Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1990)1SCC508
Order 1. The case has been placed on the cause list today for final disposal. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Special leave is granted. 2. The subject matter of the present litigation is a shop belonging to the respondent which is in possession of the appellant as a tenant. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondent for eviction of the appellant on the ground of sub-letting. The suit was dismissed by the trial court, but on appeal was decreed by the first appellate court. The High Court has confirmed the decision by the impugned judgment. 3. According to the landlord's case, the appellant Badru Khan has let out the shop to one Jan Mohd. This is denied by the appellant. One of the questions on which the parties seriously differ is whether Jan Mohd. is Badru Khan's brother as alleged by him or not. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the first appellate court erroneously assumed that there was no relationship between...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1990Supp(1)SCC31
ORDER 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur dated April 15, 1981 quashing the appellant's promotion to the post of Engineering Supervisor. 2. The appellant and respondents 2 to 4 have been employed as Junior Engineers in the service of Nagpur Improvement Trust. The appellant was promoted to the post of Engineering Supervisor on June 28, 1976 on the footing that the post was reserved for Scheduled Caste employees of the Trust. Respondents 2 to 4 filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the validity of the appellant's promotion on the ground that on the date of the appellant's promotion the Improvement Trust had not adopted reservation policy declared by the State Government, as such the appellant could not be promoted in preference to respondents 2 to 4. The High Court held that since the Nagpur Improvement Trust had not adopted the reservation policy declared by the State Government prior to 1979 the appellant's pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1990Supp(1)SCC39; 1990(Supp)SCC39
ORDER1. Pursuant to our order dated October 27,1989, Mr. G. Ramaswamy, Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the financial institutions has submitted before this Court a memorandum. It has been stated in the said memorandum that the financial institutions had already brought back 39 lacs shares of Larsen & Toubro Ltd. with accretions thereto from Trishna Investments and Leasing Ltd., respondent No. 5. It has also been stated in the said memorandum that by buying back the said shares, the financial institutions are in no way either remotely or. impliedly accepting the position that the original transactions of sale of shares were illegal or void. The financial institutions stand by their contentions and statements which have been upheld by the Bombay High Court in its judgment dated September 29, 1989 in Writ Petition No. 2595 of 1989 that the transactions were bonafide, valid and in the interestsof the financialinstitutions.2. It has been further stated therein that the t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC1753; JT1989(4)SC307; (1990)97PLR166; 1989(2)SCALE1149; (1990)1SCC71; [1989]Supp2SCR127; 1990(1)LC200(SC); 1990(1)WLN5
Ray, J.1. Special leave granted. Arguments heard.2. This is an appeal against the judgment and order passed in R.F.A. (OS) 3 of 1983 on March 14, 1983 by the High Court of Delhi dismissing the Civil Writ Petition in limini against the judgment and decree rendered by Chawla, J in Suit No. 50 of 1972 on February 12, 1982.3. The matrix of this case is stated hereunder :The appellant M/S Marwar Tent Factory is a firm having its registered office at Jodhpur (Rajasthan) and dealing in the manufacture and sale of tents and tarpaulins. The firm is a regular supplier of these goods to the defence services of India.4. On March 13, 1986 tenders were invited for the supply of tents by the Directorate General of Supplies and Disposals, the respondent No. 2. Accordingly, the appellant submitted a tender which was accepted by the officer of the Directorate General of Supplies and Disposals on behalf of the President of India. The said contract was of two kinds of tents 'Flies Inner' and 'Flies Outer'...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1989(3)Crimes759(SC); JT1989(4)SC366; 1989(2)SCALE1083; (1990)1SCC328; [1989]Supp2SCR105
K.N. Saikia, J.1. Special leave granted.2. This appeal is from the Judgment and Order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad dated 4.7.1988 passed in Writ Petition No. 8610 of 1988.3. The appellant states that he enjoys popularity in his area and that he previously held several important positions in the Cuddapah District of Andhra Pradesh, such as organising secretary of the Andhra Pradesh Congress Committee for several years, a Municipal Councillor from 1982 to 1986 and a Vice-Chairman of Cuddapah Municipal Council. According to him in December 1985 he was elected as a Chairman of the Cuddapah Municipal Council for its residuary term and in March 1987 he was elected to the Municipal Council as an independent candidate defeating the Telugu Dasam and Congress (1) candidates by a large margin. It is his case that the local leadership of the ruling Telugu Desam Party having failed to woo him into their fold he was pressurised through the Excise and Police authorities foisting f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1990Supp(1)SCC527; 1990(Supp)SCC527
Order 1. This appeal, by special leave, arises out of and is directed against the judgment dated July 22, 1974 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in Letters Patent Appeal No. 273 of 1972 dismissing, in reversal of the order dated January 5, 1972 of the learned Single Judge of the High Court, the W.P. No. 3387 of 1970 filed by the appellant by which appellant assailed certain adjudication proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962 culminative in an order of confiscation of certain seized goods. The adjudication proceedings were assailed on the ground that the show cause notice contemplated by Section 124(a) had not been issued within six months from the date of the seizure of the goods as envisaged by Section 110(2) of the Act. The High Court, in the judgment under appeal, was persuaded to the view that the time limit referred to by Section 110(2) pertained to the power to retain the seized goods beyond six months and that the issue of the show cause notice under Section...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1990(2)SC616; 1990(1)SCALE24; (1990)1SCC505; [1989]Supp2SCR100; 1990(1)LC550(SC)
M.H. Kania, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Orissa High Court dismissing Election Petition No. 7 of 1985 filed by the appellant in that Court. 2. The facts of the case have been fully set out in the impugned judgment of the High Court and hence, little purpose would be served in setting them out here again. It should be sufficient to note only the few facts required to be set out to appreciate the controversy arising before us. 3. The election in question was to the Legislative Assembly of the Orissa State from 74-Gopalpur (Scheduled Caste) Assembly Constituency. This election was held in March 1985. The last date for filing the nomination papers was February 8, 1985. The date of scrutiny was as February 9, 1985. The last date for withdrawal of the nominations was February 11, 1985, February 10,1985 being a Sunday. The appellant duly filed his nomination papers for the seat and along with the other papers, he filed an attested copy of the relev...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1990)84CTR(SC)164; [1990]181ITR408(SC)
ORDERS. Ranganathan, J.1. This is a petition under Article 136 from an order of the High Court declining to call upon the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state a case and refer certain questions of law for its decision. The questions of law on which reference was sought stand concluded by our order of even date in Tax Referred Case No. 3 of 1976 (Rama Bai v. CIT : [1990]181ITR400(SC) ). In view of this, we think that it will be a futile exercise to deal with the appeal as placed before us. We treat it instead as a special leave petition under Article 136 from the order of the Tribunal deciding the question raised against the assessee, condoning the delay. Counsel for the Union of India takes notice of the petition. In the circumstances mentioned above, we grant leave and proceed to dispose of the appeal itself.2. There were three questions decided by the Tribunal which are set out in the preliminary portion of the High Court's order. The first question is concluded by the decision of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1990]181ITR400(SC); 1990Supp(1)SCC699
ORDER1. At the instance of the assessee, we draw up a statement of the case, as,, in our opinion, a question of law does arise out of the order of the Tribunal in I. T. A. No. 1363 (Hyd) of 1972-73.2. The assessee owned 42 acres 6 guntas of lands situate in a village Nacharam near Hyderabad. The lands are covered by Survey No. 55 (16. acres 33 guntas), Survey No. 58 (13 acres 12 guntas) and Survey No. 59/2 (42 acres 06 guntas). The Government of Andhra Pradesh acquired these lands under the Land Acquisition Act and a notification under Section 4 of the said Act was published on May 14, 1964, in the Gazette. Possession was taken by the Government between October 27, 1964, and November 7, 1964. The Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, awarded compensation of Rs. 21,075, solatium of Rs. 3,161 and interest of Rs. 1,004, in all amounting to Rs. 25,240, as per his award dated November 20, 1965. The assessee being aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded sought for a reference u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1989(4)SC386; 1989(2)SCALE1157; (1990)1SCC324; [1989]Supp2SCR93
Ranganath Misra, J.1. Special leave granted.2. The short question for consideration in this appeal at the instance of the landlord in a proceeding for eviction under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act is as to whether the appellant before us is a Specified landlord as defined in Section 2(hh) of the Act. The High Court has decided against the landlord by relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of D.N. Malhotra v. Kartar Singh (1988) 1 SCC 655. When this matter came before a 2- Judge Bench, on 16.8.1988 the following order was made:This matter may be listed before a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges two weeks hence for consideration of the question in the light of the decision of this Court in D.N. Malhotra v. Kartar Singh : [1988]2SCR833 .3. Section 2(hh) of the Act defines 'specified landlord' to mean:a person who is entitled to receive rent in respect of a building on his own account and who is holding or has held an appointment in a public service or post in connecti...
Tag this Judgment!