Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1986(2)SCALE125; (1986)3SCC587
ORDER1. Dr. Chitale has squarely raised the question of vires of Rule 5 of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 the effect of which is to ban Government employees from participation in any form of political activity. He contends that the ban offends Article 19(1)(a) and (c) and that it is not protected by Clauses (2) and (4) of Article 19 as it cannot be said to have been imposed in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order or morality. Dr. Chitale relies upon the decisions of this Court in : 1983CriLJ1872 and : (1983)ILLJ299SC , which to the extent that they go, appear to support his contention. The question raised is of great importance and the acceptance of the contention may lead to complete revision of the accepted Civil Service Philosophy. We think it is desirable that these matters should be heard by a Constitution Bench. The Registry will seek appropriate directions from Hon. the Chief Justice....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC877; 1986(2)SCALE188; (1986)3SCC727; [1986]3SCR345
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.1. The main judgment in this case was delivered by us on 22nd June 1984 and we held in that judgment that 'wholesale reservation made by some of the State Governments on the basis of 'domicile' or residence requirement within the State or on the basis of institutional preference for students who have passed the qualifying examination held by the University or the State, excluding all students not satisfying this requirement, regardless of merit' was unconstitutional and void as offending the equality clause of the Constitution. But after condemning such wholesale reservation, we proceeded to observe that the very mandate of the equality clause viewed in the perspective of social justice, would justify some extent of reservation based on residence requirement within the State or on institutional preference for students passing the qualifying examination held by the University or the State and addressing ourselves to the question to what extent such reservation might b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1809; 1987(11)ECC89; 1986(26)ELT3(SC); 1986(2)SCALE106; (1986)3SCC469; [1986]3SCR367; [1986]63STC239(SC); 1986(2)LC545(SC)
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.1. The short question that arises for determination in this appeal by certificate is whether shrimps, prawns and lobsters subjected to processing like cutting of heads and tails, peeling, deveining, cleaning and freezing cease to be the same commodity and become a different commodity for the purpose of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Can they still go under the description of shrimps, prawns and lobsters or in other words, when we use the words 'shrimps, prawns and lobsters' do they mean only raw shrimps, prawns and lobsters as caught from the sea or do they also include processed and frozen shrimps, prawns and lobsters. This question which falls for determination in the present appeal arising out of the following facts.2. The appellants are a partnership firm carrying on business as dealers in shrimps, prawns and lobsters and other sea food products. The appellants are registered as a dealer both under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 and the Central Sales Tax Act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC2110; 1986(2)SCALE74; (1986)3SCC518; 1986(2)LC504(SC)
ORDER1. The insurer is in appeal by special leave. The short point canvassed by it before us in as to whether the insurer would have statutory liability beyond a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as had been provided in Section 95(2)(b)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 at the time the claim arose in 1961. That provision confined the liability of the insurer to a sum of Rs. 20,000/- in respect of persons other then passengers carried for hire or reward. Admittedly, the deceased was a third party and had been knocked down by the bus when riding on cycle. In the face of the provision contained in Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the liability of the insurer could not be in excess of the statutory limit. We are inclined to agree with the learned Counsel for the appellant that the High Court was in error in fixing the liability of the insurer at a sum above RS. 20,000/-.2. Counsel for the owner respondent contended that the liability of the insurer was co-extensive with that of the owner and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC47; 1986(2)SCALE84; (1986)3SCC519; 1986(2)LC365(SC)
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Kerala reversing that of the Tribunal constituted under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act 1973. The Appellant had sought and obtained from the Tribunal a declaration that an extent of 2950 acres of land was 'cardamom plantation' and not a private forest which could vest in the Government under the Act. An appeal preferred to the High Court by the Government and the Custodian under Section 8-A of the Act was allowed and the declaration was confined to a small extent of twenty-five acres. We have perused the relevant evidence and we arc satisfied that the finding of the High Court was substantially correct. We do not consider it necessary in this appeal under Article 136 to discuss the evidence at any great length merely to reiterate the conclusion arrived at by the High Court. Shri Venugopal, learned Counsel for the Appellant placed reliance primarily on the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC747; (1986)3SCC527; [1987]66STC153(SC)
P.N. Bhagwati, C.J.1. In view of the judgment delivered by us today in Civil Appeal No. 220 (NT) of 1986 (reported in : 1986(26)ELT3(SC) ), we allow the present appeals, set aside the judgment of the High Court and direct that the purchases of shrimps, prawns! and lobsters made by the appellants for the purpose of fulfilling the existing contracts for export shall not be liable to be included in the taxable turnover of the appellants. The respondents will pay the cost of the appeals to the appellants. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1477; (1986)58CTR(SC)129; 1986(10)ECC96; 1986(26)ELT10(SC); [1986]161ITR505(SC); JT1986(1)SC220; 1986(2)SCALE47; (1986)3SCC489; [1986]3SCR294
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This appeal is by special leave from a judgment and order of Punjab and Haryana High Court in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. The judgment in question is reported in . By a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the order of the Income Tax Department dated 10th May, 1972, passed under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the 'Act') and Rule 112(II) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter called the 'Rules') was challenged. The division bench by the impugned judgment allowed the petition, quashed the search and seizure warrants and directed the Income-Tax Department to return the moneys to the Customs authorities and gave certain consequential directions. In order to appreciate the points involved, it is necessary to refer to certain facts as found by the High Court. On 23rd August, 1970 the petitioner before the High Court, who is the respondent here, was travelling by car, alleged to be belongin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1724; (1986)58CTR(SC)99; [1986]161ITR315(SC); JT1986(1)SC171; 1986(2)SCALE38; (1986)3SCC685; [1986]3SCR308
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This is an appeal from the decision and judgment of the High Court of Patna dated 23rd November, 1973. The appeal is by certificate from the High Court under Section 261 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter called the 'Act'. The assessee firm was registered in 1945 under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. The registration was upto the assessment year 1961-62. There was a change in the Constitution of the firm on the last day of the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1962-63 on 8th November, 1961. From November 9, 1961, a new instrument of partnership came into existence. On September 29, 1962, the firm applied for registration under the Act in Form 11A. The Income-tax Officer refused registration on the ground that the case fell under Section 184(7) of the Act. The Tribunal, thereafter upheld the order of the Income-tax Officer. There was a reference to the High Court. It was held by the High Court that the application was filed in September, 1962...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1863; (1986)58CTR(SC)164; [1986]161ITR768(SC); 1986(2)SCALE54; 1986Supp(1)SCC375; [1986]3SCR315
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. These two appeals are from the judgment and order of the Madras High Court dated 20th September, 1973 by certificates of fitness granted by the High Court under Section 65 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, hereinafter called the Act.2. Civil Appeal No. 2086 of 1974 is by accountable persons and Civil Appeal No. 67 of 1975 is by the revenue. The judgment under appeal is reported in : [1974]94ITR323(Mad) .3. The accountable persons are the sons of one late M. Chindermbara Chettiar hereinafter called the deceased. The deceased was the Karta of a Hindu undivided family. He gave his first son Muthiah, in adoption to his divided paternal uncle Pethachi Chettiar, and adoption ceremony was held on 7th June, 1931. Subsequently his second son, also called Pethachi, was born in 1933, with whom the deceased was joint throughout his life.4. On 21 February, 1954, prior to proceeding to Malaya by air, the deceased took out a personal accident insurance policy with the United Ind...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1986SC1746; (1986)58CTR(SC)105; [1986]161ITR168(SC); 1986(2)SCALE33; (1986)3SCC528; [1986]3SCR214; [1986]SuppSCR214; 1986(2)LC502(SC)
R.S. Pathak J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad pronouncing on the meaning of the expression 'reserves' in the Second Schedule to the Super profits Tax Act, 1963.2. For the assessment years 1961-62 and 1962-63 the assessee had debited an amount of Rs. 5,40,000 and an amount of Rs. 2,76,000 to its profit and loss accounts of the relevant previous years respectively. The amounts were debited on the ground that they represented the assessee's liability of the relevant years for the additional cane price payable to cane growers in terms of a price linking formula to be fixed by the Competent Authority under the Sugarcane Price Control Order 1955. Accordingly an item of Rs. 8,16,000 being the sum of the two amounts, was shown in the Balance Sheet of the assessee as on September 30, 1962. The item was shown under the head 'Current liabilities and provisions'.3. In assessment proceedings under the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 for th...
Tag this Judgment!