Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1661; (1986)58CTR(SC)43; [1986]159ITR851(SC); 1986(1)SCALE1296; 1986Supp(1)SCC269; [1986]2SCR874
R.S. Pathak, J.1. These appeals by certificate granted by the Kerala High Court and directed against the judgment of that High Court answering the questions referred to it by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in favour of the Revenue and against the appellant.2. The assessee, who is the appellant before us, is assessed to income-tax in the status of an individual. He runs a printing press known as 'Kerala Dawni' and also a Malayalam daily newspaper of the same name. For the assessment year 1962-63, he filed a return of income showing a loss of Rs. 3,37,183. The Income-tax Officer found that various remittances from the United States of America had been received by him, ostensibly in his capacity as Vice-President of the India Gospel Mission. The assessee maintained two bank accounts with the Indian Overseas Bank, Kottayam. One account was in the name of the assessee and the other in the name of the India Gospel Mission. A credit of Rs. 5,85,637 appeared in the account of the India Gosp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1830; 1986LabIC1630; (1986)IILLJ316SC; 1986(1)SCALE939; 1986Supp(1)SCC143; [1986]2SCR881
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. In the Reserve Bank of India separate Departmentwise and GroupWise seniority and promotion for cadres of Officers and non-Officers (Award Staff) was prevalent. This would be apparent from the decision of this Court in Reserve Bank of India v. N.C. Paliwal and Ors. : [1977]1SCR377 as well as V.T. Khanzode and Ors. v. Reserve Bank of India and Anr. : (1982)ILLJ465SC .2. In September, 1962, need was felt for maintenance of combined seniority list at each center for the purposes of promotions recommended by National Industrial Tribunal presided over by Mr. Justice K.T. Desai. The recommendations of the said Desai Award for centerwise combined seniority were approved by this Court in 1966. See in this connection the observations in All India Reserve Bank Employees Associations v. Reserve Bank of India : (1965)IILLJ175SC and Reserve Bank of India v. N.C. Paliwal and Ors., (supra). 3. In 1970, the Supervisory Staff in Class I was upgraded to Staff Officers in Class I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1192; (1986)3SCC349; 1986(2)LC384(SC)
B.C. Ray, J.1. Special leave granted, Delay in filing the application for special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution is condoned. Heard learned Counsel for both the parties. The only question that poses itself for decision in this appeal is whether the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can set aside the findings of facts arrived at by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal, Jalna pursuant to an order of remand made by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, even though the Respondent No. 1 submitted to the order of remand without questioning its propriety and validity.2. The Respondent No. 1 Harishchandra was the owner of survey Nos. 143, 144 and half portion of 161 situated at village Reogaon Taluka, District Jalna, Maharashtra. He was in statutory possession of the same under the provisions of Section 38-E of the Hyderabad Tenants and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. The total land in his possession on the appointed day i.e. on 26th January 1962 when the Maha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1668; [1986]160ITR318(SC); 1986(1)SCALE961; 1986Supp(1)SCC308; [1986]2SCR851; 1986(2)LC113(SC)
G.L. Oza, J.1. In this petition the petitioner has challenged an order of penalty imposed against the petitioner by the Wealth Tax Officer at the rate of 1/2 per cent of the total wealth assessed for every month of default and out of seven months default, a penalty imposed was for four months equal to Rs. 6,784. The petitioner had sought for extension of time for three months which was granted and, thereafter filed the return four months after the period extended by the Wealth Tax Officer. This order of the Wealth Tax Officer was maintained by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It appears that during the pendency of the appeal before the 4th respondent the petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging the constitutional validity of Section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 as amended by the Finance Act, 1969 on the ground that it infringes Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. That petition was dismissed by the Division Bench of the Andh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1686; [1986(52)FLR682]; 1986LabIC1193; (1986)IILLJ304SC; 1986(1)SCALE1315; (1986)3SCC238; [1986]2SCR863; 1986(3)SLJ52(SC); 1986(2)LC625(SC)
Murari Mohan Dutt, J.1. Civil Appeal No. 801 of 1976 and Civil Appeal No. 819 (NL) of 1976 have been preferred by Special Leave by the Employees State Insurance Corporation, hereinafter referred to as 'ESI Corporation'. The ESI Corporation has also filed Special Leave Petition Nos. 1134-1145(NL) of 1978. These appeals and the Special Leave Petition raise a common question of law and, as such, they have been heard together. Indeed, by an order of this Court the Special Leave Petitions were directed to be heard along with Civil Appeal No. 801 of 1976. Before we indicate the question of law we may state a few facts. 2. In Civil Appeal No. 801 of 1976, the respondent company, South India Flour Mills (P) Ltd., is engaged in milling wheat into wheat products in its flour mill. It is not disputed that the mill of the respondent company is a factory within the meaning of the Factories Act, 1948. In or about the middle of 1964, the respondent company commenced the construction of another buildi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1194; 1986MhLJ506(SC); 1986(1)SCALE916; (1986)3SCC83; [1986]2SCR839; 1986(2)LC535(SC)
R.S. Pathak J. 1. These are two civil appeals by special leave. The question common to these appeals is whether a lease concluded between a landlord and a tenant in contravention of Clause 22 of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rent Control Order') can be assailed by the landlord as a void transaction in a proceeding between the parties to the lease? 2. Civil Appeal No. 5317 of 1983 is concerned with a shop described as Block No. 5 in a non-residential building situated in Dharampeth, Nagpur. The respondent is the landlord and the appellant is the tenant. The building was constructed before January 1, 1967, and the appellant became a tenant from October 1, 1968. 3. Clause 13 of the Rent Control Order provides that no landlord can determine a lease except with the previous written permission of the Controller, for which he must apply in writing to the Controller. Clause 13(3)(vi) provides that if after hearin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1987Supp(1)SCC430
A.P. Sen and; B.C. Ray, JJ.1. These appeals by special leave are directed against an order passed by the Gujarat High Court dated January 27, 1981 dismissing an application under Section 27(3) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 made by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax.2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the High Court was in error in not calling for a reference under Section 27(3) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The question whether the Commissioner of Wealth Tax could act on material which came into existence subsequent to the order of assessment for purposes of invoking his powers of revision under Section 25(2) of the Act does give rise to a question of law arising out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal and accordingly the High Court should have required the Appellate Tribunal to state a case. The Appellate Tribunal in rejecting the application made by the Commissioner for a reference stated that the answers to both the questions sought to be referred wer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1534; (1986)88BOMLR301; 1986(1)SCALE606; (1986)4SCC78; [1986]2SCR823
E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. This appeal is filed under Section 116-A of the Representation of the people Act, 1951 against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in Election Petition No. 7 of 1985 dismissing the election petition for failure to disclose a cause of action. The appellant and the respondent were candidates along with some others at the last general election held to fill the seat in the Lok Sabha from 25 Amethi Parliamentary Constituency, District Sultanpur in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The results of the election were declared on December 28, 1984 and the respondent was declared elected to the Lok Sabha from the constituency. The appellant questioned the validity of the election of the respondent by an election petition filed before the High Court of Allahabad in Election Petition No. 7 of 1985. The grounds on which the appellant challenged the election of the respondent were : (i) that the respondent had ceased to be an Indian citizen and, therefore, was disqualified ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1200; 1986(34)BLJR587; 1986(1)SCALE1239; (1986)3SCC7; 1986(2)SLJ142(SC); 1986(2)LC362(SC)
B.C. Sen, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the Patna High Court dated November 28, 1984 quashing ah order of the Vice-Chancellor, L.N. Mithila University, Darbhanga dated February 28, 1984 transferring the respondent Dayanand Jha by virtue of his powers under Section 10(14) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 ('Act' for short) from the post of Principal, V.S.J. College, Rajnagar to the post of Reader in R.K. College, Madhubani. The High Court has however reserved liberty to the University to transfer the respondent to any other college maintained by it.2. The issue involved in the appeal is as to the power of the Vice-Chancellor of a University under Section 10(14) of the Act to transfer any teacher of any department or college maintained by the University from the post of Principal of a constituent college to the post of a Reader of another constituent college maintained by it. The High Court while allowing the Writ Petition held th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1440; 1986CriLJ1074; 1986(3)Crimes1(SC); 1987(3)KarLJ112; 1986MPLJ438(SC); 1986(1)SCALE1128; (1986)2SCC709; [1986]2SCR771; 1986(1)LC654(SC)
V. Khalid, J.1. This Criminal appeal by special leave, involves the question : Whether a Sub-ordinate Criminal Court has any inherent jurisdiction outside the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code Incidentally, the scope of Article 141 of the Constitution also comes up for consideration. 2. The facts of the case can be stated first. The appellants, two in number, are the accused in a complaint filed by the first respondent in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, New Delhi, disclosing an offence punishable under Section 67 and 72C(l)(a) of the Mines Act, 1952, read with Regulation 106 of the Metallifarous Mines Regulation 1961. The learned Magistrate took the complaint on file and issued summons to the accused to appear on 6.1.1972. On 6,1.1972 neither the complainant nor the accused were present and therefore, the Magistrate passed the following order : Accused not present. None present for the complainant also. The complaint is hereby dismissed in default and for wan...
Tag this Judgment!