Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC2113; JT1991(4)SC206; 1992LabIC60; 1991(2)SCALE548; 1991Supp(2)SCC367; [1991]Supp1SCR27; 1991(2)LC623(SC)
ORDERK. Jayachandra Reddy, J.1. The questions that arise for consideration in all these connected cases are confined only to some of the posts of civil services of Andhra Pradesh in view of certain special provisions applicable to these services. Article 371D of the Constitution of India is peculiar to the State of Andhra Pradesh due to historical background. It was enacted by the Constitution (Thirty-Second) Amendment Act which applied only to the State of Andhra Pradesh, with a view to give effect to certain safeguards in the matter of employment opportunities for residents of Telangana region. This Article empowers President to provide by order for equitable opportunities and facilities for the people belonging to different parts of the State of Andhra Pradesh in the matter of public employment and in the matter of education. This Article also provides for Constitution of an Administrative Tribunal to receive representations for the redressal of the grievances and for passing necess...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1992Supp(2)SCC247
S.R. Pandian and; K. Jayachandra Reddy, JJ.1. The sole appellant is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to death by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bankura. The High Court on reference confirmed the conviction and sentence. Hence the present appeal. The charge against the appellant was that on February 17, 1988 at about 1 a.m. he took his wife in a truck and drove the truck to a jungle. There he throttled her to death and ran the truck on her and thereafter dragged the body from the jungle to the left of the road and disappeared. The case mainly rested on the sole testimony of PW 18, the cleaner of the truck. The trial court examined 22 witnesses. The other witnesses only spoke about certain circumstances. The learned Additional Sessions Judge mainly relying on the evidence of PW 18 convicted the appellant. The same was affirmed by the High Court. It is submitted in this appeal that PW 18 was examined at a belated stage and therefore his evidence does not inspire confidence an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1992)102CTR(SC)166; [1991]192ITR399(SC)
1. This is an appeal by certificate from judgment of the Allahabad High Court (P. N. Banerjee v. CWT : [1980]125ITR658(All) , in a wealth-tax reference. The reference before the High Court related to two assessment years but we are concerned only with one of the two assessment years and this is in the assessment year 1967-68. The question posed before the High Court was (at p. 660) :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the penalty should be calculated on the basis of the law prevailing prior to April 1, 1969, for the assessment year 1967-68 ?2. For the assessment year 1967-68, the wealth-tax return by the asses-see was due to be filed on or before June 30, 1967. The return, however, was filed only on June 12, 1971. In between April 1, 1967 (which was the first day of the assessment year 1967-68) and the date when the return was filed, there was an amendment of the provisions of Section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC1206; 1993CriLJ52; JT1991(6)SC176; 1991(2)SCALE540; 1991Supp(2)SCC329
ORDERS.R. Pandian, J.1. The above petition is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 25th May, 1990 of the High Court of Delhi in Cr.M. (M) 127/87 : (reported in : 42(1990)DLT167 partly allowing the petition so far as the second respondent Girish Kakkar is concerned and consequently quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against him by the petitioner, complainant herein, and dismissing the prayer for quashing the criminal proceedings so far as the respondents 3 to 6 before the High Court, who are not the parties to this SLP. Brief facts of the case are thus:The petitioner herein filed a complaint against 7 accused persons under Section 500, I.P.C. on the accusation that accused Nos. 2 and 3 made imputations both by signs and visible representations as well as in writing that the petitioner/complainant is. not the wife of D. M. Vaswani, intending to harm and having reasons to believe that such imputations would harm the reputation of the complainant in the eyes and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : I(1992)BC1(SC); 45(1991)DLT476(SC); JT1991(6)SC112; 1991(2)SCALE638; 1992Supp(2)SCC29
N.M. Kasliwal, J. 1. Special Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 6th November, 1990 whereby a suit filed by the Syndicate Bank under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been decreed. 3. The East India Hotels Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') took a loan of Rs. 30 lacs from the Syndicate Bank. By an agreement dated 27th December, 1974 the amount of Rs. 30 lacs was advanced to the company on interest at the rate of 12.5 per cent per annum and the amount was repayable in ten years. The Syndicate Bank executed a leave and licence agreement in favour of the company in respect of 15,000 sq. ft. on the mezzanine to the ground floor of the hotel Oberoi Towers situated at Nariman Point, Bombay on a monthly compensation of Rs. 60,0007- per month, belonging to the company, for a period of 12 years. The leave and licence agreement inter alia provided that at the end of the said...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC243; 1992(3)SCALE361; (1992)2SCC133; 1992Supp(2)SCC133; [1991]Supp1SCR21; 1993(1)SLJ1(SC); 1991(2)LC739(SC)
ORDERM.H. Kania, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the decision of a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in Civil Revision Petition No. 2792 of 1979 filed in that Court. We propose to set out only the few facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal.2. The appellant is the managing trustee of a trust. The said trust owned two properties comprising 60 cents and 29 cents of land at Nagercoil in Tamil Nadu. The said lands were leased by the appellant to one Padakalingam in 1930 who in turn assigned the lease in favour of one Ramaswamy Mudaliar in 1931. Swami Mudaliar secured a further assignment of the said lease from the said Ramaswamy Mudaliar. Swami Mudaliar put up a building on the said land and the respondent herein purchased the building from him in 1943 for a sum of Rs. 4,475. In 1944 the trust had leased out the said property in favour of the respondent for six years. The terms of the lease are not relevant for the purposes of resolving the controversy ra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC231; 1993Supp(1)SCC617
1. The only point which requires consideration in this appeal is whether the Karnataka Legislature was competent under the provisions of the Karnataka Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1976 to classify for the purpose of profession tax lawyers practising within the Bangalore Urban Agglomeration separately to those practising within the Municipal limits of District Headquarters and further classifying lawyers between those who had below 10 years of practice and others above 10 years for different rates of tax. Article 14 of the Constitution has been pressed into service to contend that the classifications aforesaid are unintelligible in sum and essence. The legislature as suggested has apparently taken into account the income criteria in both the classifications, which tend to usurp the legislative field of the Union. It has been highlighted that the classification of Bangalore Urban Agglomeration and Municipal limits of District Headquarters separately is based ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1992(61)ELT3(SC); JT1991(4)SC158; 1992Supp(2)SCC432
ORDER 1. These are applications for restoration of Civil Appeal Nos. 2058-59 of 1988 which on February 3, 1989 were permitted to be withdrawn at the request of the appellants. 2. The withdrawal was on the basis of the instructions issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas vide their letter dated October 3, 1988. Later on September 28, 1989 the Chairman of the ONGC was intimated to the following effect: “Please refer to our DO letter No. DBC/Acctts/111/9/87 dated June 24, 1989 regarding excise duty on lean gas supplied to consumers ex-Uran. The suggestion made by you has been examined and in view of the fact that the CBEC is not prepared to withdraw the demand and refer the matter to arbitration, ONGC may approach the Supreme Court for appropriate relief.” On the basis of the later instructions, these applications are said to have been filed. 3. This Court has on more than one occasion pointed out that Public Sector Undertakings of Central Governm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC141; 1992CriLJ3939; JT1991(4)SC133; 1991(2)SCALE534; 1992Supp(1)SCC429; [1991]Supp1SCR1; 1992(1)LC206(SC)
ORDERKuldip Singh, J.1. Parusuraman @ Velladurai, Karuppaiah, Nagasundaram and four others (hereinafter referred to as A1 to A7) were tried for the murder of one Jawahar. Three charges were framed against them. A7 was charged under Section 302 read with Section 109, I.P.C. for instigating A1 to 6 to commit the murder. The second charge related to rioting wherein A1, A2, A4, A5 and A3, A6 were tried under Sections 147 and 148 I.P.C. respectively. The third charge under Section 302 read with Section 149, I.P.C. was against A1 to A6 on the allegations that A1, A2, A4 and A5 armed with sticks, A3 armed with aruval (bill-book) and A6 armed with elastic (spear-stick), attacked Jawahar at about 8.30 A.M. on January 28, 1977 and caused him multiple injuries as a result of which he died on the same day. All the accused persons were acquitted by the learned Trial Judge. On appeal the High Court maintained the acquittal of A4 to A7 but reversed the findings in respect of Al to A3. Believing the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC2214; JT1991(6)SC135; (1992)101PLR181; 1991(2)SCALE557; (1991)4SCC368; [1991]3SCR928; 1991(2)LC643(SC)
ORDERM.H. Kania, J.1. Leave granted. Counsel heard.2. The appellant, Bhatinda Improvement Trust, framed a development scheme under the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 (referred to hereinafter as 'the said Act'). Notices under Section 36 of the said Act in respect of the said scheme, setting out the particulars referred to in the said Section, were published in the Daily Tribune on May 31, 1977, June 7, 1977, and June 14, 1977. The said notices were also published in the local daily Ajit on May 30, 1977, June 6, 1977, and June 13, 1977 and in Punjab Government Gazette on June, 17, 1977, June 24, 1977 and July 1977, respectively, A Notification as required under Section 42 of the said Act was published on June 30, 1980 sanctioning the said development scheme. The said Notices and Notifications were challenged by the respondents in Civil Writ No. 2508 of 1982 filed in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, inter alia, on the ground that the Notification under Section 42 was not issued wi...
Tag this Judgment!