986(1)SCALE376; (1986)2SCC373; 1986(1)LC554(SC)
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. The State of Gujarat is the appellant in these two appeals by special leave. As the arguments proceeded, it became clear to us that the appeals had been filed more to vindicate Mr. H.K.L. Capoor, who was previously Chief Secretary to the Government of Gujarat and against whom certain caustic observations had been made by the High Court of Gujarat, rather than for a decision on the merits of the case. In fact, Shri S.T. Desai, learned senior advocate appearing for the State of Gujarat, told us that the State of Gujarat was prepared to abide by the direction given by the High Court of Gujarat in its judgment. We should add that during the pendency of the writ petitions in the High Court, the respondent, apparently in sheer frustration, resigned from service. 2. The respondent, S. Tripathy, was recruited to the Indian Administrative Service in 1966 and allotted to the State of Gujarat. His case was that when he was working as an Assistant Collector at Petlad in Au...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1552; (1986)88BOMLR198; 1986MhLJ1037(SC); 1986(1)SCALE511; (1986)2SCC348; [1986]1SCR697; 1986(2)LC260(SC)
D.P. Madon, J.1. This Appeal by Special Leave granted by this Court is directed against the judgment and order of the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court whereby the High Court dismissed with no order as to the costs the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (being Writ Petition No. 1683 of 1985) filed by the Appellant seeking admission in the Medical College, Nagpur.2. The facts giving rise to this Appeal require to be briefly stated. The Appellant's father, who is in the service of the Central Government and was working in the Geological Survey of India, was transferred on March 3, 1983, from Hyderabad in the State of Andhra Pradesh to Nagpur in the State of Maharashtra. In 1983 the Appellant passed the S.S.C. examination of the Board of Secondary Education, Andhra Pradesh, in First Division. After coming to Nagpur along with her father she joined Hislop College, Nagpur, from Where she passed in 1985 the H.S.C. (XII Standard) Examination of the Maharashtra St...
Tag this Judgment!