Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC1520; JT1987(4)SC8; 1987(2)SCALE675; (1988)1SCC418; [1988]1SCR253
O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.1. This group of appeals raises the question of award of interest by an arbitrator to whom a reference is made without the intervention of the court. Special leave to appeal was granted under Article 136 of the Constitution limited to the question of award of interest during the period prior to the reference and during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings. Special leave was not granted in regard to the award of interest subsequent to the date of the arbitrator's award. This question, therefore, does not concern us in these appeals.2. The various references to arbitration in these cases were in regard to work done by different contractors in excess of what was stipulated under the several contracts. The contracts generally contained a clause to the following effect:Clause 11-The Engineer-in-charge shall have power to make any alterations in or additions to the original specifications, drawings, designs, and instructions that may appear to him to be necessary...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1987(3)SC655; 1987(2)SCALE658; 1987(Supp)SCC650; [1988]1SCR272; [1987]67STC233(SC)
ORDER1. Special leave granted.2. The appellant is a registered dealer under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 ('Act' for short) and is also a licencee under the Haryana Control of Brick Supply Order, 1972 ('Order' for short). In respect of assessment of sales-tax for the accounting period 1981-82, it claimed deduction of a sum of Rs.1,49,600.92 out of gross turnover on the ground that it had purchased sun-dried bricks from one Sardool Singh, a registered dealer on payment of sales-tax under the Act and that amount represented the sale price of such tax-paid bricks. The claim was rejected by the authorities under the Act. In the writ petition before the High Court the claim was rejected on the ground that raw bricks (i.e. un-burnt bricks) did not come within the purview of the notification of 5th May, 1973, issued by the State Government in exercise of power vested under Section 18 of the Act prescribing levy of tax at the first point in respect of the named goods of which brick w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC2200; JT1987(3)SC661; 1987(2)SCALE653; (1987)4SCC533; [1988]1SCR303
B.C. Ray, J.1. Special leave granted. Arguments heard.2. The subject matter of challenge in this appeal is the order dated 7th April, 1986 made by the High Court of Bombay allowing the writ petition No. 189 of 1986 quashing the permission granted in favour of the petitioner by the Government by its order dated 24.12.1985 permitting the shifting of the country liquor shop from Mouza Sawli to Mouza Narsi Chaurasta as well as the order of the High Court dated 17.7.1986 rejecting the review petition No. 837 of 1986. The petitioner's father had a licence to run the country liquor shop in village Narsi in Taluka Biloli, District Nanded, Maharashtra. In 1983 the said licence was transferred in the name of the petitioner (respondent No. 5 in this appeal). The appellant was granted a licence, commonly known as C.L. III licence for vending country liquor in village, Sawli, Taluka Biloli, District Nanded. In November, 1984, the appellant was permitted to join one Ataullah as his partner to run th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1988(34)ELT419(SC); [1987]168ITR616(SC); JT1987(4)SC68; 1987(2)SCALE661; 1987(Supp)SCC760
ORDER1. Special leave granted.2. This appeal by special leave arises out of proceedings for recovery of tax under Section 226(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The question is whether it is open to a Court, to whom an application is made under Section 226(4) of the Act by the Income Tax Department, to decide whether the amount claimed by the Income Tax Department is a debt due from the assessee.3. In case No. 181 of 1985 in the Court of Sub-Judge, Cuttack, the judgment debtor deposited a sum of Rs. 3,08, 533.10 to the credit of the decree obtained by the decree holders who are the petitioners before us. The Income Tax Officer filed an application on November 20, 1985 before that Court under Section 226(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for adjustment of the aforesaid amount, namely, Rs. 3,08,533.10 against alleged income-tax dues of the decree holders (appellants herein) amounting to Rs. 6,88,244/-. The decree holders objected on the ground that no notice of demand as required under Section...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1987(4)SC92; 1988Supp(1)SCC438
ORDERA.P. Sen, J.1. Special leave granted. Arguments heard on the application made by the parties for leave to compound the offence under Section 320 of the CrPC, 1973.2. It appears that the appellant opened fire with his country-made pistol as a result of which the complainant PW 2 Pearey Mia was struck with pellets on the face and neck. The appellant was accordingly convicted for an offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The parties are closely related being brothers-in-law and by, their application they pray for leave to compound the offence with a view to maintain their good relations. It is, stated at the bar by learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant has given up his claim with respect to lands in dispute and has also paid in addition Rs. 5,000/- as compensation to the complainant.3. In the circumstances, we allow the application. The appeal accordingly succeeds and is allowed and the con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC6; JT1987(3)SC617; 1988LabIC213; (1988)IILLJ435SC; 1987(2)SCALE625; (1987)4SCC738; [1988]1SCR228; 1988(1)SLJ90(SC); 1988(1)LC48(SC)
E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. The above appeals arise out of three petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India bearing Writ Petition Nos. 1367, 1389 and 1448 of 1973 on the file of the High Court of Madras. The appellant v. Balasubramaniam was the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1389 of 1973 and S. Swaminathan and S. Suruli were the petitioners in the other two writ petitions. All of them were working as Supervisors in the Engineering Subordinate Service of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'). The Board was established under the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The posts of Assistant Engineers (now called as Assistant Executive Engineers ) in the Engineering Officers Service of the Board were to be filled up either by direct recruitment or by promotion from the cadre of Junior Engineers possessing the qualifications prescribed for a Junior Engineer or from the cadres of Supervisors, Head Dra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC2279; 1987(14)ECC141; 1987(32)ELT3(SC); JT1987(3)SC596; 1987(2)SCALE584; (1987)4SCC492; [1988]1SCR220; 1988(1)LC163(SC)
Morari Mohan Dutt, J.1. The only question that is involved in this appeal preferred under Section 130E of the Customs Act, 1962, is whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the Notification No. 281-Cus/76, granting part exemption from payment of Customs duty in respect of the rod bushes and camshaft bushes imported by the appellant.2. Before we refer to the said Notification, we may notice the provisions of the Heading No. 84.06 and Heading No. 84.63 of the Customs Tariff Act, which are as follows:-_____________________________________________________________ Heading Sub-heading No. and Rate of duty Central No. description of (a) Standard Excise article (b) Preferential areas Item _____________________________________________________________ 34.06 Internal combustion (a) 100% 29 piston engines. 84.63 Transmission (a) 60% shafts, cranks, bearing housings, plan shaft bearings, gears and gearing (including friction gears and gear-boxes & other variable speed gears), flywhee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1987(3)Crimes433(SC); JT1987(3)SC612; 1987(3)KarLJ125; 1987(2)SCALE593; (1987)4SCC373; [1988]1SCR210
RANGANATH MISRA, J. 1. Petitioner is a Bombay-based free lance journalist who had sought permission to interview women prisoners in the Maharashtra jails and on 6.5.1982, the Inspector-General of Prisons of the State permitted her to do so in respect of female prisoners lodged in the Bombay Central Jail, the Yerawada Central Jail at Pune and the Kolhapur District Jail. When the petitioner started tape-recording her interviews with the prisoners at the Bombay Central Jail, she was advised instead to keep notes only of interviews. When the petitioner raised objection on this score, the Inspector-General of Prisons orally indicated that he had changed his mind. Later, the petitioner was informed that grant of permission to have interview was a matter of discretion of the Inspector-General and such interviews are ordinarily allowed to research scholars only. Petitioner has made grievance over the withdrawal of the permission and has pleaded that it is the citizen's right to know if Governm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC686; (1989)1CompLJ167(SC); JT1987(3)SC600; 1988LabIC1497; (1988)ILLJ162SC; 1987(2)SCALE599; (1987)4SCC431; [1988]1SCR188; 1988(1)SLJ105(SC)
Ranganath Misra, J.1. The writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution and appeals by special leave are against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in writ appeals have a common set of facts as also law for consideration. These matters have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. Hindustan Commercial Bank ('Hindustan' for short), The Bank of Cochin Ltd. (hereafter referred to as 'Cochin Bank') and Lakshmi Commercial Bank ('Lakshmi' for short) were private banks. Action was initiated under Section 45 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 ('Act' for short) for amalgamation of these three banks with Punjab National Bank, Canara Bank and State Bank of India respectively in terms of separate schemes drawn under that provision of the Act. Amalgamation has been made. Pursuant to the schemes, 28 employees of Hindustan, 21 employees of Cochin Bank and 76 employees of Lakshmi were excluded from employment and their services were not taken o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC2316; JT1987(4)SC25; 1987(2)SCALE695; (1987)4SCC497; [1988]1SCR180
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. The respondent No. 1 herein was awarded the contract in question for the construction of staff quarters for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the petitioner herein and the work had to be completed within the stipulated period mentioned in the contract. Since, however, the work was not being done in the manner as the Delhi Municipal Corporation thought it ought to have been done, the petitioner wrote 29 letters during June, 1978 to July, 1980 regarding the timely completion of the work. It is alleged that the work was not completed by the 15th of January, 1980 as per the schedule in the contract. Show cause notice was given to the respondent-contractor. The contractor failed to give satisfactory reply and according to the petitioner, the contract was rescind. Thereafter several other letters were written which are not material to refer.There was an arbitration clause in the argeement. On 2nd November, 1982 an application was filed under Section 20 of the Arbi...
Tag this Judgment!