Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC2213; JT1987(3)SC509; 1987(2)SCALE500; 1987Supp(1)SCC285; [1988]1SCR52
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. The appeal and two Special Leave Petitions concern the right to succeed to the office of Sajadanashin to 'Durgah Khawaja Saheb Ajmer'. It is venerable Shrine of universal recognition. It is also called the Durgah Moinuddin Chisti Saheb. Moinuddin Chisti was a Persian born Saint who later migrated to India. He settled down at Ajmer and died there at the age of 90 in the year 1233 A.d. Eversince then, his tomb has had been the center of attraction for the people of all faith. For Muslims in particular, 'it is admitted to be one of the most famous, if not the most famous, Mohammedan Shrine in India.2. There are two important offices in the Shrine: (i) Sajadanashin - the spiritual head and (ii) Mutwalli - the secular head. The hereditary descendants of the Saint often laid claim to these two offices. The dispute as to the latter was taken even upto the Privy Council. In Asrar Ahmed v. Durgah Committee A.I.R. 1947 P.C. I the Privy Council said that the office of M...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC2199; JT1987(3)SC588; 1987(2)SCALE572; (1987)4SCC404; [1988]1SCR65; 1988(1)LC173(SC)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This is an appeal by the tenant against the judgment and order of the High Court of Tamil Nadu. By the aforesaid judgment of the High Court upheld the landlord's contention of bonafide requirement of the premises in question for the business of his sons and maintained the order of eviction passed by the courts below. So far as the question of bona fide need is concerned it has been upheld by the courts below and that finding is not assailed before us. But what was contended was that the application itself under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease asd Rent Control) Act, 1960, hereinafter called the Act was not maintainable as the requirement of the land was not for the landlord or members of his family as such but for two sons who were running a leather business in partnership with strangers. The deed of partnership was examined by the High Court but it is, however, not before us. It appears from the evidence that previously the father and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC2322; JT1987(3)SC550; 1987(3)KarLJ106; 1987LabIC1919; (1988)ILLJ322SC; 1987(2)SCALE509; (1987)4SCC450; [1988]1SCR73
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. Special leave granted.2. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which in accordance with the well settled principle of this Court as also the High Court held that in the absence of any statutory rule executive memorandum or order laying down the rule for determination of seniority in a grade, the normal rule applicable would be to determine the seniority on the basis of length in service. Counsel for the appellant contends that in the instant case there were two rules being 12(b) and 12(c) of the M.P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules 1961 governing the case. These rules, read as follows:-(b) Promoted Government Servants:A promoted Government servant shall count his seniority from the date of his confirmation in the service to which he has been promoted and shall be placed in the gradation list immediately below the last confirmed member of that service but above all the probationers.Provided th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC2229; 1987(2)ARBLR194(SC); JT1987(3)SC553; 1987(3)KarLJ97; 1987(2)SCALE507; (1987)4SCC452; [1988]1SCR69
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. Special leave granted.2. This is an appeal challenging the decision of the High Court of Calcutta upholding the decision of the learned Single Judge of that Court whereby the award of the arbitrator was set aside and new arbitrator was appointed. In order to appreciate the position it is necessary to state that in the year 1964 the Executive Engineer had invited competitive sealed tenders in respect of 'Silt Clearance of River Peali from Utterbhag Canning Road Bridge upto Hobon Sluice'. Shri D.P. Chatterjee entered upon the reference soon thereafter and the award was made in November, 1966. It appears that thereafter the respondent asked for the award amount in full and final settlement which the Executive Engineer turned down. The respondent herein was paid by the appellant a sum of Rs. 32,525.62 in terms of the award and which sum was received and acknowledged by the respondent No. 1. Then the true copy of the award was forwarded to the Court by the Chief E...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1988(4)SC83; (1988)3SCC586
ORDERRanganath Misra, J.1. Special leave granted.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. We see no justification for the direction for eviction on the ground that there has been a change of user. The initial purpose was to run a grocery shop. The same tenant instead of using it for grocery shop has been running a book-shop therein. This could not afford a valid ground for ordering eviction.3. We suggested to learned Counsel of the parties that the tenancy may continue but the rent may be enhanced. We have heard them on that score and are of the view that the monthly rent should be enhanced to Rs. 500 from October 1, 1987. Whatever rent is in deposit will be withdrawn by the respondent-landlord. Counsel for the appellant has assured us that the appellant would keep paying rent in future in time.4. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1987(35)BLJR849; JT1987(3)SC642; 1988Supp(1)SCC436
ORDERA.P. Sen, J.1. Special leave granted. Arguments heard.2. Notice in the special leave petition was confined to the question of sentence only. In response to the notice, the respondents have filed a counter seeking to make out that the disciplinary authority was entitled to disagree with the recommendation of the Enquiry Officer as to the measure of punishment under Rule 10(3) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 and form the considered opinion that the appellant who was working as a Head Clerk in the Electrical Wing in the Office of the Senior Divisional Railway Manager, Baroda, was liable to be dismissed for having made a false claim for payment of Rs. 156.80p. as honorarium payable to one Smt. S.A. Pandya, Senior Clerk working under him when in fact no such honorarium was payable to her. Nor did she prepare the salary bills under his supervision. The appellant appears to have drawn the amount on the strength of the false bills and misappropriated the same. La...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC2289; 1988(2)ARBLR142(SC); JT1987(3)SC575; 1987(3)KarLJ73; 1987(2)SCALE581; (1987)4SCC421; [1988]1SCR47
ORDERSabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. Special leave granted.2. This is an appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 17th of December, 1986. The appeal was filed by the plaintiff whose suit for a declaration that the eight agreements/contracts executed between it and the defendant No. 1 M/s. Jayabharat Credit and Investment Company Ltd. were not 'hire purchase agreements' but were agreements relating to transaction of loan and for injunction restraining the defendant No. 1. from enforcing them until the decision of the suit, had been dismissed on the ground that the suit was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 32 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). Section 32 of the Act stipulates that notwithstanding any law for the time being in force no suit shall lie on any ground whatsoever for a decision upon the existence, effect or validity of an arbitration agreement or award, nor shall any arbitration agreement or award be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1988Supp(1)SCC549
R.S. Pathak, C.J. and; M.H. Kania, J.1. From the record it is clear that the appellant, Sk. Manwar Ali, has failed to put back Respondent 2 Niyamat Shah, in possession of premises on the first floor of the reconstructed building having an area equivalent to the area of the premises in the tenancy of Respondent 2 in the building before reconstruction as agreed under clause 1 of the consent terms in spite of having undertaken to comply with the said consent terms filed on 16-8-1983.2. In order to ensure compliance with the aforesaid clause 1, it is directed that the Official Receiver of the High Court of Calcutta is appointed Receiver of the first floor of the said premises, No. 151, Park Street, Calcutta. The Receiver shall act immediately upon the communication of this order and shall take charge as the Receiver of the aforesaid first floor of the premises in question. We are informed by counsel for both the sides that there are two tenants in occupation of portions of the first floor ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1987]168ITR744a(SC); 1988Supp(1)SCC481; 1988(Supp)SCC487
R.S. Pathak, C.J. and; M.H. Kania, J.1. The Income Tax Appellant Tribunal held in appeals filed by the respondent assessee relating to assessment for the Assessment Years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71 that inasmuch as the respondent supplied cool, filtered and chilled air through air-conditioning apparatus to the lessees in the building under consideration, it was an “industrial company” within the meaning of Section 2(6)(d) of the Finance Act, 1968 and Section 2(6)(c) of the Finance Acts, 1969 and 1970, as it could be said to have engaged in the manufacture or processing of goods and therefore, the rate of tax applicable to the respondent was 55 per cent and not the rate of 65 per cent. The application made by the Commissioner of Tax for inference of the question whether the respondent was an “industrial company” in terms of the definitions referred to earlier was rejected by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on the ground that the question was one of fact and not ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1987]168ITR744(SC); JT1987(3)SC578
ORDERR.S. Pathak, J.1. The Income tax Appellate Tribunal held in appeals filed by the respondent -assessee relating to the assessment for the assessment years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71 that in as much as the respondent supplied cool, filtered and chilled air through air conditioning apparatus to the lessees in the building under consideration, it was an 'Industrial Company' within the meaning of Section 2(6)(d) of the Finance Act, 1968 and Section 2(6)(c) of the Finance Acts, 1969 and 1970, as it could be said to have engaged in the manufacture or processing of goods and therefore, the rate of tax applicable to the respondent was 55% and not at the rate of 65%. The application made by the Commissioner of Tax for reference of the question whether the respondent was an 'industrial Company' in terms of the definitions referred to earlier was rejected by the Income lax Appellate Tribunal on the ground that the question was one of the fact and not law. A reference application made by the Co...
Tag this Judgment!