Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC1760; (1991)93BOMLR606; JT1991(3)SC112; (1991)2MLJ28(SC); 1991(2)SCALE60; (1991)3SCC483; [1991]2SCR941; 1991(2)LC372(SC)
ORDERB.C. Ray, J.1. This appeal on special leave is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 1689 of 1987 allowing the writ petition, setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the lower appellate court and thereby dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff (appellant in this appeal) for eviction of the tenantrespondents.2. The matrix of the case as appears from the pleadings of the parties is as follows:The plaintiff-appellant, Gulabbai instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 19 of 1979 in the court of Shri S.S. Patil, III Jt. Civil Judge, J.D., Ahmednagar at Ahmednagar for vacant possession of the suit property consisting of part of survey No. 3576 in the city of Ahmednagar and also for the arrears of rent and the costs of the suit. Originally the said property belonged to the Imarat Company Private Limited. The plaintiff purchased the said property from Imarat Company Private Limited bearing number...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC1787; 2(1991)BC294(SC); (1991)96CTR(SC)171; [1991]191ITR296(SC); JT1991(3)SC44; 1991(2)SCALE49; (1991)3SCC652; [1991]2SCR920
ORDERK. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. The common question which arises for decision in these appeals by special leave is whether the interest paid on a debit balance of Rs. 1,75,310 taken over by the assessee firm from the erstwhile Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), would be an allowable deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1922. 2. The partners of the firm were members of the HUF which carried on business at Varanasi in the name of M/s. Badal Ram Laxmi Narain. The family had no capital of its own and had been running business with the help of borrowed money. On 20 October 1951, there was partial partition in the family. As a result whereof the business of the family was partitioned between the members of the family. The members formed themselves into partnership and continued the same business. On the date of partition, there was a debit balance of Rs. 1,75,310 in the capital account of the family. This debit balance was transferred in equal proportion to the personal accou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC1825; 1991(2)BLJR1305; JT1991(3)SC75; 1991(2)SCALE32; (1991)3SCC588; [1991]2SCR906a; 1991(2)LC356(SC)
ORDERN.M. Kasliwal, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur dated 12th December, 1974. This litigation has a long chequered history of more than five decades. The appellant, the Sagar Mahila Vidyalaya is an educational institution founded by a section of the public of District Sagar (M.P.) by giving donations and is duly registered under the Societies Registration Act (Act XXI of 1860). On 17th November, 1933 one Govind Rao Harshe had mortgaged some agricultural land and a house known as 'Harshewada' to Lakshmi Chand and Duli Chand Modi. The aforesaid mortgagees filed a suit and obtained a preliminary decree for sale on 14th July, 1937. A final decree for sale for the realisation of Rs. 5001/13/6 was passed on 26th March, 1938. On 29th March 1938 the decree holders applied for execution of the said decree. The execution of the aforesaid decree was stayed and in the meantime C.P. and Berar Relief of Indebtedness...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(4)SCC492
ORDER 1. This appeal by certificate is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated February 4, 1971. On March 9, 1966 the Land Management Committee of Village Ghatampur allotted 8 biswas of land in plot No. 822 to the respondent Shiv Dulare Bajpai for constructing a building for Chhetriya Jan Sampark Karyalaya. The Resolution was communicated on August 14, 1966. Subsequently the Managing Committee passed the resolution cancelling the allotment on the ground that the respondent did not make any construction on the land in question within two years as contemplated under Rule 115-P of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules. Rule 115-P reads as under: “115-P. The person to whom a patta site is allotted shall be required to build a house, either kutcha or pukka and begin to reside in it or use it for the purpose for which it was built within two years from the date of allotment. If he fails to do so, his rights shall be extinguished and the site ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC164; 1993Supp(1)SCC50
1. This Appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 4-4-1991. The parties filed nomination papers for election to Legislative Assembly Madhya Pradesh for Constituency No. 180 Waraseoni, District Balaghat (Madhya Pradesh). 3rd February, 1990 was the date for filing nomination papers and 5th February, 90 for scrutiny. Election was held on 27th February, 1990 and the appellant before us was declared elected on 28th February, 1990. 2. The respondent having lost in the election by a margin of 1476 votes filed an election petition on 12th April, 1990. The petition was filed under Section 100(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The only ground taken in the election petition was that the nomination papers of 3 candidates were wrongly rejected by the Returning Officer. During the proceedings of the election petition statement of Returning Officer Shri S. R. Mohanti was recorded on 6th March,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1991(3)SC98; 1991(2)SCALE39; 1991Supp(2)SCC89; [1991]2SCR893; 1992(2)SLJ180(SC); 1991(2)LC267(SC)
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. In the field of mines and minerals, the Government of India has two departments, (i) Exploration Wing of the Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM) and (ii) Geological Survey of India (GSI). The GSI is responsible for geological mapping and exploratory drilling calculated to delineate mineralised zones in the country. The IBM conducts detailed probing operations in selected blocks of mineralised areas. The functions of these two departments were found to be overlapping. The Government of India, therefore, decided to merge the Exploratory Wing of IBM with the GSI to eliminate overlapping works and rationalise the functions of the two departments. To accomplish this purpose, different cadres of the Exploration Wing of IBM were merged with the GSI from different dates. There is no dispute that the posts concerned in these cases also came to be merged with the GSI. The question, however, for consideration is about the date of that merger; whether it was from 1 January, 196...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC1818; [1991(63)FLR365]; JT1991(3)SC84; 1991LabIC1675; 1991(2)SCALE45; 1991Supp(2)SCC114; [1991]2SCR884a; 1991(2)LC364(SC)
ORDERKuldip Singh, J.1. Ram Sewak Prasad, the petitioner before us, was appointed as Excise Sub-Inspector, in the State of Uttar Pradesh in February, 1964 and was promoted to the post of Excise Inspector on ad hoc basis on February 24, 1972. He was confirmed as Excise Sub-Inspector by an order dated December 2, 1972 with effect from April 1, 1967. Though promoted on ad hoc basis the petitioner has continuously been working as Excise Inspector since February 24, 1972. 2. Raghubir Singh and Ram Dhan, respondents are direct recruits to the post of Excise Inspector. They joined as such on March 29, 1972 and May 14, 1972 respectively. They were promoted to the post of Excise Superintendent by an order dated September 29, 1983. It is not disputed that the petitioner was not considered for promotion along-with the respondents or at any time thereafter. Even his name was not shown in the seniority list of Excise Inspectors circulated from time to time. The respondents, including the State Gove...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993Supp(1)SCC447
A.M. Ahmadi,; V. Ramaswamy and; M.M. Punchhi, JJ.1. The appellants, five in number, have challenged their conviction recorded by the High Court under Section 148 and Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Mahadu. For the offence under Section 148 they have been directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and for the offence under Sections 302/149 they have been directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. They have also been convicted under Sections 323/34, IPC, for causing injuries to Runjaba and each of them has been directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. Original accused 1 having since died, no order of conviction was recorded against him.2. The prosecution version regarding the incident is unfolded through the evidence of six eye-witnesses, viz., PW 3 Runjaba, the injured brother of the deceased, PW 6 Kasturabai, widow of the deceased, PW 5 Sahaji Saluba, a distant relative, PW 8 Bagaji Rama, cousin of the deceas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC1792; 1991CriLJ2483; JT1991(3)SC46; 1991(2)SCALE17; (1991)3SCC498; [1991]2SCR858
ORDERA.M. Ahmadi, J.1. Liberty is the life line of every human being. Life without liberty is 'lasting' but not 'living'. Liberty is, therefore, considered one of the most precious and cherished possessions of a human being. Any attempt to take liberties with the liberty of a human being is visited with resistance. Since no human being can tolerate fetters on his personal liberty it is not surprising that the petitioner Ashok Kumar alias Golu continues to struggle for his liberty, premature release, not fully content with the enunciation of the law in this behalf by this Court in Maru Ram v. Union of India : 1980CriLJ1440 .2. The questions of law which are raised in this petition brought under Article 32 of the Constitution arise upon facts of which we give an abridged statement. On the basis of a FIR lodged on October 21, 1977, the petitioner was arrested on the next day and he along with others was chargesheeted for the murder of one Prem Nagpal. The petitioner was tried and convicte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC1847; [1991]191ITR317(SC); JT1991(3)SC67; 1991(2)KLT244(SC); 1991(2)SCALE11; (1991)3SCC520; [1991]2SCR846
ORDERK. Jagannatha Shetty, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is against the decision of the High Court of Kerala in Income-Tax Reference No. 101/1974 and it raises an important issue concerning the requirements of a gift made 'in contemplation of death' within the meaning of Section 5(1)(xi) of Gift Tax Act, 1958 ('The Act'). That reference was made under Section 26(1) of the Gift Tax Act, 1958 by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal Cochin Bench. The Tribunal referred to the High Court two questions for its opinion, out of which we are concerned only with the first question which reads:Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the gift of movables valued at Rs. 67,578 is not a gift made in contemplation of death within the meaning of Section 5(1)(xi) of Gift-Tax Act, 1958?2. The facts of the case as found by the Tribunal are simple and not unusual. Abdul Karim Mohammed a businessman in Cochin executed a document styled as 'settlement will'...
Tag this Judgment!