Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC1994; 1991(2)ARBLR173(SC); II(1992)BC1(SC); [1992]74CompCas624(SC); (1991)3CompLJ95(SC); JT1991(3)SC360; 1991(II)OLR(SC)408; 1991(2)SCALE272; (1991)4SCC230; [1991]
ORDERK. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. We grant special leave and proceed to dispose of the appeal.2. The General Electric Technical Services Company ('GETSCO') had entered into a contract with Indian Airlines which included, inter alia, the construction and fabrication of air craft testing center/engine repair center in Delhi. The GETSCO in turn entered into a contract with M/s. Punj Sons (P) Ltd. respondent-1 for getting that work done for Indian Airlines. As per the contract respondent-1 was required to provide performance bond equal to 30 per cent of the total value of contract price which was to be split up into two performance bonds partly to be released on completion of the project, and the balance upon the expiration of the warranty. The respondent-1 was also required to furnish a bank guarantee to secure the mobilisation advance of 25 per cent of the contract value. On 28 October, 1986 respondent-1 furnished the bank guarantee to secure the mobilisation advance of Rs. 1,86,00,000. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC159; (1992)102CTR(SC)188; [1991]191ITR634(SC); 1992Supp(2)SCC424
ORDER--Both need not necessarily be in the same order--Separate 'Income-tax Computation form of form of Assessment of Tax Refund signed or initialled by assessing officerHELD:'Assessment' is one integrated process involving not only the assessment of the total income but also the determination of the tax. The ITO has to determine, by an order in writing, not only the total income by also the net sum which will be pay able by the assessee for the assessment year in question and that the demand notice under s. 156 has to be issued in consequence of such an order. The statute does not, however, require that both the computations (i.e., of the total income as well as of the sum payable) should be done on the same sheet of paper, the sheet that is super scribed 'assessment order'. It does not prescribe any form for the purpose. It will be appreciated that once the assessment of the total income is complete with indications of the deductions, rebates, reliefs and adjustments available to the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC1695; 1992LabIC1788; 1993Supp(1)SCC480
ORDER1. Grievance has been made in this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution that the lady teachers and other female employees in the educational line doing administrative business in employment of the State of Uttar Pradesh are being discriminated against inasmuch as while they are called upon to do the same work as their counterparts (male teachers and officials), they are paid a lower scale of salary and avenues of promotion are not open to them in the same proportion as available to the male teachers and employees. Notice on this petition had been given on 24-1-1986 which is more than four and a half years back. The State of Uttar Pradesh though given sufficient opportunity to place its case through an appropriate affidavit has chosen not to do so. A counter-affidavit was filed in June, 1986 which was not considered adequate when the matter was taken up for hearing. On April 29, 1991, we had made the following order :Mrs. Dixit has undertaken to file a detailed further aff...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC1827; JT1991(3)SC347; (1992)1MLJ14(SC); 1991(2)SCALE235; (1991)4SCC224; [1991]3SCR375; 1991(2)LC602(SC)
ORDERLalit Mohan Sharma, J.1. The respondents have successfully challenged a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 proposing to acquire their land before the Madras High Court. Their writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge and on appeal the order was confirmed by Division Bench. The State of Tamil Nadu has challenged the decision by the present Special Leave Petition. 2. The acquisition proceeding, which is the subject matter of present case, was started for obtaining land for construction of houses by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, constituted under Section 3 of the Madras State Housing Board Act, 1961 (Madras Act No. 17 of 1961) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Housing Board Act') and this was mentioned in the impugned notification. The High Court has held that the public purpose mentioned in the notification was too vague in absence of details relating to the scheme for which the acquisition is sought to be made, and consequently the land owners c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1991(6)SC99; 1991(2)SCALE261; (1992)1SCC117; [1991]3SCR402
ORDERRanganath Misra, CJI and Kuldip Singh, J.1. Pursuant to our order of May 10, 1991, this matter was called on 11th July, 1991, when parties and both the Commissioners were heard. The report from the Executive Chairman of the UP. State Legal Aid and Advice Board has been received and looked into.2. The proceeding has been pending in this Court for almost nine years. In spite of all possible orders and directions made from time to time no substantial progress has yet been made. The land records have got to be prepared, the forest land has to be indentified and final action under the Forest Act has to be taken. The exercise involved in this process is undoubtedly massive but that by itself would not justify a protracted proceeding.3. When we made our order in May, 1991, we had a feeling that before the rains started there would be substantial progress. The rainy season has come though rains are belated. In these two months, however, there has been no progress.4. Mr. R.P. Pandey, one o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC1955; JT1991(3)SC381; 1991(2)SCALE242; 1991Supp(2)SCC478; [1991]3SCR350; (1991)2UPLBEC1065
ORDERYogeshwar Dayal, J.1. This appeal by Special Leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Delhi dated 30th April, 1991 on behalf of the Union of India and the Chief of the Army Staff against Major General Dayanand Khurana. 2. By the impugned judgment the Division Bench of the High Court directed the issue of writ of mandamus modifying an order dated 26th October, 1990 and thereby directing the appellants herein to treat Major General D.N. Khurana, who was approved for promotion to the acting rank of Lt. General for 'Staff Only' Stream, senior to all the other Major Generals who were promoted to the acting rank of Lt. General in the 'Command and Staff Stream, and also issued further writ of mandamus directing the appellants to expeditiously promote the respondent herein, ahead of the 1957 batch, to a Staff post which has occurred between 26th October, 1990 and 31st May, 1991 keeping in view the existing policy of the Government and in the light of the observations ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1991ACJ1001; AIR1992SC1514; (1992)94BOMLR882; (1991)2CompLJ80(SC); JT1991(3)SC337; 1991(1)MhLj1386; 1991(2)SCALE257; (1991)4SCC270; [1991]3SCR391; 1991(2)LC432(SC)
ORDERN.D. Ojha, J.1. Special leave granted2. Since in both these appeals an identical question of law arises they are being decided by a common judgment. Facts in a nutshell necessary for appreciating the question involved may be stated. M/s. Patel Roadways (P) Limited, the appellant in both these appeals carries on the business of a carrier and transports goods on hire. It has its principal office at Bombay and branch offices at various other places which shall hereinafter be referred to as subordinate offices.3. M/s. Prasad Trading Company, the respondent in the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 14660 of 1990 who is a dealer in cardamom entrusted a consignment of 850 kilograms of cardamom to the appellant at its subordinate office at Bodinayakanur in Tamil Nadu to be delivered at Delhi. After the goods had been transported by the appellant and kept in a godown at Delhi the same got destroyed and damaged in a fire as a result whereof the consignee refused to take delivery. The r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1992(65)FLR185]; JT1992(3)SC605; (1992)1SCC709
ORDERK. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. In Kailash Chander Asthana v. State of U.P. : (1988)IILLJ219SC it has been observed by a bench of three Judges that the question of furnishing a copy of the report of enquiry in disciplinary proceedings held after Forty- second Amendment does not arise. But in Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan : (1991)ILLJ29SC another bench of three Judges had held to the contrary. In the later case it was observed that 'we have not been shown any decision of a coordinate or a larger bench of this Court taking this view...'. In view of this seeming conflict as to the entitlement of a copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent officer we consider that it is necessary to refer this matter to a larger bench.2. The special leave is granted only on this question. The papers may be placed before the Chief Justice for Constitution of a larger bench.3. Since the matter is likely to take a long time for disposal of the matter, any stay order would prejudicially effect the int...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1992(3)SC602; (1992)2MLJ36(SC); (1992)1SCC707
ORDERRanganath Misra, C.J.I.1. This matter has been pending here for about three years now. With a view to making the Act operate effectively and for the benefit of the consumers, we have made various orders. At our request Mr. Justice Eradi, Chairman of the National Commission, has gone round the entire country and made his reports. Deficiencies indicated in his report have been highlighted in the submissions in Court and we have also made different orders to meet the loopholes indicated in the report of Mr. Justice Eradi; yet we find that in most of the States, the statutory scheme is not fully operative yet.2. The Act envisages appointment of a District Forum in every district. Though the Act has been in force for about four years now, we find that in most of the States, the practice prevalent is of appointing a forum at the divisional level or appointing the District Judge as Ex-Officio Chairman of the District Forum. On account of this position, many consumers who have smaller gri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC603; 1992CriLJ560; 1995Supp(4)SCC552
1. The appellant before us is a Sub-Inspector in the Central Reserve Police Force. A complaint dated August 10, 1977 was filed against him before the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. It was alleged in the said complaint that while working as Manager of the Co-operative shop at CRPF center he misappropriated large quantity of sugar which was meant for distribution amongst the members of the force. The complainant sought appellant's prosecution Under Section 10(n) of the C.R.P.F. Act, 1949 which reads as under :Every member of the Force who; (n) is guilty of any act or omission which, though not; specified in this Act, is prejudicial to good order and discipline; shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to three months' pay, or with both.2. At the enquiry before the Magistrate the scope of the complaint was enlarged by including an offence Under Section 409, I.P.C. The appellant asked for quashing of the prosecution o...
Tag this Judgment!