Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC427; (1987)66CTR(SC)135; [1988]169ITR221(SC); JT1987(4)SC208; 1987(2)SCALE894; 1987(Supp)SCC442; [1988]1SCR689
Murari Mohan Dutt, J.1. The appellants, who are all registered firms within the meaning of Section 2(39), Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', have preferred these appeals against the judgments of the Gauhati High Court overruling the challenge of the appellants as to the legality of the interest charged by the Income-tax Officer for the delayed filing of returns and also as to the constitutional validity of Sub-section (4) of Section 139 of the Act, as it stood before April 1, 1971.2. The relevant provisions of Section 139, as it stood prior to April 1, 1971, are as follows:S. 139(1). Every person, if his total income...during the previous year exceeded the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax, shall furnish a return of his income....(a) in the case of every person...before the expiry of six months from the end of the previous year..., or before the 30th day of June of the assessment year, whichever is later; (b) in the case of every other person...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC191; 1987(14)ECC239; 1989(23)LC178(SC); 1987(32)ELT234(SC); JT1987(4)SC421; 1987(2)SCALE903; 1987Supp(1)SCC350; [1988]1SCR700; [1988]4STC421(SC)
Murari Mohan Dutt, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Delhi High Court allowing in part only the petition of the appellants under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. Appellant U.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited, has a composite mill wherein it manufactures fabrics of different types. In order to manufacture the said fabrics, yarn is obtained at an intermediate stage. The yarn so obtained is further processed in an integrated process in the said composite mill of appellant 1 for weaving the same into fabrics. The appellants do not dispute that the different kinds of fabrics which are manufactured in the mill are liable to payment of excise duty on their removal from the factory. They also do not dispute their liability in respect of yarn which is also removed from the factory. It is the contention of the appellants that no duty of excise can be levied and collected in respect of yarn which is obtained at an intermediate stage and, thereafter, subjected t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC434; JT1987(4)SC182; 1988LabIC948; (1988)ILLJ231SC; 1987(2)SCALE867; 1987Supp(1)SCC579; 1988(1)LC152(SC)
1. This is an appeal by special leave from an order dated 2nd September 1980 of the Allahabad High Court. By the above order, the High Court had dismissed in limine the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging his removal from the service of the Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation').2. The appellant was the District Manager of the Corporation at Allahabad from December 1975 till April 1978. During the period from December 1975 till the middle of May 1976, he also held additional charge as its District Manager at Gorakhpur. The charge against the appellant was that during the period he functioned as District Manager, Allahabad, 'he failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion of duty and committed misconduct inasmuch as he showed undue favour to M/s. Iqbal Ahmed Ansari by purchasing Pastramis from the said firm at the rate of Rs. 7 per 100 sq. ft. upto 15.5.1976 and after that at Rs. 8.20 per 100 sq. ft. without calling for any quotations...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1987(4)SC224; 1987(1)SCALE1232; 1989Supp(2)SCC428
ORDER1. In 1986 when the Court was about to direct introduction of All India Examination for Post Graduate Course there was an observation that in regard to the first year, some adjustment if necessary could be made in regard to difficulties which may arise with reference to students in different states. Keeping that in view and confined to the year of 1987 only we are prepared to accept the request made in the petition. The date of eligibility as fixed by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences is 31st March, 1981, for entitlement to sit at the examination, it may be shifted to 15 April 1988, so as to cover the case of the petitioners. In this Miscellaneous application we are, however, not prepared to change the date schedule. According to it the last date of receipt of the application is 31.10.1987. In case applications can be received by 31st of October 1987 from those who are intended to benefited by the application, we have no objection to their applications being entertained....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1989Supp(2)SCC295
Ranganath Misra and; S. Ranganathan, JJ.1. These appeals are by claimants whose lands have been included in a Development Scheme by the Patiala Improvement Trust under the Punjab Town Improvement Act of 1922. The publication under Section 36 of the Act corresponding to Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, was made on 14-1-1974. Action corresponding to Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was taken in December 1976 and the award was made in July 1978. As the entire compensation fixed was not offered, the appellants did not accept part payment of the compensation and filed writ petitions before the High Court challenging the proceedings on several grounds including delay. The plea of delay was rejected by the High Court on the ground that the writ petitions suffered from laches and approached the court belatedly. That is how these appeals have come to this Court by special leave.2. It is not disputed that the award has been made on 29-7-1978. It is also not in dispute that several ref...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1989Supp(2)SCC498
Ranganath Misra and; S. Ranganathan, JJ.1. The appellant in each of these three appeals was an employee of Lucknow Producers' Cooperative Milk Union, Respondent 1. All of them were punished in departmental proceedings. Separate writ petitions were filed in the High Court challenging the punishment and the writ petitions were disposed of by a common judgment. At the time special leave was granted in the first two appeals it was confined to one question, namely, whether issuance of the notification under Section 122 of the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, taking away the disciplinary control of the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Institutional Service Board in regard to the employees of Respondent 1 was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is not disputed that with the issue of the notification referred to above the appellate forum against disciplinary punishment has been taken away and delinquent employees of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC2429; (1987)89BOMLR622; JT1987(4)SC215; 1987MhLJ1114(SC); 1987(2)SCALE870; 1987(Supp)SCC566; [1988]1SCR672; 1988(1)LC67(SC)
M.H. Kania, J.1. This is an appeal by Special Leave against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court.2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the Appeal can be shortly stated. The Respondent before us, who was the petitioner before the Bombay High Court, is the owner of three agricultural lands described in the judgment appealed against, situated at Talkhed, Taluk Malkapur, District Buldana in the Vidarbha area of Maharashtra, Originally, these fields belonged to one Hiralal who died in 1916. Hiralal started the construction of a dharamshala and a temple in 1912 in the said lands whose construction was completed by the Respondent's mother during the minority of the Respondent. The Respondent's mother also constructed another dharamshala on a separate piece of land. The facts on record show that Umaji, the father of the Appellant, was appointed a Pujari by the then landlord to worship the idols in the aforesaid temple and to look after the management of the dhar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC54; JT1987(4)SC202; 1987(2)SCALE874; 1987Supp(1)SCC528; [1988]1SCR679
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. In the town of Bikaner there is a Math known as 'Juna Math'. The first appellant is the present Mahant of the Math. The second appellant is the presiding deity of the Math. For convenience and brevity we will refer to them collectively as 'the Math'.2. The primary question raised in this appeal, by special leave, relates to maintainability of the cross objection filed by the Math before the Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan (Jodhpur Bench) in Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1975. The Division Bench has dismissed the cross-objection as not maintainable.3. The background facts are these:One Lalgiri Maharaj was a previous Mahant of the Math. He had several vices. He mismanaged the Math and recklessly disposed of its properties. On August 19, 1963 Lalgiri gave on lease the land measuring 2211 Sq. yards in favour of Madan Mohan. The lease was for 99 years with monthly rent of Rs. 30. Again on March 22, 1968 Lalgiri sold 446 sq. yards of land to Madan Mohan. It ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC1; JT1987(4)SC194; 1987(2)SCALE856; (1988)1SCC63; [1988]1SCR662
ORIGINAL/CIVlL APPELLATE JURlSDlCTION: Writ Petition No. 557 of 1983 etc.(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) 665V.M. Tarkunde, A.K. Sen, S. Markandeya and N.D.B. Raju for the Petitioners.S.N. Kacker, Raju Ramachandran and Mrs. Shobha Dikshit for the Respondents.The Judgment of the Court was delivered byB.C. RAY, J. This civil appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order passed by High Court, Allahabad dismissing the writ petition filed by the Co-operative Housing Society formed as Kendriya Karamchari Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd. and its President challenging the order of refusal of permission to the lay out plan submitted by them to the New Okhla Development Authority to be hereinafter referred in brief as NOIDA and also refusing to exempt the lands belonging to the Society falling within NOIDA Area from acquisition. The facts giving rise to this appeal are shortly as follows:- The U.P. Industrial Development Act, 1976 was enacted with the object to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC24; 65(1988)CLT214; JT1987(4)SC170; 1987LabIC1892; 1987(2)SCALE880; 1987Supp(1)SCC553; [1988]1SCR650; 1989(1)SLJ54(SC)
E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. With effect from 1-1-1948 a number of princely States which were situated within the territories of the present State of Orissa were merged with the Province of Orissa as it then existed. On such merger the High Schools within the said princely States also came under the jurisdiction of the Province of Orissa. The said High Schools belonged to two categories -- namely 'A' type schools which were full-fledged High Schools which were actually sending candidates for the matriculation examination and 'B' type schools which were incomplete schools not sending candidates for the matriculation examination. On the said High Schools being taken over by the Province of Orissa, the teachers serving in the said High Schools came under the control of the Government of Orissa. It then became necessary to make an order to regulate the services of the said teachers. The Government of Orissa in the Education Department issued a letter dt. 5-1-1949 to the Director of Public Inst...
Tag this Judgment!