Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC284; 1991LabIC216; 1990(2)SCALE951; 1992Supp(1)SCC272; [1990]Supp2SCR573; 1991(2)SLJ42(SC)
ORDERK. Ramaswamy, J.1. The vexed question of inter se seniority between promotees and direct recruits has once again been brought to the force at the behest of the petitioners in these writ petitions filed under Article 32 and respondents Nos. 4 to 99 in the first writ petition, for short 'promotees' and the respondents Nos. 100 to 139 in the first writ petition, for short 'direct recruits' as Asstt. Conservators of Forest. The Governor of U.P. exercising the power under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution issued the U.P. Forest Services Rules, 1952, for short 'the rules' which became effective from January 2, 1952. The promotees are confirmed Forest Range Officers in U.P. Forest Subordinate Service which is a feeder source for recruitment by promotion under Rule 5(b) of the rules as Asstt. Conservator of Forest Rule 4 constitutes and fixes the cadre strength of Chief Conservator of Forest; Conservator of Forest; Deputy Conservator of Forest and Asstt. Conservator of Forest...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC719; 1991Supp(2)SCC34
1. The appeal is by special leave and is directed against the order of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court disposing of an appeal under Section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, dated 28-4-78. The order being very brief is extracted below :-Having taken into consideration the relevant facts and the circumstances of this case, we are of opinion that there has been a violation of Section 5(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, but in view of the extenuating circumstances on records, we reduce the amount of penalty payable by the appellant to the respondent to the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand) only. The refund to the appellant the balance of the penalty, namely, a sum of Rupees 2,25,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and twenty five thousand) only already deposited, by a cheque drawn in favour of M/s. Khaitan & Co. Advocate-on-Record for the appellant. The cheque is to be made over to the said.The appellant is to pay the respondent the cost ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC2023b; (1990)90CTR(SC)22; [1991]187ITR345(SC); JT1990(4)SC584; 1990(2)SCALE934; 1991Supp(2)SCC681; [1990]Supp2SCR563
ORDERS.Ranganathan, J.1. These three appeals arise out of the assessments to wealth tax of Kumar Amarendra Lal Khan (since deceased) for the assessment years 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60. Shri Khan (hereinafter referred to as the 'assessee') owned vast agricultural properties which, by virtue of the provisions of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), came to vest in the State of West Bengal. Under the Act, the assessee was entitled to receive compensation in respect of the lands. The mode of determination and payment of compensation has been prescribed Under Sections 16 and 17 read with Section 23 of the Act. In completing the assessments of the assessee to wealth tax for the assessment years above mentioned (in respect of which the relevant valuation dates were 14.4.1957, 14.4.1958 and 14.4.1959 respectively), the Wealth Tax Officer required the assessee to furnish particulars of the compensation due from the Government. The assessee was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC351; 1991(1)ARBLR274(SC); 1991Supp(1)SCC155
ORDER1. By the present I.A. No. 3 of 1990 the respondent-decree-holder seeks What is styled a 'clarification' of the interlocutory order of stay dated 21-2-1990 made by this Court staying the operation of the judgment and decree under appeal subject to certain conditions. The relevant condition to Which, apparently, the clarification pertains is at para 3(a) of the order dated 21-2-1990 and provides : 3(a) that appellants, within four weeks from today, shall deposit in the trial Court, viz., the Original side of the Bombay High Court, the sums equivalent to one half of the decretal amount calculated as on date. The respondent-decree-holder shall be permitted to withdraw the deposit upon furnishment of security by way of bank guarantee for the sum to be withdrawn in excess of rupees four crores to the satisfaction of the High Court. In other words, in respect of and up to the amount of rupees four crores, no such security need be insisted upon.The point urged in the present application ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC380; 1991CriLJ469
1. The appellant who is the complainant in this criminal proceeding has filed this appeal on being aggrieved by the common judgment made in Criminal Revisions Nos. 1210, 1428 and 1474 of 1976 on the file of the High Court of Allahabad. The brief facts which have given rise to this appeal are as follows:On the intervening night of 25/26th Feb. 1968 there was a burglary in the house of the complainant in respect of which he laid a report before the police as against respondents 1 and 2 and two other accused who died during the pdendency of the trial. The Investigating Officer was able to recover some of the items of the properties from the houses of respondents 1 & 2 on 24-3-1968. After completing the investigation, he filed the charge-sheet. The Trial Court found respondents 1 & 2 guilty of the offence punishable Under Section 411 I.P.C. in respect of Exhibits 1 & 3 and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. Coming to the disposal of the prope...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC1144; [1991]188ITR42(SC)
ORDER1. Special leave granted.2. We propose to dispose of the appeal now itself as it involves a very short point. The appellant had filed an application Under Section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, before the Commissioner of Income-tax on 6th Feb. 1986. This application was made in pursuance of what has been described as 'an amnesty Scheme promulgated by the Department on 2-1-1986. It is unnecessary to set out that details of the Scheme. No orders were passed on the application filed by the appellant. He, therefore, approached the High Court of Karnataka by way of Writ Petition. A learned single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition on 16-12-1988 on the ground that the appellant could not take advantage of the amnesty scheme because it was in force only till 31-3-87 and the appellant had not applied in time. The appellant thereupon filed a writ appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court which, however, rejected the writ appeal by holding that since amnesty application had been ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC311; 1991CriLJ392; JT1990(4)SC329; (1995)IIILLJ609SC; (1991)1SCC605; [1990]Supp2SCR545; 1990(2)LC737(SC)
ORDERRanganath Misra, CJ.1. A three Judge Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 297 of 1990 made an order on April 20, 1990 to the following effect:This is an application under Article 32 filed as a public interest litigation for a direction to the Union of India to fill up the posts of Chairman and Members of the Commission under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969. Notice was issued on this petition on 28th February, 1990 and service had been effected before 26th of March, 1990. The Writ Petition was adjourned on 28th of March, 1990 till 9th of April, 1990 to enable Union of India to file its counter-affidavit. Such affidavit has, however, not been filed till today. When the matter was listed yesterday we were told that if the matter be called today a statement could be made as to when the posts shall be filled up. Counsel for the Union of India says that within a month's time these appointments are likely to be made. It is not disputed that the Chairman of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC295; [1991(62)FLR8]; JT1990(4)SC474; 1991LabIC235; 1990(2)SCALE942; 1991Supp(2)SCC421; [1991]Supp2SCR552; 1991(1)LC126(SC)
ORDERK. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. The review petitions are against the order dated 30 April 1990, dismissing Special Leave Petition Nos. 3131-37/88 and other connected petition. The Special Leave Petitions are directed against the decision of the Karnataka High Court dated 21 January 1988 by which the petitioners were unseated by quashing their appointments. The Court while dismissing the Special Leave Petitions, however, issued certain directions as under:The SLPs are rejected but with the following directions:The High Court shall intimate the State Public Service Commission the total vacancies in the cadre of Second Division Clerks on the establishment of Subordinate Courts and the Public Service Commission shall then immediately take up the process of selection of candidates for appointment to such vacancies; To avoid delay the Public Service Commission may take up this process exclusively for filling-up the vacancies in the establishment of the subordinate judiciary. All these proced...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC90
1. Special Leave granted.2. We have heard appellant in person and Mr. R.B. Dattar for the Delhi Administration and Mr. V. B. Saharya for the Delhi Development Authority. The appellant was the owner of certain land which was subjected to acquisition for purposes of development and expansion of Delhi under the preliminary notification of November, 1959 and award was made between 13-2-1962 and 7-2-1973 in instalments. Under the scheme for acquisition then obtaining, the owner of the land, who was losing his property on. account of acquisition, was entitled to allotment of a plot of land. There is considerable difference between the appellant on one side, and Counsel for the respondents on the other, as to what exactly was the ratio of the area between the land acquired and plot to be allotted.3. Appellant did not lay claim for allotment within a reasonable time and no action was, therefore, taken by the respondents to fulfil their obligation under the scheme. In 1981, the additional compe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC314; 1991LabIC242; 1993Supp(1)SCC615
1. The short question involved in these appeals is as to whether the amount paid to its employees by the employer towards the authorised leave which they enjoy under the provisions of Sections 79 and 80 of the Factories Act, 1948, is or is not to be included in the total wage bill of the employer for the purposes of computing its share of special contribution under Section 73(a) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The dispute relates to a period prior to the amendment of the definition of the term 'Wages' under Section 2(22) of the Act by Act No. 44/ 66. There is no dispute that the amount paid towards the authorised leave as aforesaid was not included in the definition of the term 'Wages' as it then stood. The submission which was made on behalf of the appellant before the High Court and has been reiterated before us is that even though the definition of the term 'Wages 'did not include the amount paid towards the authorised leave, it beca...
Tag this Judgment!