Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1988Supp(1)SCC173
V. Khalid and; G.L. Oza, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent. A building belonging to the respondent was leased out to the appellants for five years in 1943, on a monthly rent of Rs 125. Thereafter, an order of requisition was made in 1959 and Civil Judge, Senior Division, Baroda was appointed arbitrator to fix the reasonable compensation for occupation. The arbitrator went into the question and held that since the building was leased out in 1943 for Rs 125 per month and the same amount was being paid till 1959, Rs 125 would be a reasonable amount and fixed that amount as compensation for occupation. Aggrieved by this order the respondent before us moved the High Court of Gujarat by filing an appeal. The High Court set aside the order of the arbitrator and directed him to consider the matter afresh. By the time the matter went back, the Civil Judge, Senior Division, who had earlier decided the matter, had been transferred. He declined to go into the questi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC1642; [1987(54)FLR571]; 1987LabIC1321; 1987Supp(1)SCC77
1. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant who has taken us through the relevant parts of the record and the judgment of the High Court. We are of the opinion that the High Court was right in taking the view that the finding recorded by the disciplinary authority holding the respondent guilty of the alleged misconduct was based on 'no evidence'. We see no reason to disturb the said conclusion in this appeal by special leave. The reasoning of the High Court is unexceptionable and unassailable on this score. Since we are upholding the decision of the High Court on this point, it is not necessary for us to express any opinion on the other point, namely, as to whether the charge-sheet was issued by the competent authority and we leave the question open for decision in future if an occasion arises. The trial court will now proceed with the matter with expedition as directed by the High Court and dispose it of in accordance with law preferably within three months of the receipt of a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC1150; JT1987(1)SC557; 1987(1)SCALE433; (1987)2SCC219; 1987(1)LC404(SC)
ORDER1. The appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order passed by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dated January 17, 1985 disallowing the revision preferred by the appellant under Sub-section (8) of Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 in a proceeding brought by the respondents for recovery of the demised premises under Section 14(1) (e) wherein the appellants had been granted leave under Sub-section (5) of Section 25B to contest the application for eviction.2. Shri Kacker, learned counsel for the appellants contends that there was a duty cast on the High Court under Sub-section (8) of Section 25B of the Act not only to call for the records but to satisfy itself that the order made by the Rent Controller under Section 14(1) (e) read with Section 25B(1) was in accordance with law. He submits that there is total non-application of mind on the part of the learned Single Judge to the requirements of Section 14(1)(e). According to him, the respondents...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC962; JT1987(1)SC507; 1987(1)SCALE452; (1987)2SCC338; 1987(1)LC408(SC)
M.P. Thakkar, J.1. Whether or not an adoption had taken place way back in 1956 is the controversy at the center of the stage.2. One Rahasa Pandiani (original defendant No. 1), widow of Lakshminarayana Panda had adopted one Gangapani, the son of the sister of her deceased husband in 1942 by a registered document. The said Gangapani died in 1953. Respondent No. 1 Gokulananda Panda (Original plaintiff') instituted the suit giving rise to the present appeal. He was a minor at the material time and the suit was instituted through his natural father and maternal uncle seeking a declaration that he was adopted as a son by defendant No. 1 Rahasa on March 22, 1956. The suit was instituted because she had alienated some of the properties in favour of appellants 2 to 8 and had made a will in favour of the deity bequeathing the rest of the properties on the premise that there was no such adoption and she was free to deal with the properties of her deceased husband. Defendant No. 1 resisted the sui...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1987Supp(1)SCC336
O. Chinnappa Reddy and; S. Natarajan, JJ.1. The complaint of the petitioner is that his services had been terminated without any prior notice to him taking advantage of Rule 49(2)(v) of the University Non-teaching Employees (Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1971. He questions the validity of the rule. It is not necessry for us to go into that question. In the present case long before the termination of the services of the petitioner he was repeatedly told by the Principal that if he failed to report for duty he would be treated as absent from duty and make himself liable for all consequences that might ensue therefrom. He was also given an opportunity to get himself examined by the doctor specified in the letter of the Principal. The petitioner neither reported for duty nor came forward for medical examination. We do not see any justification for the complaint of the petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC1488; 1987(11)ECC421; 1987(28)ELT50(SC); JT1987(1)SC476; 1987(1)SCALE382; (1987)1SCC695; [1987]2SCR318; 1987(1)LC630(SC)
Ranganath Misra, J.1. This appeal under Section 35-L of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 is directed against the decision of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal upholding the decision of the Appellate Collector of Central Excises, Madras. The short facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that the appellant manufactures aluminium wire rods out of duty paid E.C. grade aluminium ingots on job basis on behalf of various customers. Between September 1974 and May 1977 it received a sum of more than 6 lakh rupees from customers by issue of debit notes over and above the amounts received under regular invoices. The Excise Authorities came across 966 such debit notes and on the basis thereof called upon the appellant to show cause why that amount which was said to be handling charges should not be added to the invoice price and differential duty thereupon be recovered. The Revenue took the stand that there was suppression of information on the part of the appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC824; JT1987(1)SC483; 1987(1)SCALE372; (1987)2SCC395; [1987]65STC172(SC); 1987(1)LC399(SC)
Ranganath Misra, J.1. Special leave has been granted limited to the question as to whether insurance charges is a part of 'turn-over' under Section 2(s) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 for purposes of levy of sales-tax. The tax authorities relying upon the definition of 'turn-over' held that insurance charges were includible for computing tax. The Appellate Tribunal came to the same conclusion and said :It is only when the buyer desires that the risk during transit should be covered and the seller recovers insurance charges from the buyers such charges do not form part of the purchase price. Although insurance charges incurred to cover risk in transit cannot be considered as some-thing done in respect of goods as observed by their Lordships of the Madras High Court in the decision reported in 23 S.T.C. 154, in the instant case it is not the case of the appellants that the buyers had desired that the transit risk should be covered on their behalf. On the contrary, we n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1987Supp(1)SCC638
A.P. Sen and; v. Balakrishnan Eradi, JJ.1. The only question involved in this appeal by special leave is whether the appellant was guilty of culpable homicide amounting to murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 or of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part I.2. This was a rather unfortunate incident resulting in the loss of a precious human life. A batch of students of Motilal Nehru Regional Engineering College, Allahabad after they obtained degree in Engineering had been sent to BHEL, Hardwar for training. On the fateful day, the appellant Arvind Kumar and the deceased Om Prakash Gupta came late and were not allowed to join their classes. They took the key from PW 4 Ajit Singh and went to his room in the hostel. When PW 4 came to his room at about 12.30 p.m. he found the appellant and the deceased playing a game of cards. There was a sudden quarrel leading to an altercation and the appellant whipped out a knife and struck...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1987)3SCC62
A.P. Sen and; v. Balakrishana Eradi, JJ.1. The subject-matter in dispute was a tenement on the first floor of a building in the walled city of Delhi. During the recent rains in August 1986 the building itself has collapsed and it no longer exists. In view of the said development, the subject-matter having been destroyed, we find it difficult to grant any relief to the appellant. We must mention that the High Court by its order dated October 29, 1962, in second appeal reversed the order of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, as well as the Rent Controller and held that the respondent has proved his bona fide requirement under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.2. All that we can do is to direct the respondent to waive all the arrears of rent and in addition to pay to the appellant a sum of Rs 1000 within one month from today for the loss of her leasehold interest. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1987(1)SC525; 1987Supp(1)SCC73
ORDERE.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. We have heard learned Counsel for all the parties. We are of the view that Judgment of the Labour Court in so far as it directs the management to pay notice pay and retrenchment compensation in addition to the amount already received by the workmen concerned under the Special Opportunity Plan is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. We set aside the judgment of the Labour Court to that extent. We are happy to record that the IBM World Trade Corporation India Superannuation Scheme Trust, respondent No. 2 herein, has agreed to pay a consolidated sum of Rs. 5,000/-each to such of the employees who resigned and left on or after 1-11-1976 when the Special Opportunity Plan was announced and were not entitled to pension under the IBM World Trade Corporation India Superannuation Scheme and where any such employee is dead to his legal heir/s. We direct that the payment may be made accordingly. The above payment shall be paid in full and final satisfaction ...
Tag this Judgment!