Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC385; JT1991(4)SC320; 1991(2)SCALE990; (1992)1SCC206; [1991]Supp2SCR233; 1992(1)LC183(SC)
ORDERPunchhi, J.1. This appeal by certificate, poses an important question of law, as to whether, a court sale held in execution of a final decree, passed in a suit for recovery of mortgage money, can be upset under the provisions of Section 47 of the CPC, on the displacement of the preliminary decree upon which such final decree was based.2. The question of law emerges on the facts summarized as follows:3. Raja Abhoy Narain Deb was the owner of premises No. 117-A, Rash Behari Avenue statedly a fashionable quarter of Calcutta, built on an area approximating 1 Bigha 6 cottahs, with three storied building on it consisting of 32 spacious rooms and two out houses. On the demise of Raja Abhoy Narain Deb, the appellant herein, and the proforma respondents, succeeded as heirs to the same on September 15, 1949. The appellant and his co-heirs mortgaged their two-third interest in the said property as security for a loan of Rs. 27,000 obtained from the mortgagor Smt. Prokashini Biswas, the prede...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1992)2SCC647; 1992Supp(2)SCC647
Ranganath Misra, C.J. and; S. Mohan, J.1. Learned Attorney General appears pursuant to our direction and places a summary of the position depending upon the reports already submitted to the Court. It appears that though land has been allotted and on principle shifting of the existing hospital has been found to be indispensable, funds to the tune of Rs 45 crores will be necessary if a full-fledged hospital as envisaged in the scheme is to be established.2. According to Mr Attorney General, the Delhi Administration is not in a position to foot the expenses and he says that after the Union of India found out that Rs 45 crores were necessary, the Central Government has communicated to the Delhi Administration that they have no responsibility in the matter of funding.3. A hospital of this type for mental patients at the national capital cannot be considered to be unnecessary. A hospital known as NIMHANS at Bangalore has been operating very efficiently. In fact, in the preliminary stages of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1991(4)SC281; 1991(2)SCALE966; (1992)1SCC309; 1992(1)LC102(SC)
L.M. Sharma, M.N. Venkatachaliah, J.S. Verma, K. Jayachandra Reddy and S.C. Agrawal, JJ.The Writ Petitions, Transfer Petitions, Civil Appeals, Special Leave Petitions and other connected matters raising common questions as to the constitutional validity of the Constitution (52nd Amendment) Act, 1985, in so far as it seeks to introduce the Tenth Schedule in the Constitution of India, were heard together. Some of these matters involve investigation and determination of factual controversies and of the extent of applicability to them of the conclusions reached on the various constitutional issues. That exercise shall have to be undertaken in the individual cases separately.1. The present judgment is pronounced in the Transfer Petition No. 40 of 1991 seeking the transfer of the Writ Petition, Rule No. 2421/90 on the file of the High Court of Guwahati to this Court.2. The Transfer Petition is allowed and the aforesaid Writ Petition is withdrawn to this Court for the purpose of deciding the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC184; JT1991(6)SC523; (1992)1MLJ21(SC); 1991(2)SCALE1013; (1992)1SCC370; [1991]Supp2SCR203; 1992(1)LC213(SC)
ORDERRanganath Misra, CJ.1. Special leave granted.2. Appellant is the tenant of a premises located in Sivakasi within the State of Tamil Nadu to which the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act apply. The rental of the premises is Rs. 275 per month. Respondents initiated action for eviction on the plea that there was 'willful default' in the matter of payment of rent and change of user. It was contended that the lease was residential but it had been used partly for commercial activity.3. The appellant took the stand that rent was not being collected every month since the respondents resided away from the place where the property is situated and every two to three months they used to come and collect rent at landlord's convenience. Two receipts were produced to support this stand. Rent was collected in one case for three months and in the other for two months at a time. Admittedly at the time of filing of the petition for eviction three months' rent had fall...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC422; (1991)3CompLJ367(SC); (1991)100CTR(SC)114; [1992]193ITR281(SC); JT1991(4)SC350; 1991(2)SCALE1014; 1992Supp(1)SCC732; [1991]Supp2SCR187
ORDERRanganathan, J.1. These appeals involve a common question and hence can be disposed of by a common order. The respondent assessees are steel rolling mills engaged in the manufacture of M.S. (Mild Steel) rods, bars or rounds. The question for consideration is whether they are entitled to a higher rate of development rebate specified in Section 33(1)(b)(B)(i)(a) and to relief under Section 80 (as it stood at the relevant time) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The answer to this question entirely turns on whether the assessees are engaged in the manufacture or production of any one or more of the articles or things specified in the relevant Schedule to the Act. They claim that the articles manufactured by them fall under item 1 of the list of articles and things set out in the relevant Schedule which reads:Iron and steel (Metal), ferro-alloys and special steels.2. This contention was rejected by Income-Tax Officer but has been accepted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Tribuna...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC566; 1993Supp(1)SCC437
1. We have heard learned Counsel for both sides. Special leave granted.2. Prithvi Raj Singh, third respondent in this appeal, claiming to be the highest bidder at an auction held on 31st July, 1990 respecting the disposal of the right to collect toll on the bridge 'Sanjay Setu' over Betwa River at Hamirpur, U.P., sought a mandamus to the authorities to accept his bid and to award the privilege of collecting toll in his favour. The High Court has referred to the manner in which the authorities dealt with the third respondent which, according to the High Court was not proper. The High Court also came to the conclusion that preferment of appellant in place of respondent No. 3 was also not justified. In regard to these matters there is hardly anything that can be said in support of the present appeal.3. However, Sri R.N. Narasimhamurthy, learned senior counsel for the appellant sought to point out that the form of the mandamus ignores the fact that a person has offered the highest bid is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1992]193ITR338(SC); 1993Supp(1)SCC766
S. Ranganathan,; V. Ramaswamy and; N.D. Ojha, JJ.1. This is not a fit case for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution for the simple reason that the amount which is being claimed as a deduction by the assessee has already been allowed to him in 1960-61. Virtually what he is seeking in this appeal is the deduction for the same amount in 1961-62. The claim is unequitable and uncalled for. In the circumstances the civil appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1992(3)SC607; (1992)2SCC53
ORDERM.N. Venkatachaliah, J.1. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides.2. In terms of the orders dated February 14/15, 1989, approving a settlement the Indian Red Cross Society was required and obliged to account for the amounts received by it out of the 5 million US dollars made available by the Union Carbide Corporation through the American Red Cross. The Registrar of the Supreme Court was authorised to collect from the Indian Red Cross Society the balance remaining unspent as on February 15, 1989. The orders approving the settlement treated the said 5 million dollars as part of the Settlement Fund of 470 million US dollars.3. According to the Indian Red Cross Society it had received only 4 million dollars out of the 5 million and the unspent balance as on February 15, 1989 was Rs. 3,43,81,045.45. But the Society appears to have permitted itself the liberty of continuing to incur expenditure out of this fund even after February 15, 1989. The Society says that the expenditure - of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1991)100CTR(SC)104; [1992]193ITR28(SC); JT1991(6)SC512; 1991(2)SCALE958; 1992Supp(1)SCC447; [1991]Supp2SCR167
S. Ranganathan, J.1. Both these matters raise the same question viz. whether the act of a member of a joint family by which he impresses his individual property with the character of joint family property or 'throws' it into the hotch potch of the joint family or 'blends' it with the joint family property is a 'disposition' within the meaning of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 (the Act', for short).2. Civil Appeal No. 1204/79 is an appeal from an order of the High Court declining to call upon the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the above question for the decision of the High Court in view of certain earlier decisions of the Court. The Madras High Court also declined to direct a reference on the above issue in T.C.P. No. 478 of 1977 and that is the subject matter of SLP (C) No. 335 of 1979. In view of the pendency of Civil Appeal No. 1204/79, we grant special leave in SLP (C) No. 335/79 also.3. Before discussing the correctness of the above conclusion, it may be convenient to set out t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1991)100CTR(SC)274
K. RAMASWAMY, J. :Special Leave is granted.This appeal is against the judgment dt. 4th April, 1991 of the Madras High Court. A sum of Rs. 12,163.50 p. was alleged to have been misappropriated by the appellant (now he was acquitted of the charge of misappropriation) and for the recovery thereof his 13.07 acres of coffee estate situated in Semmanthaputhur village was brought to sale under the Tamil Nadu Revenue recovery Act, 1894 (for short the Act). On 30th March, 1979 the sale by auction was held by the Tahsildar. The first respondent purchased for a sum of Rs. 12,225 and deposited a sum of Rs. 2,000 being 15% of the sale price. Under s. 36 of the Act, the first respondent should have deposited the balance consideration within 30 days from the date of the auction. On 23rd October, 1981 the sale was confirmed and the balance amount was deposited on 4th November, 1981. The appellant filed an application but by proceeding dt. 23rd October, 1981, the Revenue Divisional Officer overruled th...
Tag this Judgment!