Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1991(1)SC642; (1991)2MLJ1(SC); 1991(1)SCALE257; (1991)3SCC338; [1991]1SCR538; 1991(1)LC538(SC)
ORDER1. The special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution is directed against the affirming judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a suit for title and injunction.2. In view of the fact that a petition of compromise in respect of the entire subject-matter of litigation has been filed in this Court it is unnecessary to refer to the facts leading to the litigation. We shall, therefore, confine the discussion to matters pertinent to the compromise,3. Subbamma adopted one K.V. Seshiah. Seshiah married two wives. Through the first wife he had a son born to him by name Sudarshan Gupta and through the second another son by name Anand Babu. In February, 1985, during the pendency of the special leave petition the adoptive-mother died. Sudarshan and Anand Babu led claim to the entire property of Subbamma exclusively to each of them under two different wills said to be by Subbamma and each contended that the other will was a forged one. With the death of the adoptive-mother, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1991Supp(2)SCC624
ORDER 1. This petition under Article 136 of the Constitution is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated November 13, 1990 holding that the Election Commission of India is not a necessary or proper party to the election petition. 2. The petitioner was declared elected as a Member of the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly from Attakur Constituency of Nellore District in the elections held on November 29, 1989. K. Anjaneya Reddy, respondent 2, the unsuccessful candidate filed an election petition before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad calling in question the petitioner's election. In the election petition respondent 2 challenged validity of the order of the Election Commission dated November 22, 1989 declaring the polling at Bhogasamudram polling station as void and directing re-poll at that polling station. Respondent 2 impleaded the Election Commission of India as one of the respondents to the election pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1991)1CompLJ289(SC); 1991(1)SCALE235; (1991)2SCC172; [1991]1SCR465; 1991(2)LC21(SC)
K.N. Saikia, J. 1. This appeal by certificate is from the Judgment of the Calcutta High Court dated 4.3.1975 passed in appeal No. 156 of 1974.2. The appellants in partnership have been carrying on business of restaurants under the name and style of Trinca's at No. 17B, Park Street Calcutta, providing food and drinks (alcohol and non-alcohol) to the customers under valid licences. Sometimes musical performances are also arranged. The restaurants are provided with air conditioning plant.3. Under the West Bengal Entertainments and Luxuries (Hotels and Restaurants) Tax Act, 1972 as amended by the Act of 1974, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', the respondents by their Memo No. 4942/A.T. dated 9.12.1972 called upon the appellants to make ad hoc payment of luxury tax calculated at Rs. 2,40,000.00. The President of the Hotelers' Association made a representation against this illegal tax which was turned down by the respondents, and thereafter the appellants challenged the validity of this ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC1090; 1991(1)Crimes552(SC); 1991(33)ECC125; 1991(54)ELT161(SC); JT1991(1)SC371; 1991(I)OLR(SC)368; 1991(1)SCALE211; (1991)2SCC1; [1991]1SCR421
ORDERJ.S. Verma J.1. This writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is by the mother of the detenu Noor alias Babu to quash the detention order F. No. 801/1/90 PITNDPS dated 25.1.1990 passed under Section 3 of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (in short 'PITNDPS Act') and the order of confirmation F. No. 801/1/90 PITNDPS dated 24.4.1990 passed under Section 9(f) read with Section 10(2) of the PITNDPS Act, by the Central Government directing detention of the detenu for a period of two years w.e.f. 30.1.1990. The only argument advanced in support of this writ petition is infraction of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. The facts material for the point raised are stated hereafter.2. The detenu was arrested from his family estate at Kochuveetil House, Kuthugal, Udumpanchola Taluk, Idikki District, Kerala on 19.10.1989 on the accusation that he and his brothers were involved in extensive illicit cultivation o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1991(5)SC188; 1991(1)SCALE239; (1991)2SCC174; 1991(1)LC402(SC)
Lalit Mohan Sharma, J.1. The petitioner, who is a Sub-Inspector of Police, was, in 1983, the Station Officer of Police Station, Bah district Agra. On 15.11.1983, in a surprise raid a bus was found to be operating without obtaining a valid licence. The petitioner was prima facie considered responsible for permitting the illegal service, and a show cause notice was served on him.. Ultimately an order was passed on 14.6.1984 withholding the integrity certificate of the petitioner. The departmental appeal and later a revision application filed by the petitioner were dismissed. After unsuccessfully moving the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, the petitioner filed a writ application in the Allahabad High Court which was dismissed by the impugned order. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Special leave is granted. 3. According to the case of the appellant, he was not guilty of dereliction of duty as on the relevant date he was made Incharge of big Mela held at Bateshwar, a place about ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1991(62)FLR425]; JT1991(1)SC472; 1991(1)SCALE297; (1991)2SCC176; [1991]1SCR468; 1991(2)LC23(SC)
Madan Mohan Punchhi, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi, in I.D. No. 40 of 1986 published in the Gazette of India, New Delhi dated 21.10.89.2. The appellant is the Mathura Refinery Mazdoor Sangh (hereafter referred to as the 'Union'). The contesting respondent is the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Mathura Refinery Project, Mathura, U.P. (hereafter referred to as the 'Refinery'). The Union represents about 900 casual labourers working in the Refinery. These labourers are contract labourers coming under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1971. The nature of their work has grouped them. Some of the labourers have formed themselves into co-operative societies and those societies have entered into labour contracts with the Refinery. Other labourers are working under labour contractors who have contracts with the Refinery. Theirs is not a constant relationship with one contractor and these lab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1991)93CTR(SC)256; [1991]188ITR803(SC); JT1991(1)SC494; 1991(1)SCALE236; (1991)2SCC299; [1991]1SCR448
T. Kochu Thommen, J. 1. This appeal by certificate arises from the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 23.3.1977 in Estate Duty Case No. 6 of 1975. Answering the questions referred to it against the appellant and in favour of the Revenue, the High Court held that, in computing the net principal value of the estate for the purpose of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 ('the Act'), the appellant was not entitled to deduct either the estate duty payable on the estate or the amount attributable to the maintenance of the wife of the deceased.2. The appellant's counsel, Mr. T.A. Ramachandran, submits that the duty payable on the estate of the deceased is an encumbrance on the estate, being a first charge on the property passing on the death, and is, therefore, deductible in terms of Section 44 of the Act. According to counsel, all properties passing on the death of the deceased are encumbered to the extent of the duty payable by reason of the charge created by Section 74 of the Act and th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : II(1991)BC56(SC); [1991(62)FLR977]; JT1991(1)SC498; (1991)ILLJ570SC; 1991(1)SCALE218; (1991)2SCC220; [1991]1SCR473; 1991(1)LC641(SC); (1991)2UPLBEC954
M.H. Kania, J. 1. Leave granted. Counsel heard.2. This is an appeal by Special Leave against the decision of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, dismissing summarily Regular Second appeal No. 405 of 1990 in that Court.3. The relevant facts can be stated very shortly.4. At the relevant time respondent No. 1 was an officer being the Manager in the Hardwar Branch of the appellant Bank, a Government of India Undertaking. On April 2, 1982 a show cause notice was served on respondent No. 1 in respect of several irregularities, lapses, acts, omissions and so on. On May 4, 1982 respondent No. 1 submitted his reply to the said show cause notice denying the charges made against him and asking for the holding of an enquiry into the allegations. On July 17, 1984 respondent No. 1 was promoted from Scale II to Scale III by the appellant. It appears from the record that disciplinary action was contemplated against respondent No. 1 but in November 1984, the disciplinary procee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1991)93CTR(SC)60
K. N. SAIKIA, J. :This appeal by certificate is from the judgment of the Calcutta High Court dated 2nd January, 1975, dismissing the appeal No. 137 of 1974.2. The second appellant is a shareholder and Director of the first appellant company M/s. Spences Hotel Pvt. Ltd. hereinafter referred to the Company having its registered office, and carrying on the business of running a hotel, bar and restaurant, at No. 4 Wellesley Place, Calcutta. The said hotel, bar and restaurant have been provided by the Company with air-conditioning through a central air-conditioning plant which, according to appellants, would normally run between months of March and October each year remaining unused for the rest of the year.3. The second respondent, Collector of Calcutta by his Memo No. 4600 (86) A.T. dated 9th November, 1972, directed the Company to make ad hoc payment of tax under the provisions of the West Bengal Entertainments and Luxuries (Hotels and Restaurants) Tax Act, 1972 (W.B. Act XXI of 1972) he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1991)1CompLJ276(SC); JT1991(1)SC479; 1991(1)SCALE225; (1991)2SCC154; [1991]1SCR429; 1991(2)LC9(SC)
K.N. Saikia, J.1. This appeal by certificate is from the Judgment of the Calcutta High Court dated 2.1.1975 dismissing the appeal No. 137 of 1974.2. The second appellant is a share-holder and Director of the first appellant Company M/s. Spences Hotel, Pvt. Ltd. hereinafter referred to as 'the Company' having its registered office, and carrying on the business of running a hotel, bar and restaurant, at No. 4 Wellesley Place Calcutta. The said hotel, bar and restaurant have been provided by the Company with air-conditioning through a central air-conditioning plant which, according to appellants, would normally run between months of March and October each year remaining unused for the rest of the year.3. The second respondent, Collector of Calcutta by his Memo No. 4600(86) A.T. dated November 9, 1972 directed the company to make ad hoc payment of tax under the provisions of the West Bengal Entertainments and Luxuries (Hotels and Restaurants) Tax Act, 1972 (W.B. Act XXI of 1972) hereinafte...
Tag this Judgment!