Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : II(1991)ACC449; 1991ACJ1060; AIR1991SC2156; 1992(2)BLJR816; [1992]75CompCas611(SC); JT1991(3)SC660; 1992(1)KLT338(SC); (1992)101PLR156; 1991(2)SCALE493; (1991)4SCC333; [199
ORDERLalit Mohan Sharma, J.1. Special leave is granted.2. The appellant was injured in a road accident and his claim petition has been dismissed as being barred by limitation. The accident took place on 22.1.1989. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was repealed by Section 217(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which came into force on 1.7.1989. The period of limitation for filing a claim petition both under the old Act and the new Act being six months expired on 22.7.1989. The claim petition of the appellant, however, was filed belatedly on 15.3.1990 with a prayer for condonation of delay. The Accident Claims Tribunal held that in view of the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the new Motor Vehicles Act, the delay of more than six months could not be condoned. The application was accordingly dismissed. The appellant unsuccessfully challenged the decision before the High Court.3. It has been contended that since the accident took place when the old Motor Vehicles Act was in force...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1992Supp(2)SCC25
1. Special leave granted.2. This is an appeal against an order of a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated March 22, 1991 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 14319 of 1991.3. The appellant filed a complaint against the accused respondents and two others for offences under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 368 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code before a Judicial Magistrate I Class, Hoshiarpur. In support of her complaint the appellant, besides herself, examined her father Kartar Singh and a neighbour Dasondhi Ram as witnesses. The learned Magistrate issued process against the accused-respondents for he was of the opinion that there was sufficient ground for proceeding. The two others afore-referred to could not be served and were proclaimed absconders. Statedly they came from the State of Uttar Pradesh and their whereabouts were not known. The accused respondents, however, were served. Instead of facing the enquiry at the pre-charge stage, they straightaway...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC2089; (1992)94BOMLR12; JT1991(3)SC604; 1991(2)SCALE488; (1991)4SCC293; [1991]3SCR904; 1991(2)LC664(SC)
ORDERB.C. Ray, J.1. The above four appeals on special leave by the appellant were filed against the judgment and order dated February 7, 1983 made by the Panaji Bench of the Bombay High Court in First Civil Appeal Nos. 35/B to 38/B of 1981 disposing of all the four appeals field by the appellant against the judgment and order of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji, Goa dated 26.8.1981 confirming four different awards by an arbitrator appointed in pursuance to the agreement between the parties. Appeal No. 35 of 1981 relates to the award, awarding to the respondent against the appellant Rs. 2,75,091.13. Appeal No. 36 of 1981 relates to an award, awarding to the respondent a sum of Rs. 1,88,968.36. Appeal No. 37 of 1981 relates to an award, awarding to the respondent Rs. 3,36,230.36 and Appeal No. 38 of 1981 relates to an award, awarding to the respondent Rs. 46,321.32.2. The facts leading to these appeals are as follows:The appellant Goa, Daman & Diu Housing Board entered in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC2141; 1992(37)ECC16; 1991LC305(SC); 1993LC177(SC); 1991(55)ELT289(SC); JT1991(3)SC587; 1991(2)SCALE473; 1992Supp(1)SCC471; [1991]3SCR862; 1991(2)LC658(SC)
V. Ramaswami, J.1. The short question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to what is the relevant date for the purpose of calculation of the period of one year provided under Section 35E(3) of The Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called the Act). Briefly stated the question arises in the following circumstances.2. By order in Original No.34 of 1984 dated 28.11.1984, the Collector of Central Excise, Madras as an adjudicating authority within the meaning of the Act, held as barred by limitation the demand from the respondent towards excise duty on biaxially oriental polypropylene films as set out in the show cause notice dated 25.10.1983 and dropped further proceedings against the respondent. A copy of this order was attested by the Superintendent of the office on 21.12.1984 and despatched to the respondent. It was received by the respondent on 21.12.1984. The Central Board of Excise and Customs (hereinafter called the Board), after consideration of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC96; JT1991(3)SC608; 1991(2)SCALE481; 1992Supp(1)SCC323; [1991]3SCR873; (1992)1UPLBEC644; AIR1992SC96
ORDERV. Ramaswami, J.1. The respondent was elevated as Judge of the Allahabad High Court on November 17, 1977. He retired on October 3, 1983 on superannuation at the age of 62. He had elected to receive his pension under Part I of the First Schedule to the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954. As he had put in only a period of five years 10 months and 17 days service as a Judge of the High Court, under paragraph 9 Part I of the First Schedule pension payable was determined at the rate of Rs. 8,400 per annum and the family pension in the event of his death earlier than his wife at Rs. 250 per month in the letter of Accountant General, Allahabad dated December 2, 1983. The gratuity was worked out at Rs. 11,665.66 P. in lump-sum under Section 17A(3) also on the ground that he had put in only five completed years of service. The pension was payable with effect from October 4, 1983. The Act was amended by the Amending Act No. 38 of 1986 providing for an increased pension with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC2285; (1991)98CTR(SC)225; [1991]192ITR155(SC); JT1991(3)SC599; 1991(2)SCALE466; (1991)4SCC467; [1991]3SCR888
ORDERN.D. Ojha, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred on the basis of a certificate granted by the High Court of Gujarat under Section 261 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The judgment appealed against is reported in Cellulose Products of India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat : [1977]110ITR151(Guj) . The respondent is a public limited company incorporated on April 14, 1989 mainly for the purpose of carrying on business of manufacturing chemical products. The Memorandum of Association of the respondent company, as is apparent from the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, inter alia contains the following clause:to carry on the business of manufacture of and dealer and importers and exporters in chemical products of any nature and kind whatsoever and particulary of Carboxy Methyl Cellulose (CMC), Cellulose Pulps and other chemical products.2. The respondent was granted an industrial licence by the Central Government for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC2080; [1991(63)FLR595]; JT1991(3)SC594; 1991LabIC2133; 1991(2)SCALE469; 1991Supp(2)SCC208; [1991]3SCR895; 1991(2)LC591(SC); (1991)2UPLBEC1340
ORDERJ.S. Verma, J.1. This matter brings to the fore once again the ineptitude with which litigation is conducted quite often on behalf of the Government of India and State Governments even when important issues having lasting and wide repercussions are involved. The point in this case relates to the validity of a policy of the railway administration and is likely to affect the staff pattern in several units. Inspite of this fact, to support validity of the impugned policy the required materials were not produced in the High Court and to overcome the adverse decision several opportunities given by us to produce the entire relevant record were not availed. The learned Additional Solicitor General informed us after several adjournments that better performance is not possible. We, therefore, concluded the hearing and proceed to decide on the available materials. It is indeed fortunate for the appellants that our conclusion is in their favour. The railway administration with its countrywid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1992(2)SCALE637; 1992Supp(2)SCC637
ORDERK.N. Singh and K. Ramaswamy, JJ.1. I.A44. Nos. 5 & 6: It is stated on behalf of M/s. Madina Tannery and M/s. New Javed Tannery, Kanpur that they have already set up Primary Treatment Plant and have removed the defects pointed out by the State Pollution Control Board. We, accordingly, direct the State Pollution Control Board to inspect the establishment of these two tanneries and to submit its report to this Court as to whether the treatment plant alleged to have been set up by the tanneries is according to the standard and is in working order. The report may be submitted within four weeks.I. A. No. 8:2. It is stated on behalf of M/s. Himalaya Tannery that they are not carrying out any tanning operation, instead they are carrying out the working of finshing and it does not involve flow of any industrial effluent or pollution of water or atmosphere. The State Pollution Control Board is directed to inspect the factory and submit its report to this Court within four weeks.M/s. Shalima...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1992Supp(2)SCC473
ORDER 1. Petitioner seeks special leave to appeal to this Court against the order dated January 7, 1991, of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dismissing its Writ Petition No. 984 of 1989. We have heard Shri Vijay Hansaria for the petitioner and Shri A.K. Srivastava for the respondents. Special leave granted. 2. This appeal raises a controversy which could well have been avoided by the Deputy Sugar Commissioner who is the appellate authority under the Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Rules, 1961, [Rules for short]. The appellant preferred an appeal against the order dated February 8, 1989 of the Assessing Officer (the Khandsari Inspector) before the Deputy Sugar Commissioner, Western Region, Meerut, respondent 2. The Memorandum of Appeal was rejected in limine on the ground that it did not comply with the requirements of Rule 24(3) of the Rules in that an attested copy of the order appealed against did not accompany the Memorandum of Appeal. 3. Rule 24(3) requires: &l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1991(3)SC603; 1991(2)SCALE492; 1991Supp(2)SCC207; [1991]3SCR859; 1992(1)LC82(SC)
ORDER1. Special leave granted.2. We have heard learned Counsel for both the parties and also considered the order passed by the High Court. Admittedly, these two appellants were appointed much earlier to the appointment of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. Their appointment being on 30.3.71 and 24.4.71 whereas the appointment of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were on 18.2.83. They were promoted in 1983 as Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police. On 1.1.89 respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and appellant Nos. l and 2 were promoted as Inspectors of Police and a composite Seniority List of appellants, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and other similarly appointed persons was issued by respondent No. 1 in which appellant No. 1 was shown at serial No. 33, appellant No. 2 at serial No. 34 and the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were at serial numbers 46 and 47 respectively. On 16.10.89 by order of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, State of Haryana and Director General of Police respondent No. 3 was p...
Tag this Judgment!