Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC432; (1991)1MLJ41(SC); 1991Supp(2)SCC337
1. The sole appellant having died during the pendency of the appeal, a petition for substitution has been filed. Heard counsel for the parties. Delay condoned and substitution ordered.2. This appeal by Special Leave is directed against the revisional order of the Madras High Court by which the finding rendered in the appellate forum that the tenant was not a wilful defaulter was reversed and eviction ordered.3. The tenancy is a commercial one, located in a busy street of Madras. The rent as found was Rs. 30/- per month. The record indicates that the original tenant had offered to pay the rent for the months of July and August of 1970 and for some subsequent months initially by personal tender and on refusal, by remittance through money-order and the landlord was refusing to accept the same. Later the landlord demanded by notice rent at the rate of Rs. 45/- by saying that that was the agreed rent. As already noticed the agreed rate has been found to be Rs. 30/- per month. Therefore, the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1990]186ITR428(SC)
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. The following question was sought to be raised by seeking reference under Section 256(1) and (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :Was the Tribunal justified in holding that neither profit nor loss of the work was to be taken into account in the assessment of income ?2. The Tribunal and the High Court have rejected the reference and refused to call for the statement of the case with reference to the said question. We have perused the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal was of the opinion that the question does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal as it is a pure finding of fact. Whether any profit or loss has to be taken into account, the Tribunal said, is based on an appreciation of facts placed before the Tribunal and can, in no circumstance, give rise to a question of law. The High Court was also of the same view. In spite of our anxious consideration to the question raised, we are unable to disagree with the conclusion of the Tribunal. The appeal, theref...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC354; 1991Supp(1)SCC202
ORDER1. The short question involved in these two appeals arises out of the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in regard to exigibility of sales-tax in respect of four items being (1) sale of jeera, methi, ajwain, saunf and cardamom; (2) sale of wet dates; (3) sale of old newspaper; and (4) transaction of mustard oil-whether they are first purchase or not? 2. We are concerned with the assessment year 1973-74. It is not in dispute that just before the commencement of the year, by amendment of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act oil seed has been defined in a way different for what existed prior to the amendment. 3. The High Court found against the assessee on all scores. 4. Mr. Rangam appearing in support of the appeals contended that there was a circular of Government of India with reference to the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act as to what would be included within the meaning of oil seeds and all the five items referred to here were included in the circular as be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC909a; 1990(2)LC671(SC); (1990)2UPLBEC1321
ORDERRanganath Misra, J.1. Leave is granted to the petitioners who were not parties before the High Court in Writ Petition No. 5267 of 1990 to file the special leave petition. The Registry shall, therefore, consequently register this special leave petition. Special leave is granted.2. On 25-5-1990, a learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court is said to have made an Order in Writ Petn. No. 5267 of 1990. That brief Order for convenience is extracted below :It has been brought to the notice of the Court that the opposite parties have violated the time schedule framed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Dinesh Kumar v. MLN Medical College, Allahabad : [1988]1SCR351 in organizing the competition to be held on 27-5-90 by Lucknow University for admissions in Post-graduate Medical Courses in the State Medical Colleges. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has recently warned in the case of State of Bihar v. Dr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha : AIR1990SC749 , that 'Everyone including the States, the Un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC909; JT1990(3)SC690; (1990)4SCC633; [1990]Supp1SCR130
Ranganath Misra, J.Leave is granted to the petitioners who were not parties before the High Court in Writ Petition No. 5267 of 1990 to file the special leave petition. The Registry shall, therefore, consequently register this special leave petition. Special leave is granted.2. On 25-5-1990, a learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court is said to have made an order in Writ Petn. No. 5267 of 1990. That brief order for convenience is extracted below:It has been brought to the notice of the Court that the opposite parties have violated the time schedule framed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Dinesh Kumar v. MLN Medical College, Allahabad : 1980CriLJ1278 in organising the competition to be held on 27-5-90 by Lucknow University for admissions in Post-graduate Medical Courses in the State Medical Colleges. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has recently warned in the case of State of Bihar v. Dr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha : AIR1990SC749 , that 'Everyone including the States, the Union Terri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1990(3)SC688; 1990(2)SCALE452; (1990)4SCC493; 1990(2)LC514(SC)
M.H. Kania, J.1. This is an appeal by Special Leave from the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No. 1482 of 1981, summarily dismissing the said second appeal.2. The appellants before us are the tenants of lessees and the respondents, the landlords in respect of certain shop premises. The said shop was conducted under a tin shade resting on a wall of the respondents' building. The land under the shade belonged to the respondents.3. The suit for eviction was filed in the Court of the learned Munsif Hawaii, Rarriljibad and not before the Prescribed Authority as provided under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972(hereinafter referred to as 'the U.P. Rent Act'). It is common ground that if the premises leased constitute a 'building' within the meaning of that word as defined under Clause (i) of Section 3 of the U.P. Rent Act, then the suit ought to have been instituted before the Prescribed Autho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1990(4)SC68; (1990)4SCC495; [1990]Supp1SCR126; 1990(2)LC669(SC)
M.H. Kania, J.1. Lands comprising a few bighas belonging to the claimants (appellants) and situated in the area now known as 'Nehru Place' in Delhi were notified for acquisition by the Government of India by a Notification dated November 13, 1959, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894, The said lands were duly acquired under the said Act. In compensation proceedings the Land Acquisition Collector awarded to the claimants (appellants) compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,000 per bigha and further awarded solatium and interest as provided by law. In two references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act at the instance of the appellants, the Additional District Judge enhanced the compensation from Rs. 2,000 per bigha to Rs. 4,000/5,000 per bigha. From the orders of the Additional District Judge, the appellants filed appeals in Delhi High Court. The Delhi High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 7,000 per bigha and also awarded solatium and interest. Compensation w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC2030; JT1990(3)SC707; 1990(2)SCALE454; (1990)4SCC627; [1990]Supp1SCR135; 1990(2)LC665(SC); (1991)1UPLBEC539
ORDERRanganath Misra, J.1. This is an interlocutory application at the instance of the respondents in the writ petitions where the following directions of this Court have been asked for:(i) grant time to State of Uttar Pradesh for implementing judgment and order dated 25th September, 1987 and commence the session for post-graduate education from 2nd May, 1990 in all the seven medical colleges; (ii) further permit the State of Uttar Pradesh to hold the competitive examination for admitting the post-graduate students for the year 1990 through the University of Lucknow; and(iii) pass such other and further orders as it may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.2. The main judgment of this Court was delivered on 22nd June, 1984, in Dr. Pradeep Jain etc. etc. v. Union of India and Ors. : (1984)IILLJ481SC . By a subsequent order made on 21st July, 1986, this Court directed that the total number of seats for admission to post-graduate courses in each medical college or institution on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1990]79STC437(SC)
ORDER1. Before the High Court Union of India v. State of Punjab , the following two questions came up for consideration:1. Whether the petitioner is a 'dealer' within the meaning of section 2(d) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, and is liable to pay sales tax on its sales turnover ?2. Whether, in the circumstances and on the facts of the case, no sales tax can be levied in view of the provisions of Article 285 of the Constitution?2. The first question according to the High Court was concluded by the view taken by this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Thirumagal Mills Ltd. : [1972]2SCR395 , and in State of Andhra Pradesh v. H. Abdul Bakshi and Brothers : [1964]7SCR664 . This aspect of the matter has not been seriously disputed and indeed cannot be disputed. On the second question, there remains little for consideration. There is no dispute that the Union of India is the owner of the Northern Railway Departmental Catering, Railway Station, Pathankot. The goods were purchased by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC2186; JT1991(1)SC68; 1990(2)SCALE380; (1990)4SCC546; [1990]Supp1SCR118; 1990(2)LC690(SC)
ORDERS.C. Agrawal, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated August 31, 1979 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4994 of 1975 filed by the appellant. The said writ petition related to proceedings for determination of surplus land under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. The Act has been enacted by the U.P. State legislature to provide for the imposition of ceiling on land holdings in Uttar pradesh and certain other matters connected therewith. In Section 4 of the Act provision is made for calculation of ceiling area. Section 5 provides for imposition of ceiling on existing holdings. Sections 6 to 8 provide for exemption of certain lands from the imposition of ceiling. Section 9 provides for issue of a general notice by the Prescribed Authority calling upon every tenure holder holding land in excess of the ceiling area to submit to him a statement in ...
Tag this Judgment!