Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC2024; JT1988(3)SC528; 1988(2)SCALE560; (1988)4SCC189; [1988]Supp2SCR736; 1988(2)LC735(SC)
M.H. Kania, J.1. The Appellants before us were the defendants and the two Respondents were the plaintiffs in the Civil Suits Nos. 294 of 1979 and 421 of 1979 respectively, in the court of the learned Sub-Judge, Palwal. Both these suits raised common questions of fact and law and were decided by a common judgment.2. We shall refer to the parties by their original descriptions in the suit. There is no controversy about most of the facts relevant for the disposal of this Appeal.3. The plaintiffs are the owners of two houses adjacent to each other and also to the property of the defendants. The defendants had a structure on their own property. On the roof of that structure they had made three morries (narrow outlets for the outflow of dirty water). These morries opened towards the property of the plaintiffs. In an earlier suit, the defendants had obtained an injunction directing the plaintiffs not to block the flow of dirty water from the said three morries. The defendants were, however, p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC315; JT1988(4)SC3; 1988(2)SCALE1073; (1989)1SCC143; [1988]Supp2SCR685; [1988]71STC277(SC)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This is an appeal by leave from the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad, dated 12th July, 1982. The decision was rendered in a revision by the assessee which was directed against the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal. The year involved is the assessment year 1974-75.2. The assessee carried on the business of mining and sale of silica sand. The question was whether the sales tax could be charged from the assessee in respect of packing charges received by the assessee from the purchaser. The sales tax authorities as well as the Tribunal held that the assessee was liable to pay sales tax on the packing charges that he had received from the purchaser. From the facts found by the Tribunal it appears that there was a contract for packing the silica sand in gunny bags and packing charges had been realised on the basis of mt. tons though these were separately shown and were added up with the price of the silica sand and on the total sales tax was charged.3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC139; JT1988(3)SC486; 1989LabIC1045; (1989)ILLJ76SC; 1988(2)SCALE662; (1988)4SCC147; [1988]Supp2SCR623; 1988(2)LC727(SC)
E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. People belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and to other weaker sections of society in India are the zealously protected children of the Indian Constitution. Article 46 of the Constitution provides that the State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, and, in particular, of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation. While Clause (1) of Article 15 of the Constitution provides that the State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them, Clause (4) of that Article provides that nothing in the said Article or in Clause (2) of Article 29 of the Constitution shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Schedule Castes a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC2026; 1989(1)ARBLR33(SC); JT1988(3)SC622; 1988(2)SCALE549; (1988)4SCC591; [1988]Supp2SCR641; 1988(2)LC622(SC)
Sabysachi Mukharji, J.1. The High Court of Bombay dismissed the challenge to the award in question. The award is an unreasoned one. The transactions between the parties started sometime in 1974. The petitioners participated in the reference in 1979, without demur. In 1981, the award was made. No objection was taken at that time that the award was bad being an unreasoned one. The matter is pending for a long time. It is not desirable, in the interest of justice, to keep this matter pending because some cases are pending here on the question of the validity of unreasoned award per se. The parties participated in the arbitration. There is no allegation of any violation of principles of natural justice. One of the contentions in support of this application was that relevant documents had not been taken into consideration. The High Court has pointed out on reading the award that it does not indicate that all relevant documents had not been taken into consideration. On the facts of this case...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC2237; 1989(19)ECC43; 1988(19)LC292(SC); 1988(37)ELT471(SC); JT1988(4)SC151; 1988(2)SCALE1068; (1988)4SCC315; [1988]Supp2SCR668; [1989]73STC195(SC)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This is a statutory appeal against the decision of the Customs Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short CEGAT). The appellant Company had filed a Classification List under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules stating that they intended to clear PPRF yarn, on which duty had already been paid.2. According to the appellant, the PPRF yarn consists of two varieties of yarn on which duty has already been paid, namely, two plies of Polyester Spun Yarn-PP and one ply of Rayon Filament Yarn-RF, which are doubled together and the resultant yarn is referred to as PPRF Yarn. The aforesaid classification list filed by the appellant was rejected and it was directed to file a fresh classification list showing PPRF yarn under Tariff item 68 of the Central Excise Rules. The case of the appellant is that since it was not permitted to clear PPRF Yarn without further payment of duty under Tariff Item 68 of the said Rules, on or from 27th April, 1976, they started ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : II(1988)ACC554; AIR1988SC2027; [1988]1CompCas521(SC); JT1988(3)SC523; 1988(2)SCALE556; (1988)4SCC156; [1988]Supp2SCR632; 1988(2)LC672(SC)
Murari Mohan Dutt, J.1. The only question that is involved in this petition relates to the validity of Rule 498-A of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1964 and a notification dated July 8, 1986 issued by the respondent No. 3, the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad and Secunderabad, In exercise of his Powers under Section 21(1) of the Hyderabad City Police Act, inter alia, directing that in order to ensure adequate safety of two-wheeler riders, wearing of protective helmets is made compulsory for riders of motor-cycles and scooters, as envisaged by Rule 498-A, with effect from August 1, 1986.2. Rule 498-A provides as follows:Rule 498-A. Crash helmets to be worn No person shall drive a motor-cycle or a scooter in a public place unless such driver wears a crash helmet:Provided that nothing in this rule shall apply to a person professing Sikh religion and wears a turban.3. The petitioner, who is a student and has a permanent divined licence for a two-wheeler vehicle, filed a writ petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC2232; 1989(1)ARBLR50(SC); JT1988(4)SC730; 1988(2)SCALE1070; 1988Supp(1)SCC651; [1988]Supp2SCR673; 1989(1)LC217(SC)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. Leave granted and the appeal is disposed of by the following judgment.2. This appeal arises out of an order of the High Court of Madras, dated 21st September, 1984. The appellant is the Secretary to the Government, Transport Deptt., Madras, and the respondent No. 1 is the managing partner of M/s. National Company, which was the successful tenderer of the work of construction of a bridge across the river Coovum at Koyambedu within the corporation limit of the city of Madras and accordingly the necessary contract was executed between the respondent No. 2 the Superintending Engineer (Highways) World Bank Project Circle, Madras, and the said Company on 28th April, 1979.3. According to the conditions of the contract between the parties, the work should have been completed on or before 5th November, 1980. The said National Company, however, according to the appellant, did not even commence the work till 21.9.1981 and despite extension of time until 31.10.1981 the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC2211; JT1988(3)SC765; 1988(2)SCALE447; (1988)4SCC226; [1988]Supp2SCR643
ORDERM.N. Venkatachaliah, J.1. This Miscellaneous Petition for leave to withdraw the main public interest litigation is filed under circumstances which can only be characterised as somewhat unfortunate. The main petition is brought to highlight the gross violations of the constitutional and statutory rights of a large number of children in the country who are suffering custodial restraints in various parts of the country and for the protection and enforcement of their rights.It might clear some possible misconceptions if it is clarified what this order is not about. The applicant is not, by the force of this order, denied the right or the opportunity of instituting any public interest litigation nor is the right of a public-minded citizen to bring an action for the enforcement of fundamental rights of a disabled segment of the citizenry disputed. The question agitated relates, on the contrary, to the aspect whether a public-minded person who brings such an action is entitled, as of rig...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC1965; JT1988(3)SC461; (1989)ILLJ26SC; 1988(2)SCALE431; (1988)4SCC478; [1988]Supp2SCR590; 1989(1)SLJ40(SC); 1988(2)LC667(SC)
E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. The question involved in these petitions is whether the workmen who were working in canteens established under Section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in Ordnance Equipment Factory, Kanpur, Central Ordnance Depot, Kanpur and Air Force Station, Kanpur are entitled to claim the period of service in such canteens prior to 22.10.1980 as part of the qualifying service for claiming pension.2. The three industrial establishments, referred to above, namely; Ordnance Equipment Factory, Central Ordnance Depot and Air Force Station, Kanpur are defence establishment forming part of the Defence Department of the Union of India. By the Order No. 18(1)80/D (JCM) dated the 25th July, 1981 sanction was accorded by the President of India to treat all employees of canteens established in Defence Industrial Installations under Section 46 of the Act as Government employees with immediate effect. By an amendment, the said Government Order was giv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC1970; JT1988(3)SC466; 1989LabIC189; (1989)ILLJ255SC; 1988(2)SCALE444; 1988Supp(1)SCC750; [1988]Supp2SCR604; 1989(1)SLJ97(SC); 1988(2)LC663(SC)
Murari Mohan Dutt, J.1. In these writ petitions, three categories of Staff Artists of Doordarshan under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, namely, Cameraman Grade-11, Sound Recordist and Lighting Assistant/Lightman, have claimed that they should be declared as Government servants and should be given the same pay-scales as given to their respective counterparts in the Film Division under the same Ministry.2. The Staff Artists were originally appointed on renewable contracts for 3-4 years' duration, but that practice has since undergone a change and they are now appointed up to the age of 55-60 years on a time-scale. They are, however, employed on contract basis till the age of 55-60 years, that is, the contract runs till the age of retirement as in regular Government service.3. In 1973, the Third Central Pay Commission considered the pay-scales of the employees in the Film Division including those of the Staff Artists. The Commission, however, excluded the cases of Staff Arti...
Tag this Judgment!