Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1991Supp(2)SCC105
N.M. Kasliwal and; K. Ramaswamy, JJ.1. The controversy in this case relates to some trade effluents discharged by the respondent, the National Newsprint and Paper Mills Ltd. in river Tapti. During the pendency of this litigation Water Prevention and Control of Pollution Act, 1974, came into force. This Court on February 3, 1982 had given a direction to the respondent to file a reply to the counter-affidavit filed by the appellant and also to produce a certificate issued by the State Board under the above Act in order to show that the respondent has complied with all the directions of the Board. The respondent thereafter filed an affidavit of Sarad Chandra, Assistant Legal Adviser of the respondent Mill along with a photocopy of the consent granted by the M.P. State Prevention and Control of Water Pollution Board dated January 5, 1976. This sanction was valid up to June 26, 1976 and has been renewed every year as stated by Dr Chitale, senior advocate appearing on behalf of the responden...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1991]188ITR801(SC)
1. Leave granted.2. In view of the decision of this Court in Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India : [1985]152ITR308(SC) , the assessee-respondent is not entitled to the refund which has been granted by the High Court. The order of the High Court is set aside and the writ petition will stand dismissed. The appeal is allowed. There will be no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC1182; [1991(62)FLR287]; JT1991(1)SC243; 1991(1)SCALE81; (1991)2SCC104; [1991]1SCR158; 1991(2)LC94(SC); (1991)1UPLBEC403
ORDERJ.S. Verma, J.1. These writ petitions by ex-servicemen are a sequel to the decision in D.S. Nakara and Ors. v. Union of India, : (1983)ILLJ104SC , in which the reliefs claimed are based solely on the decision in Nakara's case. The real point for decision, therefore, is whether the reliefs claimed in these writ petitions flow as a necessary corollary to the decision in Nakara. This being the sole basis for the reliefs claimed in these writ petitions, the petitioners can succeed only if this assumption by them is correct. Writ Petition Nos. 13550-55 of 1984 are by ex-servicemen who retired from a commissioned rank while Writ Petition Nos. 547-50 of 1985 are by those who retired from below the Commissioned rank. Writ Petition No. 4524 of 1985 by an ex-serviceman has been received by post and is substantially to the same effect. Petitioner No. 1 in the first two sets of writ petitions is a Society representing the ex-servicemen while the other petitioners in these writ petitions are e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC503; (1991)93BOMLR133; JT1991(1)SC254; 1991(1)SCALE75; (1991)1SCC649; [1991]1SCR152; 1991(1)LC541(SC)
ORDERK. Jaganatha Shetty, J.1. The shop premises belonging to the respondent-landlady was taken on rent by the petitioner for business purposes. The premises are within the scope of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 ('The Bombay Rent Act'). The petitioner has been carrying on business in sweet-meats and farsen. The landlady brought action to recover possession of the premises under Section 13(1)(c) on the ground that the tenant has been convicted of using the premises. It is not in dispute that the tenant was convicted on three occasions, first in 1968 for selling adulterated Desi-butter and second, in 1972 for selling sugar-garlands coloured with meantanil yellow a coaltar dye which is a prohibited colouring agent. In the second judgment of conviction, it has been stated that the tenant had admitted two previous convictions and in one of the cases he was sentenced to six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000. All the convictions and sentenc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC558; (1991)93BOMLR136; 1991CriLJ654; 1991(1)Crimes467(SC); 1991(33)ECC32; 1991(52)ELT328(SC); JT1991(1)SC258; 1991(1)KLT547(SC); 1991(1)MhLj204; 1991(I)OLR(SC)305;
ORDERK. Jayachandra Reddy, J.1. The High Court of Delhi by a common order in two petitions filed under The Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('NDPS Act' for short) held that the restrictions placed on the powers of the Court to grant bail in certain offences under the amended Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act are not applicable to the High Court. Aggrieved by the said order, the Narcotics Control Bureau has filed these two appeals. 2. The petitioners before the High Court in two different cases were arrested for offences under various Sections of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act. They were refused bail and remanded to judicial custody. On the basis of the report the Magistrate concerned took cognizance and remanded them to judicial custody. The petitioners filed a writ petition as well as a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking bail firstly on the ground that they are entitled to be released on bail as required under Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC661; JT1991(5)SC122; 1991LabIC648; 1991(1)SCALE90; (1991)2SCC318; 1991(1)LC478(SC); (1991)1UPLBEC306
ORDER1. On the 18th January, 1991, when the matter reached hearing, the petitioner appeared in person and stated that he had nothing to add to what he had placed on record in writing. The counsel for the respondent likewise stated that the reply of the Corporation is contained in its counter. Both the parties desired that we should decide the matter on the basis of the written submissions. We adjourned the matter to this date for orders. 2. This petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of the court. The petitioner has adopted multiple proceedings so far, for claiming the same reliefs allegedly arising out of the same cause of action. When he was Working as a Development Officer in the respondent-Corporation on January 23, 1961, he was chargesheeted for gross misconduct and indiscipline. On May 15, 1961, he was issued a show-cause notice and on August 28, 1961, he was issued a formal chargesheet and suspended from service. On August 27, 1962, he was dismissed from service after h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC564; 1991CriLJ664; JT1991(1)SC282; 1991(1)SCALE91; (1991)1SCC654; [1991]1SCR182; 1991(1)LC684(SC); (1991)1UPLBEC325
ORDERK. Jayachandra Reddy, J.1. Whether a personal hearing is required before disposing of a petition filed under Section 117(2) of The Border Security Force Act, 1968 ('Act' for short) against an order of the Summary Security Force Court? This in short is the question involved in this appeal filed by the Union of India. 2. The facts that give rise to this appeal may be noted at the outset. The sole respondent who was working as Mounted Constable in the Border Security Force ('BSF' for short) was charged for an offence under Section 31(b) of the Act for extracting a sum of Rs. 14,000 from a person without proper authority. A chargesheet was issued to the respondent. The evidence in support of the same was recorded. Thereafter a Summary Security Force Court as provided under the Act was constituted and the respondent was put on trial on 17.2.1988. During the recording of the evidence, though the respondent was given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses he declined to do so and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC489; JT1991(1)SC239; 1991(1)SCALE78; (1991)2SCC81; [1991]1SCR174; 1991(1)LC445(SC)
ORDERT. Kochu Thommen, J.1. This appeal by the State of Madhya Pradesh arises from the Order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition No. 84 of 1978 quashing Order dated 1.10.1977 of the Additional Collector, Gwalior, whereby he initiated proceedings against the 3rd respondent, the Gwalior Dairy Limited (hereinafter called 'the Company') under Section 182(2)(i) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 ('the Code'). Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are shareholders of the third respondent. The High Court by the impugned Order held that the Company was not a Government lessee within the meaning of Section 181 [read with Section 2(h)] and was, therefore, not liable to be proceeded against in terms of Section 182.2. The Order of the Additional Collector, Gwalior, which was impugned in the High Court, was made consequent on the failure of the Company to pay the rent agreed upon between the Government and the Company subsequent to the unconditional withdrawal by the Company of its Civil Appea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1991(1)SC227; (1991)99PLR416; 1991(1)SCALE107; (1991)2SCC126; [1991]1SCR135; 1991(1)LC594(SC)
ORDERA.M. Ahmadi, J.1. These petitions were filed as appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. Since they were not accompanied by any Certificate from the High Court that they raised substantial questions of law which were fit to be decided by this Court, the Registry of this Court has sought direction as to whether they should be treated as appeals under the aforesaid section or as special leave petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.2. Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act is extracted below:54. Appeals in proceedings before Court--Subject to the provisions of the CPC, 1908 (5 of 1908), applicable to appeals from original decrees, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any enactment for the time being in force, an appeal shall only lie in any proceedings under this Act to the High Court from the award, or from any part of the award, of the Court and from any decree of the High Court passed on such appeal as aforesaid an appeal shall lie to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC506; (1991)1CompLJ244(SC); 1991(33)ECC1; 1991LC1(SC); 1991(51)ELT631(SC); JT1991(1)SC199; 1991(1)SCALE70; (1991)2SCC119; [1991]1SCR126; 1991(1)LC323(SC)
A.M. Ahmadi, J.1. This appeal, on certificate, is directed against the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh which has, quashed the imposition of duty and levy of penalty on the ground that the show cause notice was issued after take expiry of the period of six months from the accrual of the cause of action. The facts leading to this appeal are as follows:The respondent M/s. Ramdev Tobacco Company, a sole proprietary concern, was at all material times a dealer in tobacco having a licenced warehouse at Guntur. The dealer was liable to pay duty on the tobacco received at his warehouse and transported to another dealer. On August 30, 1972 the appellant issued a notice calling upon the respondent to show cause why duty should not be demanded under Rule 160 of Central Excise Rules, 1944 ('the Rules' hereafter) on 64,444 kgs. of VFC Far mash Tobacco removed from his warehouse and not accounted for in the warehouse register maintained under the Rules. The respondent was also asked to s...
Tag this Judgment!