Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1992Supp(2)SCC102
M.M. Punchhi and; K. Ramaswamy, JJ.1. We have heard learned counsel. We have also gone through the judgment under appeal as also the other connected papers. The view of the High Court appears to us right in the circumstances that Section 6-B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, comes to the rescue of the respondents seeking relief under Section 13-A of the said Act. Pulling these two provisions apart would render the legislative amendments nugatory. The High Court rightly avoided such construction. Finding no merit thus in this appeal, we dismiss the same. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1992)102CTR(SC)138; [1991]192ITR296(SC)
ORDER1. These are two appeals from the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Dipti Kumar Basu v. CWT : [1976]105ITR450(Cal) . The question in these appeals is whether the appellants who are partners in a firm of solicitors at Calcutta are liable to be taxed under the Wealth-tax Act in respect of their share of the outstandings due to the firm from various clients. This question has been answered against the appellants and hence the present appeal.2. It has been brought to our notice by Mr. B. B. Ahuja, learned counsel for the Union of India, that the judgment under appeal has already been approved by this court in CWT v. Vysyaraju Badreenarayana Moorthy Raju : [1985]152ITR454(SC) .3. The question raised is not of much contemporary importance as the relevant statutory provision had been amended since 1976. The amount involved is also not very substantial. After hearing counsel, we are inclined to agree with the view taken by the High Court and, having regard to the fact that the decisi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC146; 1992Supp(3)SCC29
1. This appeal by special leave is against the Judgment and Order dated April 7,1976 passed by a learned single Judge of the Kerala High Court in S. A. No. 956 of 1973.2. The parties herein are successors-in-interest of the original set of mortgagors and mortgagees, being plaintiffs-respondents and defendants-appellants respectively. For the sake of convenience we would keep referring to them as mortgagors and mortgagees. It stands established on the record that by means of mortgage deed Exhibit P-1 dated 18-3-1096, (Malayalam year) (1921 of the Gregorian year) the mortgagors mortgaged the suit land in favour of Parameswaran Pillai and his wife Gauri Amma for a total consideration of Fanams 6850/-. Fanams statedly was the currency in the erstwhile Travancore State. Deed Exhibit P-1 embodies an admission that the suit property since the Malayali year 1083 stands mortgaged to Parameswaran Pillai for a sum of Fanams 4750 and adjusting the same at that juncture, the same property was being...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC2298; JT1991(4)SC56; (1992)1MLJ9(SC); 1991(2)SCALE613; (1991)4SCC506; [1991]Supp1SCR172; 1992(1)LC1(SC)
ORDERFathima Beevi, J.1. The appellants are aggrieved that the High Court by the common judgment dated 20.1.1976 in two cases had substantially reduced on erroneous grounds the enhanced compensation allowed by the Subordinate Judge on reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the Act).2. Civil Appeal No. 1222 of 1977 relates to acquisition of Ac. 8.33 cents of land in Survey No. 2/1 of Dondaparthi village in pursuance to Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act published on 7.7.1966 for construction of quarters for the staff of Port Trust.3. Civil Appeal No. 1221 of 1977 relates to acquisition of Ac.1.68 cents of land in Survey No. 2/2A of the same village in pursuance to the Notification published on 1.8.1968 for the purpose of formation of the national highway diversion road.4. The appellants claimed land value at the rate of Rs. 10 per sq. yard since the Land Acquisition Officer awarded only 0.88 paise per sq. yard. The learned Subordinate Judge determined ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC1241; 1992(40)BLJR431; JT1991(4)SC1; (1992)1MLJ12(SC); 1991(2)SCALE661; (1991)4SCC529; [1991]Supp1SCR179; 1992(1)LC5(SC)
1. This is an appeal by special leave by the plaintiff-Wakf Board. Its suit for declaration of the right to the passage and possession thereof having been dismissed by the Trial Court, a title appeal was filed before the District Judge of Karnal. By an exemption notification on the plaint in a suit of this type filed by the Wakf Board, court-fee of Rs. 15 is payable. On its memorandum of appeal, the plaintiff had paid the same amount of court-fee also. Objection was raised to sufficiency of court-fee and respondents asked for dismissal of the memorandum of appeal as it had not been sufficiently stamped. As a fact, while court fee of Rs. 638 was payable, court fee of Rs. 15 had been paid. This matter was preliminarily considered by the appellate court and by the order dated 5.5.1966 the Additional District Judge sustained the objection and directed the memorandum of appeal to be dismissed. The High Court did not interfere when plaintiff took the matter before it. Ultimately special leav...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC713; 1992LabIC395; 1991(2)SCALE777; 1993Supp(1)SCC525
ORDERRagunath Misra, CJI, A.M. Ahmadi and P.B. Sawant, JJJ.WRIT PETITION NO. 533/911. Petitioners, five in number, are working as Junior Engineers in a project placed under the control of the Executive Officer, City Board, Ghaziabad. We have been told that the nature of work is essentially slum clearance and the project is financed partly by the State of Uttar Pradesh and party by World Bank funds. Petitioners have alleged that they are employed on daily rate basis and on an average receive Rs. 1000/- per month. It is stated that no payment is made for the holidays and they are not entitled to any other benefit for the work done. Reliance has been placed on this Court's decision in the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority Engineers and some other decisions including the one in the case of Dharwad Distt. P.W.D. Literate Daily Wage Employees Association and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. : (1990)IILLJ318SC .2. From the facts placed before us, it appears that the scheme under whic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC61; 1992Supp(2)SCC501
1. Delay condoned.2. Special leave granted in Special Leave Petition No. 2862 of 1976.3. In these two appeals by special leave a common question of law arises.4. The respondents herein were granted permission to make additions to their buildings situated in cantonments administered under the Cantonments Act, 1924 by their respective Cantonment Boards on terms and conditions embodied in the respective sanctions. Section 181 of the said Act authorises the Cantonment Board to grant such sanction by resolution. The resolution is suspendible under Section 52(1)(b) of the Act by the Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Command within whose area the cantonment is situated. Thereupon, when such an exercise is undertaken, Section 185(2) of the Act provides that on suspension of the resolution, the Board is required to send notice in writing to the owner lessee or occupier of any land in the cantonment to stop such erection or re-erection of the building. Since Section 52(1)(b) further requires th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC2137; I(1992)BC53(SC); 1992(40)BLJR153; 1992Supp(1)SCC720; [1991]Supp1SCR143; 1991(2)LC635(SC)
ORDERK. Ramaswamy, J.1. The appellant, the Ex-Treasurer of the Gopalganj Co-op. Development & Cane Marketing Union, Gopalganj, was said to have defalcated a sum of Rs. 95,790.54 and for recovery thereof, proceedings were initiated under Section 48 of the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, VI of 1935, for short 'the Act' with interest accrued thereon of Rs. 25,555 as on December 30, 1976. The Registrar referred the matter to the Asstt. Registrar, Gopalganj, who on enquiry and having given the opportunity to the appellant passed an award in Case No. 400 of 1975 on December 30, 1976 for the aforesaid sums. On appeal, the Deputy Registrar set aside the award on the ground that the appellant was surcharged in Surcharge Case No. 18 of 1976. On further revision, the first respondent set aside the appellate order and confirmed the award with a further direction to pay interest till date of recovery. The appellant filed C.W.J.C. No. 1819 of 1979 which was dismissed in limine by the Pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1992Supp(1)SCC707
M.M. Punchhi and; K. Ramaswamy, JJ.1. The appellant entered into an agreement dated July 14, 1976 with the State of Madhya Pradesh for the purchase of tendu leaves from the government grown in a certain tract of land in the State on terms and conditions embodied therein. Under Madhya Pradesh Act 29 of 1964 and the rules made thereunder, regulating the trade of tendu leaves, the appellant was required to maintain a godown/depot for keeping of standard bags of tendu leaves, purchased by him on payment of full price to the government. The godown of the appellant was checked by the State officials in December 1976 and it was found to contain bundles far in excess than purchased from the government. The government in these circumstances declined to permit the appellant's removal of the standard bags of tendu leaves outside the godown till the price thereof had been made good. Challenging the said act of the government the appellant approached the High Court of Madhya Pradesh by means of a w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC2251; 1992(2)BLJR747; JT1991(4)SC43; 1991(2)SCALE611; (1991)4SCC379; [1991]Supp1SCR119a; 1991(2)LC730(SC)
ORDERLalit Mohan Sharma, J.1. Special leave is granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of Allahabad High Court, allowing the writ petition of the respondents Nos. 1 to 5 under Article 226 of the Constitution, and directing that they shall not be evicted from the premises in dispute in pursuance of an eviction decree passed by the small causes court, Allahabad. The main question which arises for decision is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court was justified in entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, and proceeding to issue the impugned direction.3. The appellants are the owners of the premises in question which according to their case was in possession of Dr. K.C. Sinha as tenant. After his death his son Prabhas Kumar Sinha, respondent No. 7, continued in possession. The writ petitioners- respondents are the sons of the brothers of Dr. K.C. Sinha, and according to their case they being members of the joint Hindu ...
Tag this Judgment!