Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC1490; (1989)77CTR(SC)75; [1989]177ITR431(SC); JT1989(2)SC264; 1989(1)SCALE1151; 1989Supp(2)SCC523; [1989]2SCR772
R.S. Pathak, C.J.1. These appeals by special leave are directed against a judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana disposing of an Income-tax ; Reference in favour of the respondent assessee,2. The assessee manufactures strawboard. For the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68 (the relevant previous years being the respective calendar years 1964, 1965 and 1966), the assessee claimed concessional rates of income tax, development rebate at higher rate and ', deduction under Section 80-E of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the manufacture of strawboard was a priority industry. For the assessment year 1965-66 the total income assessed was Rs. 17,71.334/-and against the basic rate of 80 per cent the assessee claimed rebate at the rate of 35 per cent up to Rs. 10,00,000/- and on the balance at 26 per cent. The Income Tax Officer allowed the rebate at 30 per cent up to Rs. 10,00,000/- and at 20 per cent on the balance. For the assessment year 1966-67 the assessee cl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC1468; JT1989(2)SC215; 1989(2)SCALE1145; 1989Supp(2)SCC236; [1989]2SCR777; [1989]74STC5(SC); 1989(2)LC176(SC)
R.S. Pathak, CJ.1. The question raised in these two appeals is whether the assessee Railway in each appeal is a 'dealer' within the meaning of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 and therefore liable to assessment under that Act.2. In C.A. No. 845 of 1974 the facts are these. The assessee South Eastern Railway disposes of unclaimed and unconnected goods for money consideration. On 1 April, 1952 the assessee applied for registration as a dealer under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act in respect of unconnected or unclaimed goods, and was accordingly registered. It submitted returns of sales effected by it of unclaimed and unconnected goods year after year and paid sales tax pursuant to the assessments made by the Sales Tax Department. However, in assessment proceedings for the four quarters ending March, 1959 the assessee applied to the Commercial Tax Officer for cancellation of the registration of the assessee as a 'dealer' under the Act. The Commercial Tax Officer examined the ca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC1589; 1989Supp(2)SCC275; [1989]2SCR810; 1989(2)LC171(SC)
K.N. Singh, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Judicial Commissioner, Goa dated 30-6-1972 setting aside the order of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji and declaring that the suit instituted by the appellant had abated.2. The appellant Bank instituted a suit before the Civil Judge for recovery of an amount of Rs. 63,315/- against Vinaique Naique, advanced to him as loan by it. Vinaique Naique, the defendant contested the suit, issues were framed and evidence was being recorded. On 26-2-1970 statement of P.W. 1 was recorded and the case was adjourned to another date but on that date also the case was adjourned to 23-7-1970. The suit was again adjourned on 23-7-1970. on the ground that the defendant Vinaique Naique was indisposed and was hospitalised. Thereafter, the suit was taken up for hearing on 4-11-1970. On that date the defendant's pleader informed the Court orally that the defendant had died at Margaon but did not give any further details. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC1470; JT1989(2)SC261; 1989MPLJ365(SC); 1989(1)SCALE1147; (1989)3SCC77; [1989]2SCR769; 1989(2)LC178(SC)
R.S. Pathak, C.J.I.1. This is a landlord's appeal by special leave arising out of a suit for ejectment. 2. The respondent's father B.M. Paul, was the tenant of the premises in question. On his death he left behind the respondent, his mother, brothers and sisters who inherited the tenancy. A notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy was addressed to the respondent and was served on him. It was not addressed and served on the other tenants. A suit for ejectment was filed by the appellant against the respondent. The validity of the notice to quit was challenged by the respondent. It was contended that notice should have been addressed to all the members of the family and served on them, and in the absence of notice to all the suit was incompetent. The trial, court upheld the validity of the notice relying upon the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Shrimati Vishnawati v. Bhagwat Vithu Chowdhry :(1969) A.L.J. 1131 on the footing that the defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC1555; 1989(22)ECC287; 1989(23)LC169(SC); 1989(41)ELT360(SC); JT1989(2)SC410; 1989(1)SCALE1328; (1989)3SCC351; [1989]2SCR782; 1989(2)LC163(SC)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This is an appeal under section 35-L(b) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') from the judgment and order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') dated the 20th January, 1984.2. The appellants are the manufacturers of 'Supercem Waterproof Cement Paint', hereinafter called as the 'Product', and other allied products in their factory at Madras. They manufacture and market this product throughout India. It is stated that the appellants are a small manufacturing firm with no branches and/or sales offices in any other State, city or town. In these circumstances, an agreement for sale described as an 'agreement of sale' dated 1st May, 1962 was entered into with Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co. Ltd., of Calcutta, hereinafter called 'Gillanders'. The said company has a very big sales organisation having its offices located at all important places in the territory of U...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC1563; JT1989(2)SC270; 1989(1)SCALE1143; (1989)2SCC683; 1989(3)SLJ8(SC); 1989(2)LC245(SC)
Pathak, CJI.The petitioner Shri Prahalad Singh has brought this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution claiming that he and other similarly placed Compositors employed in the Government of India Presses are entitled to the status of Compositors Grade I in the 'highly skilled' category with corresponding revised pay scales retrospectively with effect from 1 January, 1966. The petitioner alleges that two categories of Compositors have been constituted, one category being the 'highly skilled' and the remainder being described as 'skilled'. The former is entitled to a higher grade of pay. It is alleged that in 1969, membership of the category 'highly skilled' compositors was based on the principle of seniority, although all the Compositors including the senior persons treated as 'highly skilled' were functioning in identical and inter-changeable posts and discharging identical functions. It is pointed out that one T.R. Thakur challenged this categorisation and the grant of higher pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC1443; (1989)77CTR(SC)77; [1989]177ITR439(SC); JT1989(2)SC257; 1989(1)SCALE1141; 1989Supp(2)SCC431; [1989]2SCR797
R.S. Pathak, C.J.I.1. This appeal by certificate granted by the Allahabad High Court is directed against a judgment of the High Court answering the following questions in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee in an income tax reference:(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a correct interpretation of the lease deed dated 22.8.1960, the Tribunal was right in holding the profits of the Glass factory during the relevant accounting year accrued to the assessee- company ?(2) If the answer to the question No. 1 is in the affirmative, whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the entire profits and not one half of the profits of the glass factory during the relevant accounting year accrued to the assessee-company.2. The assessee, Messrs. Vibhuti Glass Works is a public limited company. It has a glass factory and also carries on other business. The accounts of the glass factory are closed on 31 March each year, while the assessee closes its account...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC1565; [1989(59)FLR734]; (1989)IILLJ558SC; 1989(1)SCALE1544; (1989)3SCC271; [1989]2SCR802; 1989(2)LC159(SC)
Murari Mohan Dutt, J.1. Special leave is granted. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The appellants, Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh, Jamshedpur, and another, have preferred this appeal against the judgment of the Patna High Court whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petition of the appellants challenging the order of the State of Bihar refusing to make a reference of the disputes raised by the appellants to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.3. The appellant Sangh represents about 900 convoy drivers. By a letter of demand dated October 16, 1986 addressed to the General Manager of the Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd., Jamshedpur (for short 'TELCO'), the Sangh demanded that permanent status should be given by the management to all the convoy drivers, and that they should also be given all the facilitiesas are available to the permanent employees of TELCO on the dates of their appointme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC1492; JT1989(2)SC259; 1989(1)SCALE1123; (1989)3SCC72; [1989]2SCR748; 1989(2)LC179(SC)
R.S. Pathak, CJI.1. This is a tenant's appeal arising out of proceedings for her ejectment.2. The respondent, as landlord of the premises let to the appellant, filed a petition for her eviction on the ground set forth in Section 14(1)(h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, that is to say, that the appellant had 'acquired vacant possession of...a residence' after the commencement of the Act, viz. her own house D-196, Defence Colony, New Delhi and was therefore liable to hand over possession of the rented premises occupied by her to the respondent. It was alleged that the appellant had acquired vacant possession of her house on 20 November, 1973 after the premises in suit had been let out to her on 1 April, 1971. The appellant denied that she was liable to ejectment.3. The Assistant Rent Controller, Delhi, and the Rent Control Tribunal concurrently held that the appellant was owner of house D-196, Defence Colony, New Delhi, that on 20 November, 1973 the previous tenant had vacated the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC1652; JT1989(2)SC262; 1989(1)SCALE1136; (1989)3SCC74; [1989]2SCR744; 1989(2)LC157(SC)
R.S. Pathak, C.J.1. This is a landlady's appeal by special leave arising out of proceedings for the ejectment of the respondent-tenant.2. The appellant let out the premises in suit to the respondent on 1 September, 1962, the rent being stipulated as payable in advance. With effect from 1 January 1972 the rent payable was Rs. 515/- per month. On 29 November 1972, the contractual tenancy was determined by notice. The respondent received a notice on 7 May 1976 calling upon him to pay the arrears of rent. The rent in fact had been received upto 31 March 1976 and, therefore, when the notice of demand was served on the respondent rent for the months of April and May 1976 had fallen due. The rent was payable in advance.3. On 13 May 1976, the respondent offered a bank draft of Rs. 515/- to the appellant. The appellant refused to accept it. Two days later, the respondent sent the same bank draft by registered post. The appellant received the bank draft and retained it. On 7 June 1976, the appel...
Tag this Judgment!