Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC983; 1991Supp(1)SCC520; [1990]Supp3SCR638; 1991(1)LC422(SC)
R.M. Sahai, J.1. 'Much ado about nothing' or the appellants were guilty of condemnable conduct' disentitling them from any relief in equity jurisdiction was the issue which was debated, vigorously, in these appeals directed against order, of the Kerala High Court. More so because the High Court, not only, dismissed the writ petition of appellants but issued directions, in a public interest litigation to the Municipal Council to take appropriate action in relation to the construction, raised in pursuance of interim order granted by the court.2. Nature of public interest litigation, its pro bono publico content, justification for entertaining it are not proposed to be gone into but it need be observed that the court being ceased of a petition dealing with same subject matter, it would have been more appropriate if, it could have exercised restraint in light of the law laid down by this Court in Chhetriya Pradushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti v. State of U.P. : [1990]3SCR739 , Ramsharan Autyan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC972; JT1991(1)SC22; 1990(2)SCALE1279; 1991Supp(1)SCC565; [1990]Supp3SCR566; 1991(1)LC673(SC)
ORDERS.C. Agarawal, J. 1. This appeal by special leave raises the question whether it was competent for the Board of Revenue to refer for arbitration the dispute relating to declaration of Bhumidari rights in agricultural land in a second appeal arising out of a suit instituted Under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950(hereinafter referred to as 'the Zamindari Abolition Act').2. Badlu, father of Hakim Ali (appellant No. 1), instituted a suit Under Section 229-B of the Zamindari Abolition Act against respondent No. 2, Lekhi Ram, wherein he sought a declaration that he is Bhumidar in respect of certain lands situate within the urban area of Municipal Board, Baraut. During the pendency of the said suit before the trial court Badlu died and the appellants were brought on record as the plaintiffs. The said suit was dismissed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Baghpat. But on appeal it was decreed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut. Respondent No. 2 filed a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1991(31)ECC459; JT1990(4)SC748; 1990(2)SCALE1271; 1991Supp(2)SCC622; 1991(1)LC384(SC)
ORDERLalit Mohan Sharma, J.1. The respondents are engaged in manufacture of salt and crude sodium sulphate. They were served with notices demanding payment of excise duty on the clearance of crude sodium sulphate. The respondents resisted on the ground that crude sodium sulphate was the residue in the manufacture of salt and it was covered by a notification granting exemption to goods produced without the aid of power.2. Admittedly brine is pumped from a well into salt pans by using electric power. In the salt pans salt is formed by the process of natural evaporation of water. During the course of formation of salt some quantity of sodium sulphate present in the brine also crystallizesand settled at the bottom in the form of crust. After salt is removed from the pans the sodium sulphate lying at the bottom of the pans becomes available. The question is as to whether power can be said to have been used in relation to the manufacture of the chemical by reason of the fact that brine is pu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC407; 1991(31)ECC455; 1991LC7(SC); 1991(51)ELT182(SC); JT1990(4)SC790; 1990(2)SCALE1269; 1991Supp(2)SCC348; [1990]Supp3SCR559; 1991(1)LC488(SC)
ORDERN.M. Kasliwal, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order of Bombay High Court dated 2.12.1987. Brief facts of the case are that respondent is the sole proprietor of a concern known as Neptune Water-proof Manufacturing Company (in short the company) and carries on business of manufacturing Water-proof Kraft Paper. The company manufactures the following products:i) Bituminised Water-proof packing paperii) Polythene-lined kraft packing paperiii) Waxed kraft packing paperiv) Jute-lined bituminised water-proof packing paperv) Waxed kraft packing papervi) Hessian-lined kraft paperThe company purchases kraft paper from the open market as well as other materials like bitumine, polythene, jute fibre and wax and thereafter combines these materials with kraft paper in its factory. Till. October 30, 1980 the company classified its products under Item 17(2) of the schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944(hereinafter referred to as the Act) and paid duty accordin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC427; JT1991(5)SC106; 1990(2)SCALE1284; 1991Supp(2)SCC608; 1991(1)LC395(SC)
ORDERR.M. Sahai, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal by grant of special leave against judgment of the Pradesh High Court is if the appellant who was ordinary tenant under Madhya Pradesh Revenue Code of 1954 became an occupancy tenant under Madhya Pradesh Revenue Code of 1959 and consequently acquired Bhumiswami rights or the lease being annual he lost his right by efflux of time after expiry of one year and was liable to ejectment and mesne profit.2. Basis for seeking eviction were, forcible occupation by appellant after the respondent had purchased the land from its Bhumiswami on 3rd November, 1958., letting being for cutting grass the appellant could not claim tenancy rights and in any case tenancy having been terminated in April 1959 the appellant was liable to eviction. While resisting the suit the appellants claimed rights as occupancy tenant since their ancestors were sub-tenants over last thirty or forty years and who acquired rights of ordinary...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC397; (1991)93BOMLR22; 1991(1)Crimes290(SC); JT1990(4)SC759; 1990(2)SCALE1274; (1991)1SCC500; [1990]Supp3SCR552; 1991(1)LC347(SC)
ORDER Dated 6th January 199059. NATIONAL SECURITY ACT, 1980NO. NSA-1390/ 1/SPL-3(B) --Whereas the Government of Maharashtra is satisfied that having regard to circumstances prevailing or likely to prevail in the Greater Bombay Police Commissionerate, it is necessary that during the period commencing on 30th January, 1990 and ending on the 29th April, 1990, the Commissioner of Police and the said Commissioner should also exercise the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the National Security Act, 1980 (65 of 1980) (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act')Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (3) of the Section 3 of the said Act, the Government of Maharashtra hereby directs that for the period commencing on the 30th January 1990 and ending on 29th April 1990 the Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay may also if satisfied as provided in Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act exercise the powers conferred on the State Government by subse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC401; JT1990(4)SC787; 1991(I)OLR(SC)178; 1990(2)SCALE1272; (1991)1SCC633; [1990]Supp3SCR547a; 1991(1)LC495(SC)
ORDERLalit Mohan Sharma, J. 1. Special leave is granted. The short question which arises in this appeal is whether duty is payable Under Section 147 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, on a sale certificate issued by the civil court under Order XXI, Rule 94 CPC.2. The property in question was auction sold in execution of a decree in the civil court and was purchased on August 4, 1986 by the respondent Pramod Kumar Gupta for a sum of Rs. 17,00,000. The sale was confirmed on November 6, 1986, and the High Court directed the issuing of the Sale Certificate under Order XXI, Rule 94, C.P.C. On the question of payment of stamp duty, the respondent contended that no duty was chargeable Under Section 147 of the 1957 Act. The learned single Judge of the High Court agreed with him and directed payment of only the stamp duty without surcharge for issuance of the Sale Certificate. The judgment was confirmed on appeal by a Division Bench. The petitioner-appellant Municipal Corporation of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC957; 1991(1)ARBLR282(SC); JT1991(5)SC105; 1990(2)SCALE1260; (1991)1SCC498; 1991(1)LC309(SC)
ORDERT. Kochu Thommen, J.1. This appeal arises from the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur dated 6.8.1974 in First Appeal No. 146 of 1969. The appellant entered into a contract with the respondents for the supply of 'hard granite chips' for the construction of NH/43 at four reaches. Since 'hard granite chips' were not available, it was agreed between the appellant and the respondents that the appellant would supply 'hard stone chips' instead of 'hard granite chips'. The payment was agreed to be paid in terms of the Schedule of Rates of the Dandakaranya Project. Dispute arose between the parties in respect of the ate of payment. The appellant contended that it was entitled to be paid the rates prescribed under the contract for 'hard granite chips' and not the rates under the Schedule for 'hard stone chips'2. The dispute between the parties was referred by the Court in terms of Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The reference was made, notwithstanding the obje...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC513; (1991)1CompLJ196(SC); (1991)91CTR(SC)127; [1991]187ITR473(SC); JT1990(4)SC784; 1990(2)SCALE1257; 1991Supp(2)SCC618; [1990]Supp3SCR541
ORDERM. Fathima Beevi, J. 1. The assessee Seth Narottamdas was managing agent of M/s. Chandulal and Co. Ltd. A Resolution for the payment of special additional remuneration to Narottamdas at the rate of Rs. 15,000 per annum was passed on July 20, 1949. In the meantime, a representative suit was filed by the shareholders of the company on 16.7.1949 for perpetual injunction from giving such extra remuneration and for declaring the Resolution as illegal. Temporary injunction granted by the trial court was dissolved on July 20, 1949, on the assurance that the company will not make payment of extra remuneration until the disposal of the suit. The trial court decreed the suit on 31.10.1950 but on appeal, the High Court by judgment dated 25.11.1955 reversed the decree and held that the Resolution was validly passed.2. Chandulal & Co. Ltd., debited the sum of Rs. 15,000 in the profit and loss account prepared by it on 22.6.1950 for the year ended 31.12.1949. For the later years, the company sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC955; JT1991(5)SC102; (1991)2MLJ25(SC); 1990(2)SCALE1267; (1991)1SCC438
ORDERT. Kochu Thommen, J.1. This appeal arises from the Judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 7.11.1974 in Regular First Appeal Nos. 156-D and 167-D of 1963. The appellant, Sohan Lal, is the second defendant in the civil suit instituted in the Court of the Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi by the second respondent herein, Jagan Nath Bhayana. The first respondent in this appeal, the Union of India, is the first defendant in the suit.2. The main relief sought by the plaintiff in the suit was for possession of House No. 35, Block No. 21, Box-type tenement in West Patel Nagar, New Delhi, or in the alternative for specific performance of sale of the aforesaid house, or for damages in the sum of Rs. 13,000/- together with costs. The suit was dismissed by the learned Sub-Judge against the second defendant, Sohan Lal, the appellant herein. But it was decreed against the first defendant - the Union of India - the first respondent herein, to the extent of awarding damages in the sum of Rs. 13,069.31 with...
Tag this Judgment!