Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(4)SCC576
ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Special leave is granted. 2. In view of the order which we are proposing to pass, it is not necessary to set out the facts in detail. A writ petition filed by the respondents out of which the present matter arises was dismissed in 1984 by a reasoned judgment running into 10 long pages. Subsequently, a review application was filed, which has been allowed by a perfunctory order of a few lines dated November 17, 1989. This is under challenge in the present case. The complaint is that the order does not deal with the questions reagitated by the review petitioners nor does it assign reasons for reviewing the earlier judgment. The grounds appear to be well founded and accordingly we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order dated November 17, 1989 and remit the Civil Application No. 5173 of 1989 (for review) to the High Court for reconsideration and disposal by a reasoned judgment. We agree with the learned counsel for the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1642; [1992]195ITR649(SC); 1993Supp(1)SCC607
1. Special leave granted.We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. In this case, the Commissioners of Income-tax, Delhi-IX and X, had passed orders under Section 132(12) allowing petitions filed by the appellant to release the pay orders in question to the appellant (subject to bank guarantee in respect of a small amount with which we are not here concerned). There were two orders to this effect dated 27-11-89 and 15-12-89. Subsequently, one of the Commissioners, revised his order dated 27-11-89 and dismissed the petition filed by the appellant. This was on 1-3-90. He did this in view of an assessment order which had been made subsequently on one S.K. Aggarwal. It is the validity of this order that is impugned in this appeal.2.learned Counsel for the appellant submits that subsequently there have been several developments in this case. The assessment order made in the case of S.K. Aggarwal has been set aside for being redone. We also find that the High Court towards the end of its...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1992]195ITR861(SC)
ORDER Vide application dated December 18, 1991, the applicant stated that, during the course of hearing of the case by the Principal Bench of Delhi, on November 27 and 28, 1991 the applicant had requested for waiver of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1989-90, under the special and all pervasive power of the Settlement Commission. To this, the Commission had remarked that it did not have powers to waive interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. By the petition dated December 18, 1991, referred to above, the applicant requested that he may be allowed another opportunity of being heard on the point whether the Commission, on the facts and circumstances of the case, has the powers to waive the above-referred interest. According to the petitioner, since the subject was of very wide import and far-reaching consequence, he had no objection if the hearing on the above subject was fixed before the Special Bench at Bomb...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(4)SCC578
N.M. Kasliwal and; K. Ramaswamy, JJ.1. The only question to be considered in this appeal is whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 can be made applicable to an appeal filed before the appellate authority functioning under Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The appellant having lost the case before the small causes court, filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The appeal was barred by limitation by 12 days. The appellant, as such, filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay. The appellate authority took the view that provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are not applicable in the case as the appellate authority was not a court but only persona designata and as such dismissed the petition for excusing the delay. A revision filed against the said order was dismissed by the High Court. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that unde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC786; JT1992(1)SC495; 1994LabIC28; (1993)IILLJ813SC; 1992(1)SCALE313; (1992)2SCC547; 1992(1)LC769(SC)
ORDERN.M. Kasliwal, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 30th June, 1977. It is not necessary to mention the facts in detail, as this appeal succeeds on a short point. Dr. Dattatraya Mahadev Nadkarni (since deceased)-(hereinafter referred to as the 'appellant') was employed as medical Assistant in the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay. He was served with a charge sheet dated 5.7.1961. The charges levelled against him were that while suspended from duty from 2.11.1960 he failed to give charge of the Registers of International Health Certificates issued in 1957, 1958, 1959 and upto March 1960. Inspite of thorough search the Registers of the above Certificates were not found in the dispensary. The appellant was thus guilty of negligence (1) for the loss of the Registers and (2) for not giving proper charge of the dispensary. The Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Labour) agreeing with the report of the Inquiry Officer, issued...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1041; 1994CriLJ1386
K. Jayachandar Reddy, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. The petitioner has also filed another special leave petition which was directed to be heard along with the appeal.2. The appellant is convicted Under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life for causing death of Mohd. Yusuf, the deceased in the case. The appellant along with another accused Misawul Hasan were tried by the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions judge held that when the appellant stabbed the deceased, acted in exercise of his right of self-defence, but exceeded the same. In that view of the matter, he convicted him under Section 304 Part 1, I.P.C. and sentenced him to three years R.I. and to a fine of Rs. 300/- in default of payment of fine to undergo two months Rigorous Imprisonment in addition. The other accused is acquitted.3. The State preferred an appeal against the order of acquittal of both the accused. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(4)SCC570
M.M. Punchhi,; S. Mohan and; G.N. Ray, JJ.1. This appeal by special leave is at the instance of the first defendant A.S. Vidyasagar whose effort is to establish title to a house in his possession by two means, which would presently be discussed hereafter.2. One Meenakshi Iyer had three brothers two of whom had no male progeny, but there were females/daughters in their line. The 3rd one, however, had a son and a daughter named respectively as Kuppuswami and Kanthimathi. Meenakshi Iyer died issueless in the year 1939. His widow Thulasi Ammal claimed his properties on the basis of a will dated August 9, 1931 which was contested by Kuppuswami. During the course of litigation document Ex. A-3 was recorded in the year 1942 whereby Thulasi Ammal released the properties she had received under the will in favour of Kuppuswami in consideration of Rs 12,000 in cash for her exclusive use. By means of the said release deed, she obligated Kuppuswami to give ‘stridhana’ to the daughters o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(4)SCC572
K. Jayachandra Reddy and; R.C. Patnaik, JJ.1. The appellant is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life for causing the death of Amrik Singh, the deceased in the case, by shooting him with the gun. The case rested on the evidence of PWs 6 and 7 the two eyewitnesses. The trial court accepted their evidence and convicted the appellant. The appeal preferred by him was dismissed by the High Court. The occurrence took place on August 31, 1977 at about 7 p.m. The deceased, PWs 6 and 7 were returning after attending the fair at village Talwandi and when they reached the metalled road outside Talwandi they saw the appellant armed with a gun and another accused, Gurcharan Singh armed with a gandasi. It is alleged that the acquitted accused, Gurcharan Singh raised a lalkara. Thereupon the appellant fired a shot which hit on the chest of Amrik Singh, deceased and he fell down. PWs 6 and 7 raised an alarm. Both of them, however, carried the injured to Primary Health C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC860; 1993Supp(3)SCC290
1. Leave granted.2. All the appeals raise common question of law and the High Court also disposed of the matters by a common Judgment. These appeals arise from Judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeals. The respondents-contractors entered into contracts with the Government to execute work as per the schedule of the contract provided in the form. They have to excavate the minor minerals either from the Government quarry or from private quarry and use them for the execution of the work. It is one of the requirements in the contract under Clause 35 of the Schedule that they are liable to pay royalty on the material so removed from Government quarry for the execution of the work. The Government have demanded payment of the royalty. Calling in question of the entitlement of the Government under Rule 19 of the Karnataka Minor Minerals Concessions Rules 1969 for short 'the Rules' the respondent filed a bunch of writ petitions and disclaimed their liability to pay the same. The High...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC1135; JT1992(2)SC130; 1992(1)KLT577(SC); 1992(1)SCALE316; 1993Supp(1)SCC572; [1992]1SCR582
ORDERK. Ramaswamy, J.1. This appeal by special leave arises against the order dated November 17, 1977 made in C.R.P. No. 2341 of 1977 of the Kerala High Court which granted the decree that the respondent is a tenant under Section 4A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (1 of 1964), for short 'the Act' and is not liable to ejectment pursuant to the decree in O.S. No. 6/64 on the file of the Munsif Magistrate, Attingal. The facts relevant arc as under :2. The appellant is the mortgagor. The respondent is one of the mortgagees/4th defendant. The appellant's suit for redemption of the mortgage was decreed on December 23, 1965. The decree provides payment of Rs. 500, and Rs. 943/9.2 towards improvements as a condition for redemption. On appeal, the appellate court enhanced the improvements by Rs. 256/8.4. In the execution application filed by the appellant the respondent filed another application under the Kerala Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act, 1958 (Act 29 of 1958), for short 't...
Tag this Judgment!