Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC1059; 1991Supp(1)SCC153; [1991]80STC396(SC)
S. Ranganathan, J.1. The Hospitality Organisation, Punjab was running canteens at various places and it was assessed to sales tax for the assessment year 1963-64. This assessment was confirmed by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner on first appeal and then by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Chandigarh on second appeal. The assessment was levied under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The tribunal held that the activity of manufacture of goods for sale by the Hospitality Organisation was a business and that it had been correctly held to be a 'dealer' within the meaning of the said Act. An application was made to the Tribunal to refer two questions of law said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal for the decision of the High Court. These questions were:1. Whether the directions of the Union of India contained in Memo No. F. 121(5)-B/ 66 Vol. II dated 7-3-1990 bars the assessment and recovery of the Sales Tax in the present case?2. Whether the Hos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1990(4)SC374; 1990(2)SCALE960; (1991)1SCC301; [1990]Supp2SCR615
T. Kochu Thommen, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal by a tenant arises from the judgment of the Madras High Court in C.R.P. No. 3064 of 1989 dismissing the appellant's petition challenging the order of the appellate authority in R.C.A. No. 108 of 1989 whereby the order of eviction made against the appellant by the Rent Controller in R.C.O.P.NO. 2083 of 1986 was confirmed.3. The respondent-landlord filed petition for eviction of the appellant-tenant on the ground specified under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The landlord contended:-The petitioner company as the owner of the premises had conceived the idea of putting the said premises to better use consistent with the locational advantages which is enjoyed by the property. The building which now exists on the premises is admittedly more than 100 years old and is an old structure which is liable to crumble on its own at any time. The present structur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC272; 1991CriLJ368
1. The appellant, Mahavir Prasad, who stands convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment has preferred this criminal appeal challenging the correctness of the judgment made in Criminal Appeal No. 801 of 1971 on the file of the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur Bench. The deceased, Prem Bai, was married to one Durga Prasad who was arrayed as an accused along with the appellant, but acquitted by the Trial Court itself. It seems that there was some misunderstanding between the deceased and her husband, Durga Prasad, as the latter had entertained some suspicion about the character of the deceased. In connection with the marriage of the brother of the deceased, the deceased had gone to her parents' house at Nawalgarh in May, 1970. Some letters were exchanged between Durga Prasad and Ram Gopal, the brother of the deceased. In one of the letters dated 10-6-70, Durga Prasad even went to the extent of suggesting Ram Gopal to put an end to her life in order to save...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC308; 1991LabIC212; 1991Supp(2)SCC387
1. Appellant's challenge by special leave is to the correctness of the decision of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by which the respondent's application for alteration of her date of birth from 19-10-1929 to 21-8-1933 has been accepted.2. Respondent, a lady engineer in the service of the State of Andhra Pradesh, entered into service in 1955. Admittedly she is an engineering graduate. The matriculation certificate which she had then produced while entering into service indicated her date of birth to be 19-10-1929. It appears that she filed Original Suit No. 309 of 1979 in the Civil Court for alteration of her date of birth from 19-10-1929 to 21-8-1933 impleading the Andhra University as defendant and obtained the decree on 21-10-1980. Pursuant to the decree of the Civil Court, the Andhra University issued a fresh matriculation certificate to her in which her date of birth was shown as 21-8-1933. On the basis of this new certificate respondent applied to the appropriate author...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC1224; 1991CriLJ989; 1993Supp(1)SCC7
1. Appeal No. 99/79 is preferred by one Kedar Nath who stands convicted Under Section 201 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment whereas Criminal Appeal No. 100/79 is preferred by one Baijnath who stands convicted Under Section 302 I.P.C. and also Under Section 201 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and three years' respectively. These two appeals arise out of a common judgment. According to the prosecution, the deceased in this case used to sell out piece cloths by carrying them on his cycle. On the date of the occurrence, he went to the market for selling the cut-pieces of cloth but he did not return. A search was also not fruitful. Therefore, on 15-5-73 his brother made a complaint before the police. Thereafter on a tip off, a constable (PW 1) attached to the concerned Police Station made in entry in the first information report. The investigation proceeded on the strength of the report given by PW 24 and on the basis of information of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC716; 1991Supp(2)SCC498
ORDER1. These contentions six applications being I.A. Nos. 3-8 of 1990 in Special Leave Petition No. 15731 of 1989 are the aftermath of an Order dated 19th March, 1990 passed by a two Judge Bench of this Court disposing of the Special Leave Petition. That Order reads as follows :There will be no Order on this petition except that the respondents will pay the balance sum due to be paid, which they have undertaken to pay, by 31-3-1990 and the sale thereafter will take place subject to the land acquisition proceedings. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of.2. The Order came to be passed in these circumstances : Sudershan Chits India Ltd. is a Company in liquidation before the Kerala High Court. Sudershan Trading Company Ltd. the petitioner in the Special Leave petition was the Holding Company of the company in liquidation. The holding company was required to discharge its liability of Rs. 8.09 crores to the company in liquidation. To facilitate payment thereof, the petitinercompany ob...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC331; (1991)91CTR(SC)213; [1991]188ITR231(SC); 1991Supp(2)SCC222
1. These five appeals arise out of the assessments of Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan as the legal representative of the late Nizam of Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee'). The appeals arise out of the assessments made on the assessee for the assessment years 1959-60, 1960-61, 1961-62, 1962-63 and 1963-64. Two questions, which are common to all these assessment years, were answered by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the Commissioner of Income-tax has preferred these appeals. We shall deal with these two questions.2. The first question was in the following terms :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income of Rs. 83,709, Rs. 83,709, Rs. 84,076, Rs. 84,779 and Rs. 96,431/- for the assessment years 1959-60, 1960-61, 1961-62, 1962-63 and 1963-64, respectively, relating to HEH the Nizam's Pilgrimage Money Trust are not taxable in the assessee's hands by reason of Section 16(1)(c) of the Income-tax A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1991Supp(1)SCC300
Ranganath Misra, C.J. and; M.N. Kania, J.1. Application for impleading minor heirs is allowed.2. We had adjourned this matter after the allegations and counter-allegations contained in the affidavits of parties had been looked into requesting counsel for the parties to find out ways and means for a just solution. It is reported by learned Solicitor General to us that no settlement is possible in view of the fact that the stand taken by the petitioner for claiming compensation is that there was negligence on the part of the doctor and the doctor's stand in the counter-affidavit is that there was no negligence. The basic facts appear to be disputed and, therefore, investigation becomes necessary. We do not think a proceeding under Article 32 of the Constitution would be the appropriate one to quantify the compensation in case anything is at all payable, in such a proceeding. We, therefore, think it appropriate that the petitioner should be relegated to a suit in accordance with law for t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1992Supp(1)SCC44; [1990]Supp2SCR606; 1991(1)LC121(SC)
ORDERK.N. Singh, J.1. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has been filed in public interest by Tehri Bandh Virodhi Sangarsh Samiti and others. The petitioners have prayed that the Union of India, State of Uttar Pradesh and the Tehri Hydro Development Corporation be restrained from constructing and implementing the Tehri Hydro Power Project and the Tehri Dam.2. The main grievance of the petitioners is that in preparing the plan for the Tehri Dam project the safety aspect has not been taken into consideration. It is asserted that the dam if allowed to be constructed poses a serious threat to the life, ecology and the environments of the entire northern India as the site of the dam is prone to earthquake. After this petition was filed a number of persons have intervened and the parties have filed affidavits and counter affidavits. The matter was heard by this Court at various stages. The controversy relating to the project has not only been debated in this Court bu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1991Supp(1)SCC302
S.R. Pandian and; K. Jayachandra Reddy, JJ.1. Heard counsel for considerable time and also perused the three judgments cited before us by the learned counsel for the appellant in support of his submissions, namely, L.W. Middleton v. Harry Playfair1, District Council, Amraoti v. Vithal Vinayak Bapat2 and Lal Audhiraj v. State of M.P.3 for the proposition that once a master has condoned any misconduct on the part of his servant which would have otherwise justified dismissal or imposition of a fine, he cannot after such condonation go back upon his election to condone and claim a right to dismiss the servant or impose a fine or any other punishment in respect of the offence which has been condoned. Admittedly, in the present case the appellant has been convicted for an offence under Section 377 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 1/2 years and this was before he joined the service on February 24, 1967. According to the learned counsel though his conviction...
Tag this Judgment!