Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC536; JT1993(6)SC103; (1993)ILLJ383SC; 1993(4)SCALE155; (1994)1SCC159; [1993]Supp3SCR281
ORDERP.B. Swant, J. 1. Leave granted.The appellant-Company runs a unit known as Modi Vanaspati Manufacturing Company at Modinagar, District Ghaziabad. At the relevant time, there were about 350 workmen working in this unit. On December 19, 1990, there was dispute between the management and the trade union leaders which resulted in two cross First Information Reports being lodged by the management and the trade union leaders against each other and suspension of 30 workmen form service. According to the Company, from December 21, 1990 the workmen came to the Company's premises but did not discharge their duties. On account of this, there was a complete halt in production. According to the respondent-trade unions, however, the workmen reported for duty regularly but the production could not be carried on as the suspended 30 workmen were technicians and in their absence it was not possible to operate the machines. On December 27, 1990 an agreement was arrived at between the management and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1993)117CTR(SC)47; [1993]205ITR428(SC)
ORDERThis appeal by certificate by the Controller of Estate Duty directed against the order dated August 17, 1978, of the High Court of Patna in C.W.J.C. No. 202 of 1976, raises a short and interesting question as to the scope and interpretation of section 50B of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 ('the Act', for short).The estate to which the proceedings for assessment of duty relate, was of the late Sir J. J. Gandhi, who died on April 17, 1972. Mrs. Roshan Jahangir Gandhi was the accountable person. A sum of Rs. 3,16,026 was determined as the provisional duty. The accountable person having had no immediate cash to meet the demand for provisional duty, borrowed on December 27, 1972, sums aggregating to Rs. 3,36,000 out of which the provisional duty of Rs. 3,16,026 was paid on March 23, 1973. On April 10, 1974, she sold certain shares forming part of the estate to discharge the said borrowings. Indeed, the sale was made to the lender from who the major borrowing had been made. Upon the sale of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1994]205ITR428(SC); 1994Supp(3)SCC93
ORDER1. This appeal by certificate by the Controller of Estate Duty directed against the order dated August 17, 1978, of the High Court of Patna in C. W. J. C. No. 202 of 1976, raises a short and interesting question as to the scope and interpretation of Section 50B of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 ('the Act', for short).2. The estate to which the proceedings for assessment of duty relate, was of the late Sir J.J. Gandhi, who died on April 17, 1972. Mrs. Roshan Jahangir Gandhi was the accountable person. A sum of Rs. 3,16,026 was determined as the provisional duty. The accountable person having had no immediate cash to meet the demand for provisional duty, borrowed on December 27, 1972, sums aggregating to Rs. 3,36,000 out of which the provisional duty of Rs. 3,16,026 was paid on March 23, 1973. On April 10, 1974, she sold certain shares forming part of the estate to discharge the said borrowings. Indeed, the sale was made to the lender from whom the major borrowing had been made. Upon the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1160; JT1993(6)SC123; 1993(4)SCALE173; (1994)2SCC133; [1993]Supp3SCR296
ORDERM.N. Venkatachala, J.1. These appeals arise a common judgment and separate decrees dated August 27, 1975 made by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, whereby R.F.A.'s Nos. 76, 77 and 78 of 1965 filed by the claimants seeking enchanced compensation for their acquired lands were partly allowed, and R.F.A. Nos. 68, 69 and 70 of 1965 of the State of Haryana seeking reduction in the compensation awarded to the claimants for their acquired lands were dismissed.2. Civil Appeals Nos. 369-371 of 1976 are not filed by the State of Haryana but are filed by Messrs Printers House Pvt. Ltd. a company for whose benefit the lands were acquired and in them reduction in the amount of compensation awarded by the High Court, is sought. Civil Appeals Nos. 946-948 of 1977 are that of the claimants and in them further enhanced compensation for the acquired lands is sought from the State and the company for whose benefit the State acquired the lands.3. Material facts which have given rise to these appea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994Supp(2)SCC545
S. Mohan and; S.P. Bharucha, JJ.1. After having heard both the learned counsel, we are of the view that the appeal will have to fail on two grounds. The document Ex. P-3, upon which the appellant bases his claim contains a peculiar clause to the effect that if the sale consideration of Rs 12,000 (Rupees twelve thousand only) was not paid on or before June 30, 1973, the document shall be deemed to be cancelled. Therefore, this is not a case where the sale consideration is promised to be paid on a future date. Hence it will not qualify within the definition of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. Further, the deed has been executed only by the transferor there being no reciprocal promise to pay by the transferee. Even on that score, it cannot constitute a promise to pay the sale consideration in future. Therefore, the courts below are correct that there is no valid conveyance of the property. We find not any merit and the civil appeal stands dismissed. However, there shall be no o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1994)1SCC646
M.M. Punchhi and; N.P. Singh, JJ.1. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 16 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 provide as follows:(1) Subject to the provisions of the Act, the District Magistrate may by order —(a) require the landlord to let any building which is or has fallen vacant or is about to fall vacant, or a part of such building but not appurtenant land alone, to any person specified in the order (to be called an allotment order); or(b) release the whole or any part of such building, or any land appurtenant thereto, in favour of the landlord (to be called a release order):Provided that in the case of a vacancy referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 12, the District Magistrate shall give an opportunity to the landlord or the tenant, as the case may be, of showing that the said section is not attracted to his case before making an order under clause (a).(2) No release order under clause (b) of sub-section (1) shall be made un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1994(5)SC91; 1995Supp(2)SCC747
R.M. Sahai and; A.S. Anand, JJ.1. The proprietary interest of the appellant vested in the State in consequence of Bombay Personal Inams Abolition Act, 1952. The appellant claimed compensation which was granted in 1960. Since the compensation awarded was meagre the appellant was paid rehabilitation grant as per Government's general policy. Against quantum of compensation the appellant filed appeal before the Revenue Tribunal and later on writ petition in the High Court. He did not succeed and the proceedings became final. The appellant thereafter filed an application under Section 37(2) of the Land Revenue Code. In these proceedings some inquiry appears to have been made presumably in favour of the appellant. On its strength he filed the suit challenging vesting of Inam land in the State. The suit was decreed and the order of Collector was declared to be null and void. Against this decree the State filed appeal in the High Court. It was allowed and the suit was dismissed. It is against ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC133; 1994(1)ALT33(SC); I(1994)DMC484SC; JT1993(6)SC495; 1993(4)SCALE192; (1994)1SCC460
R.M. SAHAI, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in this plaintiff's appeal directed against the judgment and order of the Madras High Court allowing the appeal, setting aside the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court restoring that of the trial court and dismissing the suit of the appellant for declaration and possession over the land in dispute, is if the High Court was justified in interfering with the presumption drawn by the Appellate Court of valid marriage arising out of prolonged living together of a man and woman as husband and wife.2. Manthi, admittedly, had three sons one of them being Chinathambi. His legally wedded wife was one Pavayee. He also lived with another woman, whose name, too, was Pavayee. From the second Pavayee he had issues one of them being Ramaswamy. He sold his one-third share, which he received from his father, in 1971 to the appellant. This was resisted by descendants of other two branches. The appellant therefore filed suit fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC200; 1994(1)BLJR205; (1994)2CALLT39(SC); JT1993(6)SC144; 1993(4)SCALE187; (1994)1SCC235; [1993]Supp3SCR251; 1994(1)LC81(SC)
ORDERR.M. Sahai, J. 1. The two questions of law that arise for consideration in this appeal are if the refusal of an arbitrator to resign while not accepting the joint request of the parties to extend time for arbitration and leave it to them to decide their future course of action amounts to refusal to act by the arbitrator within the meaning of Section 8(1)(b) of the Arbitration Act (in brief 'the Act' and if it be so whether he power to appoint next arbitrator vests in the Court or it has once again to be in accordance with the procedure provided in the Agreement.2. Dispute about settlement of claim in respect of construction of 250 bed hospital at Basudevpura having arisen between the respondent (contractor) and the appellant (Public Works Department of the State of West Bengal) the Chief Engineer nominated a Superintending Engineer as arbitrator in accordance with Clause 25 of the agreement, relevant part of which runs as under :-Except where otherwise provided in the contract all...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993(3)Crimes1058(SC); JT1993(6)SC589; 1993(4)SCALE199; 1994Supp(1)SCC579
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is preferred by State of Maharashtra challenging the Order of the High Court dated 6th August 1993 granting interim bail to the respondent. The Brief facts which led to the filing of this appeal are thus:3. On 12.3.1993, there were a number of serious and ghastly incidents of bomb explosions in the metropolitan city of Bombay and suburbs resulting in the death of a number of persons and damage to huge amount of property. In respect of the first incident, a case was registered in Crime No. 129 of 1993 at M.R.A. Marg Police Station on the complaint of the Chief Security Officer, Bombay Stock Exchange. Initially, offences under Section 307, 302, 326, 324, 427, 436 read with 120(B) IPC and Sections 4 and 5 of the Indian Explosive Substances Act came to be registered.4. The investigation in the case was then handed over to the Sr. Inspector of Police, DCB CID on 13.3.1993 under the orders of Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime and Administration) Bombay ...
Tag this Judgment!