Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1987Supp(1)SCC206
R.S. Pathak, C.J. and; Ranganath Misra, JJ.1. A dispute has been raised before us with regard to the identity of the detenu, Mukhtiar Singh. There is material on record before us to indicate the possibility of a mistaken identity. We, therefore, direct the learned District Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar, to make an enquiry into the matter and submit a report within one month from the date of the receipt of this order, after adducing opportunity to the parties to lead evidence on the question whether the petitioner, Mukhtiar Singh, is in fact the person whose detention is intended. It will be open to the District Sessions Judge to direct release of the detenu Mukhtiar Singh on parole if he considers it necessary for the purpose of inquiry....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC802; [1987]167ITR204(SC); JT1987(1)SC285; 1987(1)SCALE213; (1987)1SCC568; [1987]2SCR107; 1987(1)LC325(SC)
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. Is the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad prohibited from levying Municipal taxes from persons inducted by it in the property of its own ownership under the hire purchase agreement? The validity of levy of Municipal taxes by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad from allottees to whom the Municipal Corporation had allotted buildings constructed under 'Low Income Housing Scheme' launched by it was questioned by the allottees. The learned Single Judge upheld the validity but the Division Bench in appeal, Under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, took a contrary view. The Municipal Corporation has preferred the present appeal, Appeal by Special Leave and has contended that the learned Single Judge was right in upholding the levy and the Division Bench was wrong in holding it invalid.2. The facts giving rise to the writ petition instituted by the 72 allottees to whom the houses were allotted need to be stated briefly:-The Hyderabad Municipal Corporation started a scheme ca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1987(1)SC333
ORDERA.P. Sen, J.1. These applications for directions by the State Electricity Board appear to be wholly misconceived. The ad interim order dated September 15, 1980 which left undisturbed the promotions already made, was an interim order and it came to an end with the dismissal of the appeals being C.A. Nos. 2006-10/86 by the Court's order dated February 18,1986 as being infructuous. The Court expressed no opinion as to the validity or otherwise of the quote rule since all the petitioners in the writ petition before the High Court had in the meanwhile been promoted as Junior Engineers and all legal contentions kept open. This question came up for consideration in the subsequent decision of this Court in Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala v. Ravinder Kumar Sharma : (1987)ILLJ115SC , which lays down that the fixation of a quote as between diploma holders and non- diplomaholders Line Superintendents for purposes of promotion, who were integrated into a common cadre by the State Elect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1987Supp(1)SCC254
S. Natarajan and; Sabyasachi Mukharji, JJ.1. In this case, leave to appeal was granted. However we find that before the High Court, the appellant had given an undertaking on 8-9-1983 to hand over and deliver vacant possession by the end of September 1985. On the basis of this undertaking, the High Court granted time up to September 1985 to vacate the premises in question. In that view of the matter, whatever be the merits of the case, we in exercise of our discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution decline to interfere with the finding made by the High Court. The appeal must therefore fail.2. It however appears that the appellant is carrying on a business of shop owner for some time and the respondent is a charitable institution. While the appeal is dismissed, we direct that in case the respondent proposes to let out the premises, then he should give the first option to the appellant upon his arranging to pay a market rate for the same. With these, directions, the appeal is dismi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1987(Supp)SCC136
S. Natarajan and; Sabysaschi Mukharji, JJ.1. The following question came up for consideration before the High Court of Allahabad under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the “Act”):“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it was rightly held that (1) proposed dividends, (2) provision for taxation, (3) credit balance of profit and loss account, (4) depreciation reserve (being excess of book depreciation over depreciation allowed in the income tax assessment) represented ‘reserves’ and were to be included in the computation of capital under the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963?”The High Court by its judgment and order dated December 23, 1971 answered the question on the different items. The High Court was of the view that the four items, namely, (1) proposed dividends, (2) provision for taxation, (3) credit balance of profit and loss account and (4) depreciation reserve, that is, excess of book depreciation ov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC808; JT1987(1)SC290; (1987)IILLJ3SC; 1987(1)SCALE203; (1987)1SCC551; [1987]2SCR94; 1987(3)SLJ154(SC); 1987(1)LC390(SC)
A.P. Sen, J.1. This appeal by special leave directed, against the judgment and order of the Delhi High Court dated September 11, 1985 raises a question of frequent occurrence. The question is whether where a Government servant retains accommodation allotted to him under SR 317-B-11 beyond the concessional period of two months permissible under sub-r. (2) thereof, the liability to pay damages equivalent to the market rent for the period of such unauthorised occupation under SR 317-B-22 is contingent upon the Directorate of Estates serving a notice upon him that he would be liable to pay market rent for retention of such accommodation as held by the High Court.2. Put very briefly, the essential facts are these. In the year 1968 the respondent who was then a Squadron Leader in the Indian Air Force on being posted at the Headquarters, Western Command, Palam, Cantonment, Delhi, applied on May 9, 1968 for allotment of accommodation in the Curzon Road Hostel, New Delhi. In the application for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC806a; 1987CriLJ715; JT1987(1)SC334; 1987(1)SCALE193; (1987)2SCC648; [1987]2SCR115
G.L. Oza, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant after the grant of special leave by this Court against his conviction under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentence to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs. 150 and also under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 100 awarded by Special Judge, Ambala and maintained by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana by its judgment dated 23.12.1977.2. According to the prosecution Shri M.G. Devasahayam P.W. 4 Sub-Divisional Officer, Jagadhri had sent a complaint against the appellant to the Station House Officer, Jagadhri on 7.6.1972 on the basis of which the first information report was recorded at Police Station about 4 P.M. on 7.6.1972. The Sub-Divisional Officer has received an application from one Gian Singh complainant about the conduct of the appellant. It was alleged by Gian Singh P.W. 2 in the complaint that the appellant who was a Patwari of Ba...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1987Supp(1)SCC199
B.C. Ray and; M.P. Thakkar, JJ.1. In this matter the detention order has been quashed in May 1985. This special leave petition is coming up more than 1 1/2 years after the quashing of the order and in a way it has become irrelevant if not infructuous. When we pointed out this aspect to learned counsel for the petitioner it was stated that such a situation is faced in a large number of matters and even when the decision of the High Court is erroneous and unsustainable on merits it is not possible to get a decision of this Court to settle the law since we are reluctant to entertain such a petition more than one-and-a-half years after the detention order was quashed. In the result the point would always remain unresolved and the matter could never be set right. When it was pointed out that counsel should seek an order for listing the matter at an early date by mentioning before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India, counsel requested that the matter may be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Jus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC2080; 1987CriLJ1923; JT1987(1)SC709; 1987Supp(1)SCC190
ORDERM.P. Thakkar, J.1. While we are not happy with the manner in which the detention order has been quashed, having regard to the fact that about 1 year and nine months have elapsed since the quashing of the detention order (the order was quashed in May, 1985 and we are in January, 1987), we do not think it would be proper for us to entertain this petition for special leave. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has called our attention to the following passage in State of Rajasthan v. Shamsher Singh, : 1985CriLJ1348 :We agree with the principle indicated above and in our opinion, in the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that there has been any negligence or remissness on the part of the State Government in dealing with the representation of the detenu or in the matter of causing the same to be placed before the Advisory Board. We are impressed by the fact that no prejudice has been caused to the detenu on account of the delay of a day beyond the statutory period in placing th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC1726; 1987Supp(1)SCC338
ORDER1.We are of the opinion that this is a case in which the application for condonation of delay should have been granted for the mere asking of it. The appeal was presented in time though it was lodged in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge instead of lodging it in the Court of the learned District Judge. The memo was returned for presentation to the Court of (District Judge and it was presented in his Court on that very day. On these facts it is obvious that there was more than sufficient cause for the inadvertent delay which was not intentional (what was the appellant to gain by such delay ?). The Court should not have therefore made an injustice-oriented approach and rejected the application for condonation of delay.2. The appeal is allowed, orders of the Courts below are set aside, delay is condoned. The matter will now go back to the learned District Judge who will dispose it of on merits in accordance with law expeditiously after affording reasonable opportunity...
Tag this Judgment!