Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC103; JT1992(1)SC118; 1992Supp(2)SCC239
ORDERSPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No. 1480 OF 19901. Leave granted. Counsel for the respondents takes notice. This appeal is disposed of along with connected appeals which have been heard today.WRIT PETITIONS Nos. 112 AND 413 OF 19882. In the writ petitions rule nisi has already been issued. Counsel for the respondents takes notice. These petitions are heard and disposed of along with the connected appeals which have been heard today.CIVIL APPEALS Nos. 4287-4329/88 4287-4329/88 , 6114/90, 4310-16/88, 2968/91, 2222-23/91,.../91, WRIT PETITIONS Nos. 112 AND 413 OF 19883. All these matters concern the question of the validity of the provisions of Section 3 of the Rajasthan Land Tax Act, 1985 (Rajasthan Act No. 6 of 1985) - hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' - by which the State Legislature purported to levy a tax on every landholder on the annual value of the land held or used by him in so far as it concerns land containing minerals. 'Land', inter alia, has been defined to include 'land h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC63; 1991(2)SCALE776; (1992)4SCC97
ORDERB.C. Ray, J.1. In the main writ petition petitioners allege an actionable inaction on the part of the Union Government in the matter of providing facilities to the Inquiry Committee constituted by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, after admitting a motion presented by 108 Members of that House for presentation of an address to the President for the removal of a Judge. Petitioners seek the issue of an appropriate writ or direction to the Government to act in aid and furtherance of the Speaker's decision and to provide requisite and necessary facilities to the Inquiry Committee to enable it discharge its statutory functions. There are also certain prayers...said to be incidental to the main relief...to the effect that during the pendency of the proceedings of the Inquiry Committee the Judge be restrained from discharging judicial functions.2. The writ petition is being argued. Several issues as to the jurisdiction of the Court to decide matters said ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1991]192ITR648(SC)
ORDERCivil Appeal No. 166 of 1979 :1. This appeal has to be dismissed as the Tribunal has only followed the decision of this court in CIT v. Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd. : [1971]82ITR452(SC) , and the High Court has upheld the Tribunal's decision on the facts of the case. Nothing further survives. The civil appeal is dismissed accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.Civil Appeal No. 5768 of 1983 and Civil Appeals Nos. 92-98 of 1979 :2. By the orders of the High Court which are under appeal in these matters, the High Court has followed its earlier decision in R. C. No. 36 of 1976 (see : [1979]116ITR255(AP) (AP). By our order of even date we have dismissed Civil Appeal No. 166 of 1979 arising out of the said judgment. These appeals have also to be consequently dismissed. We order accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5753-54 of 1980.3. These special leave petitions have to be dismissed in view of our order in Civil Appeal No. 166 of 1979. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC115; (1992)1MLJ19(SC); 1992Supp(1)SCC712
1.This appeal by special leave is against the judgment and decree dated 27th October, 1977 passed by the Madras High Court in Second Appeal No. 363 of 1975.2. The litigating parties are two brothers. We would refer to them by short names as Ramasamy and Muthiah. Their father Rangasami Kalingaraya, besides holding vast freehold properties held leasehold rights in two small parcels of land, whereon there was a hut obtained from Dharmapuram Adhee-nam, since many years prior to his death on 1-4-1962. After his death, dispute over the leasehold properties arose between the brothers. According to Ramasamy, ever since 1962, he was in possession of the leased properties in his own right as a lessee. On the other hand Muthiah claimed that these properties had been bequeathed to him by his father under a Will. This led file a suit for permanent injunction against Muthiah to preserve his possession. The suit was resisted by Muthiah asserting that he was in possession of the suit property on the b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC2160; JT1991(3)SC556; 1991(2)SCALE448; (1991)4SCC485; [1991]3SCR839; 1991(2)LC716(SC)
ORDERN.D. Ojha, J.1. Special leave granted.2. This Civil appeal by special leave is directed against the order of the Delhi High Court dated 19th May, 1989 as clarified by order dated 24th May, 1989 in Writ Petition No. 2915 of 1988.3. The facts in brief necessary for the decision of this appeal are that some land was proposed by the Central Government to be allotted for the resettlement of displaced persons. In October 1959 the Rehabilitation Ministry Employees' Cooperative House Building Society Ltd., New Delhi, Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the Society) was formed and incorporated. After completing necessary formalities an allotment of 60 acres of land was made by the Central Government in favour of the Society which, however, was subsequently cancelled on 7th May, 1979. The Society challenged the aforesaid order of cancellation before the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition No. 654 of 1979 which was allowed by a Single Judge of that Court on 1st September, 1980. This j...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC107; [1992]196ITR269(SC); 1992Supp(3)SCC33
ORDER1. This appeal by certificate is against the advisory judgment dated 27-9-1977 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Reference No. 18 of 1976, reported in : [1979]116ITR950(AP) titled Addl. Commr. of Income-tax, A.P. v. G. M. Omerkhan.2. Out of the four questions referred to the High Court, only two have survived for agitation. On question No. 1, whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the lands acquired by the Government were agricultural lands, the answer has been in favour of the assessee holding that the lands acquired were agricultural lands. On question No. 4, whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the mere claim of the assessee for additional compensation can be taken into account for purpose of determining the capital gains derived by the assessee, has gone in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.3. The following two questions survive answered against the assessee :2. Whether on the facts and in the circ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1992)102CTR(SC)164; [1991]192ITR151(SC)
ORDER1. The question in this appeal which arises out of an income-tax reference is as to the date of commencement of the respondent-assessee's business. The Tribunal was of the opinion that the business of the assessee could not be said to have commenced during the year which ended on March 31, 1965. The High Court has, however, taken a contrary view [vide judgment reported in : [1976]102ITR25(Guj) and answered the question in favour of the assessee. Hence, this appeal by the Department.2. Dr. Gauri Shankar, learned Counsel for the Union of India, vehemently contends that the finding arrived at by the Tribunal was a finding of fact. He refers to a number of decisions of this Court as well as of High Courts to the effect that, where a finding of fact is given by the Tribunal, the High Court, in its advisory jurisdiction, will not interfere with it unless it is a case of no evidence or one of misdirection in law or one of a conclusion being reached which no reasonable man would arrive at...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC2173; 1992(40)BLJR286; 1991CriLJ3135; 1991(3)Crimes271(SC); II(1991)DMC392SC; (1992)1GLR189; JT1991(3)SC542; 1991(2)SCALE410; (1991)4SCC298; [1991]3SCR812
ORDERJ.S. Verma, J. 1. Petitioner's daughter Chhaya was married to Respondent No. 2 Satish on 5.12.1984 and they started living together in their marital home at Bagasara. On 13.8.1986, Chhaya died at Bagasara, The petitioner and his wife got some vague information about their daughter Chhaya and went to Bagasara, the same day but were unable to meet or see their daughter who had died. The petitioner suspected that their daughter's death was unnatural resulting from torture by her husband and his relatives. The petitioner filed a criminal complaint against Respondent Nos. 2 to 5, who are the husband, his parents and sister which was transferred to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Dhari and registered as Criminal Case No. 382 of 1988 for an offence under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC. The petitioner filed an application for committing the case to the Court of Session for trial for an offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC which was inserted in the Indian Pena...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1992Supp(2)SCC441
M.M. Punchhi and; K. Ramaswamy, JJ.1. Special leave granted in these petitions.2. The Registry to assign numbers to these appeals.3. These appeals as well as Civil Appeal Nos. 739-40 of 1979, 285 of 1979, 777-83 of 1979 and 1274-75 of 1986 form a bunch and can conveniently be disposed of by a common order.4. The common facts in each of these appeals are that the respondents in each case owned a vehicle fit either for passenger transport or goods transport. The respondents' vehicles carry Certificates of Registration depending on the kind of vehicle. The respective Certificates of Registration were deposited by the respondents before the Regional Transport Taxing Officer claiming exemption from tax payable under Section 3 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Taxation Act’). The certificates of fitness related to those Certificates of Registration were non-existent, either by efflux of time or otherwise. On the factum of certific...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC2062; 1991CriLJ3023; 1991(3)Crimes284(SC); II(1991)DMC505SC; JT1991(6)SC309; 1991(2)SCALE414; (1991)4SCC514; [1991]3SCR820
ORDERK. Jayachandra Reddy, J.1. There are two appellants. They are father and son respectively and they figured as A 1 and A 2 before the trial court. They were tried for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B IPC for causing murder of Madhu Saxena, wife of A 2 and daughter-in-law of A 1, the deceased in the case. They were acquitted by the trial court. The State preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court and the Division Bench of the High Court convicted them under Section 120-B and Section 302 read with 34 of the IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life. They have preferred this appeal under Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of General Appellate Jurisdiction) Act. 1970.2. The deceased was married to A 2 in the year 1961. Two sons and one daughter were born to them. A 1, father of A 2, was a practising lawyer after retiring from the Government Service. The matrimonial life of the deceased and A 2 was not smooth. T...
Tag this Judgment!