Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC374; [1989(58)FLR61]; JT1988(4)SC552; 1989LabIC1027; 1988(2)SCALE1473; (1989)1SCC240; [1988]Supp3SCR1003; 1989(1)LC140(SC)
G.L. Oza, J.1. This special leave petition is filed against the judgment of the Delhi High Court rejecting a petition filed by the petitioners. A separate writ petition for the same relief is also filed in this Court. The two matters raise a simple question about the age of retirement of the employees in the Delhi Transport Corporation, who were originally employed in the erstwhile Gwalior and Northern India Transport Company ('GNIT Company' for short) in 1946 or before that.2. It is not in dispute that before 1948 these petitioners were employed in the GNIT Company which was a company owned by the Rulers of Gwalior in the erstwhile native State of Gwalior. The said company was operating the transport services in Delhi and areas around upto 13th May, 1948. On 14th May, 1948 the transport services in Delhi were taken over by the Government of India, the Ministry of Transport and it was named as 'Delhi Transport Service'. The services of all the employees of the erstwhile GNIT company we...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC377; JT1988(4)SC555; 1988(2)SCALE1406; (1989)1SCC283; 1989(1)LC139(SC)
Ranganath Misra, J.1. Special leave granted in both the applications.2. Union of India, the Director-General of All India Radio and the Union Public Service Commission are appellants in one appeal and two officers belonging to the cadre of Assistant Station Engineers in the All India Radio are the appellants in the other. Both the appeals are directed against the decision of the Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi Bench dated 23rd of January, 1987.3. Twenty-six officers belonging to the cadre of Assistant Station Engineers or holders of other equivalent posts in the All India Radio had applied to the Delhi High Court challenging the inter-se seniority list published on 30th of April, 1977, and asked for a direction for preparation of a fresh seniority list taking into consideration the length of regular service. There was also a prayer for a direction that the recruitment Rules of 1972 should be deemed to have applied to all persons recruited or appointed after 30.9.1972 and inter-se se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC567; 1989(1)BLJR1; [1989(58)FLR77]; JT1988(4)SC554; 1989LabIC1013; 1988(2)SCALE1476; (1989)1SCC255; 1988(2)WLN380
ORDER1. The first one is an application for contempt proceedings being taken against the respondent-Bank and the second petition is by the Bank for clarification of the judgment of this Court dated February 9, 1988.2. Petitioner was an officer of the Bank. He approached the Rajasthan High Court for appropriate fitment in the Bank following the scheme of rationalisation with effect from October 1, 1979 and the High Court gave direction to the Bank by allowing his writ application. The Bank had challenged the order of the High Court in appeal to this Court. By judgment dated February 9, 1988, the appeal was dismissed. As the Bank has not implemented the decision of the Rajasthan High Court as upheld here, the petition for contempt has been filed.3. The Bank has asked for variation of the order dismissing the appeal on the basis of the judgment delivered by this Court in a connected matter wherein the entire legal position has been examined at length. We do not think in the facts of the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC488; 1989(19)ECC189; 1989(20)LC137(SC); 1989(39)ELT169(SC); JT1988(4)SC664; 1988(2)SCALE1529; 1989Supp(1)SCC128; [1988]Supp3SCR998; [1989]75STC313(SC)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This is an appeal against the decision and order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called 'the Act').2. The respondent is the manufacturer of electric fans, and brought into its factory nameplates under tariff item 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. The nameplates were affixed to the fans before marketing them. The respondent claimed the benefit of proforma credit in terms of Notification No. 201/79 dated 4th June, 1979, which was for the purpose of relief on the duty of excise paid on goods falling under Tariff Item 68, when these goods are used in the manufacture of other excisable goods. The said notification stated in supersession of the notification No. 178/77 of the Central Excise, dated 18th June, 1977, all excisable goods on which duty of excise is leviable and in the manufacture of which any goods falling under Item No. 68 (hereinafter referr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC627; 1989(19)ECC73; 1989(20)LC134(SC); 1988(38)ELT749(SC); [1990]183ITR655(SC); JT1988(4)SC517; 1988(2)SCALE1404; 1989Supp(1)SCC729; [1988]Supp3SCR993; [1989]74ST
ORDER OF--Conclusion arrived at after considering all relevant factors and without committing any error of principle or law--No interference called for by Supreme Court although different view possibleHELD:Even assuming that the terms of the exemption notification can also lend themselves to a narrower construction which may commend itself to another Tribunal or court, that alone canbe no ground to interfere with the conclusion reached by the Tribunal. Income Tax Act 1961 s.254 S. Ranganathan, J.1. A very short question is involved in this appeal under Section 35L of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944.2. The respondent, M/s. Protein Products of India, manufactures ossein and gelatine. It claimed exemption from excise duty under a notification of the Government of India dated 30.6.1979. By this notification one more item was added to a list of items exempted from payment of excise duty under an earlier notification dated 1.3.75. This item reads as follows:Crushed bones and bone produc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC630; JT1988(4)SC520; 1988(2)SCALE1408; (1989)1SCC264; [1988]Supp3SCR983; 1989(1)LC98(SC)
S. Ranganathan, J. 1. This appeal involves the interpretation of Section 11 of the Jammu & Kashmir Houses & Shops Rent Control Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The petitioner is a firm of which Sohan Singh Madan is the managing partner. The firm was the tenant of the respondent in respect of a portion of a building situated in Raghunath Bazar, Jammu, on a rent of Rs. 200 p.m. According to the respondent, the petitioner had been irregular in paying the rent of the premises and had altogether stopped making payment of any rent from 1st April, 1976 onwards. On 26.11.1976, the respondent issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon it to pay the arrears of rent (Rs.1,600). The notice also terminated the tenancy and called upon the petitioner to vacate the demised premises on or before 31.12.1976. This notice was first sent by post. The postman called at the address on 7.12.1976 and 8.12.1976 but, having failed to find there either the addressee or any person authorised...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC364; 1989(1)BLJR40; 1989CriLJ991; 1989(1)Crimes8(SC); JT1988(4)SC489; 1988(2)SCALE1489; (1989)1SCC374; [1988]Supp3SCR967; 1989(1)LC157(SC)
M.N. Venkatachaliah, J.1. By this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, the detenu-Ayya alias Ayub, son of Babu Khan, residence No. 100, Khernagar, P.S. Delhi Gate, Meerut-challenges the order of detention dated 28/2/1988 passed by the District Magistrate, Meerut, ordering the detention of the petitioner under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980, on the said authority's satisfaction that such detention is necessary with a view to preventing petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the 'public-order'. At the time of the passing of the order, petitioner was already in judicial-custody in connection with a criminal prosecution arising out of the incident referred to in one of the grounds of detention.2. Section 3(2) of the Act provides, inter alia, that the Central Government or the State Government, may make an order with respect to any person for purposes of preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC382; (1989)91BOMLR21; JT1988(4)SC513; 1988(2)SCALE1460; (1989)3SCC362; [1988]Supp3SCR959; 1989(1)LC93(SC)
Murli Mohan Dutt, J.1. Special leave granted. Heard learned Counsel for both the parties.2. The appeal is directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petition of the appellant challenging, inter alia, the legality of the action of the respondents refusing to admit the appellant in the post-graduate M.D. Course in Obstetrics and Gynaecology for the 1987 session.3. The appellant passed the MBBS examination from the Kakatiya Medical College under the University of Kakatiya, Warangal, in the State of Andhra Pradesh. She obtained 72%, 66.63% and 67.5% marks in the first, second and third MBBS examinations. She was awarded Governor's Gold Medal by the State of Andhra Pradesh for her consistent high merit at the MBBS examinations. In August, 1985, she completed her one year internship.4. She married one Dr. Ashok Patwardhan, a Government Medical Officer working in the State of Maharashtra. He was transferred to Solapur in January, 1985. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC640; JT1988(4)SC473; 1988(2)SCALE1445; (1989)1SCC526; [1988]Supp3SCR950; 1989(1)LC103(SC)
S. Natarajan, J.1. This special leave petition to seek leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution has been filed against the order of the Madras High Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 704 of 1988 filed by the 1st respondent herein. After hearing the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner and the 1st respondent (Caveator) we are not persuaded to grant special leave and are dismissing the petition for the reasons given below.2. For an election held on 23.2.1986, the votes were counted on 25.2.1986 and the 1st respondent was declared elected, having secured 649 votes for the post of the President of the Keelpaguthi Panchayat, Kulithalai Taluk, Tamil Nadu. The petitioner and the 2nd respondent who were the other contestants were declared to have secured only 556 votes and 8 votes respectively. Besides the votes secured by the contestants, 55 votes were declared to be invalid votes.3. Two days after the results were declared i.e. on 27.2.1986, the petitioner sent telegram...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC644; 1989(19)ECC49; 1989(20)LC1(SC); 1988(38)ELT741(SC); [1990]183ITR624(SC); JT1988(4)SC454; 1988(2)SCALE1381; (1989)1SCC345; [1988]Supp3SCR933; [1989]75STC105(S
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. 1. These appeals are under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the decision of the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi ('Tribunal' for short) dated 26th October, 1987.2. The respondent-company has its factory at Chakala Andheri and is engaged in the manufacture of non-alcoholic beverage bases falling under Tariff Item 68 of Central Excise Tariff. During the course of enquiry, it was found that the company had during the period from 1st March, 1975 to 18th April, 1979 manufactured non-alcoholic beverage bases without holding proper Central Excise licence and had cleared the said goods without payment of the duty due thereon and had thereby evaded the duty amounting to Rs. 3,50,963.22. According to the revenue, prima facie it appeared that the respondent had contravened the provisions of Rules 9(1), 53, 173pp(1), 173pp(3), 173pp(6) and 174 of the Central Excise Rules, 1...
Tag this Judgment!