Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC777; 1989(1)ARBLR306(SC); JT1989(1)SC132; 1989(1)SCALE126; (1989)1SCC411; 1989(1)LC416(SC)
Sharma, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated 31.5.1984 of a Division Bench of Delhi High Court passed in an arbitration matter. Several disputes between the appellant and the respondent arose out of a contract for execution of certain works which were, under the orders of a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, referred for arbitration to a sole arbitrator, who gave an award directing the respondent to pay a sum of over 64 lacs of rupees to the appellant. A learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court made the award rule of the court. The Union of India filed an appeal which was registered as F.A.O. (O.S.) 67 of 1982 and was partly allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court.2. The Government of India decided to hold a trade fair to be known as Third Asian International Trade Fair, scheduled to be opened in November 1972. More than a hundred countries from the different parts of the world, invited to participate in the Fair, were assured ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC1065; 1989(20)ECC42; 1989(20)LC401(SC); 1989(39)ELT494(SC); JT1989(1)SC102; 1989Supp(1)SCC667; [1989]1SCR281
Ranganathan, J.1. The appellant, M/s. Auto Tractors Limited, is a company manufacturing tractOrs. For purposes of manufacture, the companyimports certain parts and components from abroad,2. There are two notifications of the Government of India granting certain concessions from the levy of customs duty which are applicable to such goods as have been imported by the appellant. The first of these, namely, Notification No. 200/79 dated 28.09.1979 (as amended from time to time) exempts components 'required for the manufacture of heavy commercial motor vehicles...or of tractors 'from so much of the customs duty as is in excess of 25 per cent ad valorem and the whole of the additional duty leviable thereon. The grant of the concession was subject to the fulfillment of certain conditions specified in the notification. The second notification was Notification No. 179/80 dated 4.9.1980 (as amended from time to time). This notification confers an exemption in respect of parts of articles falling...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC979; JT1989(1)SC165; 1989(1)SCALE191; 1989Supp(1)SCC281; [1989]1SCR273; [1989]73STC55(SC); 1989(1)LC465(SC)
Murari Mohan Dutt, J.1 The petitioner is a concern engaged in the business of manufacture of electric motors, pump sets and their parts. It applied for exemption from sales tax in respect of the goods manufactured by it in terms of a notification issued by the State Government on 30.9.1982 under Section 4A of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the 'Act'). This application was rejected by a Division Level Committee by an order dated 9.2.1987 and a further review application was also dismissed on 27.10.1987. Thereupon the appellant filed a writ petition which was also rejected by the High Court by a short order dated 7.12.1987. Aggrieved by this denial of the exemption, which it claims it is entitled to, the appellant has preferred this appeal.Section 4A of the Act reads as under:4-A. Exemption from sales tax of certain goods for specified period-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 3 or Section 3-A, where the State Government is of the opinion that it...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC982; 1989(1)Crimes394(SC); JT1989(1)SC115; 1989(1)SCALE134; 1989Supp(1)SCC338; 1989(2)WLN29
Ahmadi, J.1 The appellant Mahendra Singh son of Sohan Singh has filed this appeal by special leave challenging his conviction under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The facts are that on 20th June, 1973 PW-1 Mohan Singh and deceased Harbans Singh were requested by the appellant while they were on the way to Prem Pura to attend the betrothal ceremony of the sons of Banta Singh and the appellant. Acceding to this request PW-1 Mohan Singh and deceased Harbans Singh went to the House of Banta Singh and the appellant in village Nav Ghat Ki Tapari After attending the betrothal ceremony, they expressed a desire to leave but they were persuaded to stay on for dinner. After the guests had completed the meals, dinner was served to PW-1 and Harbans Singh between 8 and 9 p.m. At that time Bua Singh was also having his meals. When the aforesaid two persons were served meals. Bua Singh came and sat by their side and began to partake of food from the Thali of PW-1. Presumably because Bua Sing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC985; 1989(1)BLJR23; 1967CriLJ1390; [1989(58)FLR334]; (1989)1GLR513; JT1989(1)SC98; 1989LabIC1253; (1989)ILLJ302SC; 1989(1)SCALE81; (1989)1SCC546; [1989]1SCR224; 19
E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. The appellant was working as an Upper Division Clerk in the year 1975. He was placed under suspension by an order dated 25-7-1975 as a result of the institution of a criminal prosecution against him and he continues to remain under suspension till today. By an Order dated 4-8-1975 he was sanctioned subsistence allowance at the rate of 50 per cent of his salary last drawn. By a further order made on 6-5-1982 the subsistence allowance was reduced to 25 per cent of the salary he was drawing on the late of suspension. The increments he would have earned from time to time and the periodical revisions of pay scales were not taken into consideration in determining the subsistence allowance.2. The charge-sheet was filed in the criminal case against the appellant in 1976 and the case was committed to the sessions, but the committal proceedings were quashed by the High Court in 1978. Then the proceedings again began before the Metropolitan magistrate in 1978. The case, h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC989; JT1989(1)SC139; 1989(1)SCALE146; (1989)2SCC58; [1989]1SCR243; 1989(1)LC445(SC)
ORDERNew Delhi, the 9th June, 1978.G.S.R. 800-In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5 of theEssential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955), and in supersession of the Order of the Government of India in the late Ministry of Agriculture, (Department of Food) No GSR, 315 (E) dated the 20th June, 1972, the Central Government hereby directs that the powers conferred on it by Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act to make orders to provide for the matters specified in Clauses (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (h), (i), and (j) of Sub-section 2 thereof shall, in relation to food-stuffs be exercisable also by a State Government subject to the conditions:(1) that such powers shall be exercised by a State Government subject to such directions, if any as may be issued by the Central Government in this behalf; (2) that before making an order relating to any matter specified in the said Clauses (a), (c) or (f) or in regard to distribution of disposal of foodstuffs to places outside the st...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC995; (1989)91BOMLR148; 1989MhLJ869; 1989(1)SCALE186; 1989Supp(1)SCC305; [1989]1SCR238; 1989(1)LC471(SC); 2(1989)WLN(Rev)1
Lalit Mohan Sharma, J.1. The subject matter of this appeal is 13.30 acres of land in Sholapur District, within the State of Maharashtra. The appellants are the heirs of one Mugaji Laxman Padule, who was the tenant of the land for about 3 decades before the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was enacted. Under the provisions of the Act, Mugaji was entitled to purchase the land on satisfaction of certain conditions. Admittedly he did not satisfy these conditions and said so before the authorities concerned. The landlords who are now represented by the respondents, were claiming possession of the area under the Act. Mugaji, subsequently, made a claim to the Land on another basis. On his death in 1962, his heirs the appellants were substituted. The matter was considered by several authorities under the Act, who ultimately rejected the appellants' case. The appellants, thereafter moved the Bombay High Court by an application under Article 227...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC764; 1989CriLJ830; 1990(1)Crimes473(SC); JT1989(2)SC21; 1989(1)SCALE138; (1989)1SCC736; [1989]1SCR257; 1989(1)LC432(SC)
S. Natarajan, J.1. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner to seek the issue of appropriate writs of quashing an order of detention passed against him under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act (hereinafter the 'Act') by the State of Uttar Pradesh and for his release from custody. On April 5, 1988 an order of detention was passed against the petitioner under Section 3(2) of the Act, but the petitioner could not be served the order of detention and taken into preventive custody as he was absconding. Consequently he was treated an absconder and resort was had to Section 7(2) of the Act and a proclamation was obtained against him under Section 82 and 83 of the Criminal Procedure Code on May 4, 1988 and the said order was executed on May 5, 1988. Thereafter the petitioner surrendered himself in Court on July 4, 1988 and he was sent to the District Jail at Meerut where he was served the detention order and the grounds of detention on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC823; JT1989(1)SC177; 1989(1)SCALE166; (1989)1SCC399; [1989]1SCR230; 1989(1)LC322(SC); 1989(2)WLN16
Murari Mohan Dutt, J.1. Special leave is granted. Heard learned Counsel for both parties.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petition of the appellant challenging the order of the Dean of the Faculty of Engineering of the Jodhpur University, putting in abeyance the admission of the appellant in the B.E. Degree Course till further orders.3. The appellant is a diploma-holder and is serving in the M.M.M. Engineering College (Faculty of Engineering), Jodhpur, since 1976 as an Administrator/Instructor. In May, 1987, the appellant submitted an application to the Study Leave Committee of the University of Jodhpur for study leave for three years enabling the appellant to prosecute his studies in the B.E. Degree Course. On August 3, 1977, the Study Leave Committee recommended the case of the appellant for the grant of study leave and on August 14, 1987 the Syndicate of the University accepted the said recommendati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1990(Supp)SCC68
L.M. Sharma and; M.H. Kania, JJ..1. This appeal has been preferred by the tenant against his landlord who is the respondent before us. The respondent filed an eviction petition on three grounds: (i) wilful default in payment of rent, (ii) unlawful sub-letting and (iii) that the premises were required for demolition and reconstruction. The Rent Controller passed an order of eviction upholding all the three grounds. On appeal the learned Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes held that the grounds of unlawful sub-letting and requirement of premises for demolition and reconstruction were unsustainable but upheld the decree for eviction on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent. Both the landlord and the tenant preferred revision applications to the High Court against this decision, which were dismissed. It may be mentioned that the revision petition of the landlord was directed against the findings of the learned Chief Judge on the question of sub-letting and the requiremen...
Tag this Judgment!