Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1988(2)SC239; 1988Supp(1)SCC571
ORDERR.S. Pathak, C.J.I.1. Special leave granted.2. The amount lying in excess with the landlord was admittedly part of the rent paid originally by the tenants at the higher rate. The tenants did not pay the rent due for February and March, 1966. There is no dispute that the amount lying in excess would cover the amount due by way of rent for those two months. It is also not in dispute that the tenants have been depositing the rent regularly ever since.3. In the circumstances, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgments and orders of the High Court and of the courts below and dismiss the suit for eviction. We may observe that we do not think it necessary in this particular case to consider the operation of the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1977.4. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There is no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1990Supp(1)SCC41
G.L. Oza and; K. Jagannatha Shetty Shetty, JJ.1. This appeal by special leave, is against the order passed by the High Court of Gauhati in Criminal Revision No. 336 of 1982 decided on July 30, 1986.2. The matter arises in this way.3. The respondents filed a complaint against the appellant, who at the relevant time was a Superintendent of Police posted at North Lakhimpur in respect of some incident. After examination of the complainant, the Magistrate before whom the complaint was filed issued process. The appellant entered appearance and contended that a sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was necessary to sustain the complaint against him and since there was no such sanction, the prosecution against him could not continue. The learned Magistrate accepted the objection and discharged the appellant. The respondent thereafter filed a criminal revision before the High Court. The High Court by the order impugned herein has allowed the criminal revision. The High Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1988(2)SC243; 1990Supp(1)SCC653
ORDERG.L. Oza, J.1. This appeal is filed against the Judgment of the High Court of Gauhati dated March 8, 1979. The respondents accused were tried by Sessions Judge, Shillong for charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge after detailed discussion of the evidence in the case which mainly is retracted confession, and certain circumstantial evidence came to the conclusion that the offence is not established against the accused persons and therefore recorded the acquittal by his Judgment dated 28th November, 1974. Against this Judgment of acquittal an appeal was preferred by the State of Meghalaya which was initially admitted. On April 7, 1973 it was ultimately dismissed by orders of the High Court dated March 8, 1979, as the State wanted to withdraw the appeal. It is against this order that leave was granted and this appeal is before us. A contention has been advanced that an appeal once having been admitted could not be dismissed for want of prosecu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC1099; 1988(1)ARBLR408(SC); (1988)90BOMLR191; JT1988(2)SC1; 1988(1)SCALE631; (1988)2SCC360; [1988]3SCR370; 1988(1)LC729(SC)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. After hearing the parties fully we had by our order dated 10th March, 1988 dismissed the special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution. We stated therein that we would indicate the reasons by a separate judgment later. We do so by this judgment.2. This is a petition for leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution from the judgment and order of the learned Judge of the High Court of Bombay dated 2nd February, 1988. By the impugned judgment the learned Judge has rejected the application for revocation of the authority of respondent No. 1, Shri K.D. Bali, sole arbitrator under Sections 5 and 11 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). In order to appreciate the contentions raised, it may be stated that the International Airport Authority of India which was the petitioner in the High Court and is the petitioner herein had invited tenders for the work of construction of terminal building of new international passenger co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC1060; JT1988(1)SC664; 1988(1)SCALE615; (1988)2SCC513; [1988]3SCR384
E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. The question which arises for consideration in this case is whether a landlord who seeks eviction of a tenant from a non-residential building (other than a non-residential building which is used for keeping a vehicle or adapted for such use) under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is required to prove that he requires the said building for his own use or for the use of any member of his family bona fide in the proceedings instituted before the Controller.2. The appellant is a partnership firm represented by its partner, 5. Peer Mohammed. The respondent's brother was carrying on business in hardware in the front portion of the ground floor of the premises bearing No. 157, Kutcheri Road, Mylapore, Madras-4. The appellant purchased the said running business from the brother of the respondent on 5.7.1974. The said building, however, belonged to the father of the respondent. Af...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC1164; 1988(17)ECC37; 1988(35)ELT6(SC); JT1988(2)SC93; 1988(1)SCALE705; 1988(Supp)SCC239; [1988]3SCR363; [1988]70STC314(SC)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The appeal is directed against the Order of the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter called 'the CEGAT').2. The respondent herein filed a classification list on 16th March, 1982 seeking approval of Sawn timber and dried timber as non-excisable. The submission of the respondent was that timber logs were only sawn into sizes and these did not tantamount to any manufacture. However, the Assistant Collector, Madras, held that the conversion of timber logs into sawn timber satisfied the conditions of manufacture insofar as the conversion of timber logs into sawn timber involves transformation whereby a new and different article with the distinct name, character or use emerges which is different from timber logs. It was held accordingly that excise duty @ 8% ad valorem under Tariff Item 68 of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC1198; 1988(1)ARBLR392(SC); JT1988(2)SC143; 1988(1)SCALE786; (1988)3SCC291; [1988]3SCR366; 1988(2)LC9(SC)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. Special leave granted and the appeals are disposed of by the judgment herein.2. These two appeals are directed against the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay confirming the decision of the learned single Judge dismissing the application for setting aside the award. It appears that there was a Charter Party Agreement entered into between the parties in December, 1981 signed by the representative of the President of India and the respondent Shipping Company for transportation of bulk cargo from Australia to India. Thereafter in February, 1982 the agreement was sent to the President's representative at New Delhi for signing the same. The said cargo was delivered at the port of Tuticorin and not at Calcutta. The respondent company raised disputes regarding several items and claimed an amount of Rs. 9,06,854.86 as demurrage and Rs. 7881.43 against over time charges. As per the said agreement, the disputes were referable to arbitrat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC1154; 1988(17)ECC56; 1988(35)ELT8(SC); JT1988(2)SC86; 1988(1)SCALE716; 1988Supp(1)SCC361; [1988]3SCR355
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. These are appeals under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called 'the Act')- The respondents-T.I. Millers Ltd. and T.I. Diamond Chain manufacture cycle lamps and automative chains. Both these goods are assessable under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The said respondents filed price lists for the sale of the goods through their distributors, namely, M/s. T.I. and M-Sales Ltd., M/s. Charmvel Agencies and M/s. Ambadi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. quoting their price to the distributor as assessable value. However, subsequently following the decision of the Madras High Court in a valuation case, the respondents required that the price charged by them from buyers at the factory gate should be accepted as the assessable value and not the price to the distributOrs. The question is whether the price charged by the respondents from buyers at the factory gate should be accepted as the assessable value for the levy of duty under Section...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC1074; 1988(1)SCALE598; (1988)2SCC488; 1988(1)LC650(SC)
M.P. Thakkar,J.1. The widow and legal heirs of the original plaintiff may be pardoned for their cynicism having lost the property as well as the bread winner who committed suicide on losing his meritorious matter at all levels.2. A poor person (original plaintiff) owned a small house property in Bambagher, Ramnagar, district Nainital. His son was taken ill. He did not have sufficient liquid resources to enable him to incur the necessary expenditure for treating his ailing son, He thereupon entered into a transaction with the original defendant who was a resident of the same place of August 16, 1967. The essential features of the transaction were -(1) Plaintiff executed a document pertaining to ostensible sale of the property in question for a consideration of Rs. 7000/-, favouring the defendant.(2) On the same day a contemporaneous document was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to sell the property in question for a sum of Rs. 7000/- within 10 years of the d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC1007; 1988(2)ARBLR270(SC); JT1988(2)SC6; 1988(1)SCALE612; (1988)2SCC338; [1988]3SCR351; 1988(1)LC692(SC)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. Special Leave granted.2. The Delhi Development Authority vide its letter dated 5th October, 1976 accepted the tender of the appellant for construction of 240 Janta Houses at the estimated cost of Rs. 24,49,262. The work was to commence on 15th October, 1976 and was required to be completed by 14th July, 1977. By a subsequent extension of time the work was finally completed on 2nd April, 1980 and the houses so constructed have been allotted to several people. Between February 1983 to December 1985 the appellant sent several letters to the respondent requesting them to finalise the bills. It appears, however, that the first of such letters was written on 28th February, 1983. Thereafter the appellant wrote several letters and finally on 4th September, 1985 to the respondent to finalise the bills and ultimately served the notice through his counsel requesting it to release the security of Rs. 1 lakh and refer the dispute to arbitration. The respondent failed to do...
Tag this Judgment!