Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC1981; 1993LabIC1327; (1994)IILLJ429SC; 1993Supp(3)SCC491
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the Order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal whereby the Tribunal set aside the decision of the department not to include the name of the respondent No. 1 in the list of candidates eligible for promotion to the next higher post of Inspector of Police. It transpires that in the year 1987 the respondent No. 1 was visited with three punishments : (i) a censure on 17-11-for neglect of duty in not attending to law and Order situation which arose due to water scarcity; (ii) postponement of increment for neglect of duty in delaying the registration of a case Madurai City B-8 Police Station Cr. No. 567/87, under Ss. 448 and 376, I.P.C.; and (iii) a censure on 15-12-1987 for irresponsible conduct and disobedience of instructions of Deputy Superintendent of Police. All these acts of misconduct and misdemeanour were during the period of two months. i.e. April and May, 1987. When the question of considering whether or not respondent No. 1 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC2475; (1994)ILLJ337SC
1. Appellant Deen Dayal Ojha, a Sub-Inspector of Police in the service of the Government of Uttar Pradesh questions the correctness of the order of dismissal dated 8th September, 1982 of his writ petition by the High Court of Allahabad. The writ petition was preferred against the order dated 31st July, 1982 of the U.P. Public Service Tribunal relating to an alteration made by the respondents in the entry in his service records as to his date of birth. 2. We have heard Sri R.D. Upadhyay, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Pramod Swarup, learned Counsel for the respondents. On a consideration of the matter, we think this appeal should succeed. 3. On 6th July, 1942, appellant was enrolled in the military service from which he was discharged in 1946. Thereafter, on 1st January, 1947 he was appointed as a Constable in the Police Department. 4. Appellant's date of birth as entered in the Vernacular Examination Certificate was 1st November, 1925. The service record of the appellant, it...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1993(3)SC638; 1993(2)SCALE353; (1993)2SCC618
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The appellants filed an application under Sections 8 and 20 of the Arbitration Act before the Subordinate Judge, Puri, in view of a dispute having arisen between them and the Orissa State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'The Board'). A prayer was made in the said application for a direction to the Board to file the agreement dated 7-2-1963 and to appoint an Arbitrator to decide, the dispute in question. That application was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge saying that as there was no agreement between the appellants and the said Board, it was not possible to entertain the application aforesaid. The High Court affirmed the said order by dismissal of the Civil Revision filed on behalf of the appellants.3. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants pointed out that the Board itself had filed a suit in the year 1976 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Puri, for recovery of electrical charges amounting to Rs. 12,997.97 against the appell...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993(2)KLT129(SC); 1993Supp(3)SCC656; [1993]90STC35(SC)
ORDER1. The respondent was a dealer in synthetic gems. He purchased the gems in the State of Kerala and sold the same in Tiruchy and other places outside the State. The question before the High Court was whether for the purchases and sales made by the respondent-assessee, was he liable to tax under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963? Relying upon the exemption notification issued under Section 10 of the Act the High Court came to the conclusion that the synthetic gems were exempt from the payment of tax under the Act. This is the State appeal against the judgment of the High Court.2. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant. He has taken us through the judgment of the High Court which is reported in - T.S. Govindarajulu Naidu v. State of Kerala). We agree with the reasoning and the Conclusion reached therein. We see no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court. The appeal is dismissed. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1993)112CTR(SC)458
B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. :With a view to provide for the forfeiture of illegally acquired properties of smugglers and foreign exchange manipulators, the Parliament enacted, in the year 1976, the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976, being Act No. 13 of 1976. The preamble to the Act sets out the objective which the Act seeks to achieve. It says :'Whereas for the effective prevention of smuggling activities and foreign exchange manipulations which are having a deleterious effect on the national economy it is necessary to deprive persons engaged in such activities and manipulations of their ill-gotten gains;And whereas such persons have been augmenting such gains by violations of wealth-tax, income-tax or other laws or by other means and have thereby been increasing their resources for operating in a clandestine manner;And whereas such persons have in many cases been holding the properties acquired by them through such gains in the name of their rel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1993(3)SC647; 1993(2)SCALE373; 1993Supp(3)SCC546; [1993]2SCR874
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing an application filed by the Revenue under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act. The question which the Revenue wanted to raise reads thus:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the receipt of Rs. 1,38,577/- realised @1/- per bilty per customer through the bills and credited to a separate account called 'DHARMADA' was not assessable to tax as revenue receipt?2. The case of the Revenue briefly stated is to the following effect: the assessee is a private Ltd. company engaged in the business of transport. During the accounting period ending January 31, 1970 relevant to the assessment year 1970-71, the respondent collected an amount of Rs. 1,38,577/- on account of DHARMADA. The Income Tax Officer called upon the respondent-assessee to explain why the said amount should not be treated as its trading receipt....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1993]201ITR658(SC)
B. P. JEEVAN REDDY J. - With a view to provide for the forfeiture of illegally acquired properties of smugglers and foreign exchange manipulators, Parliament enacted, in the year 1976, the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976, being Act No. 13 of 1976. The preamble to the act sets out the objective which the Act seeks to achieve. It says (see [1976] 46 Comp Cas (St.) 118) :'Whereas for the effective prevention of smuggling activities and foreign exchange manipulations which are having a deleterious effect on the national economy it is necessary to deprive engaged in such activities and manipulations of their ill-gotten gains;And whereas such persons have been augmenting such gains by violations of wealth-tax, income-tax or other laws or by other means and have thereby been increasing their resources for operating in a clandestine manner;And whereas such persons have in many cases been holding the properties acquired by then through such gains i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC1873; JT1993(3)SC594; 1993(2)SCALE280; (1993)2SCC703; [1993]2SCR820
ORDERJ.S. Verma, J.1. These appeals, by special leave, arise from writ petition Nos. 11 of 1992, 8 of 1992 and 70 of 1992, all dismissed by the Bombay High Court at the Goa Bench merely on the ground of Laces; and they involve for decision the common question relating to the power of review, if any, of the Speaker to review his decision on the question of disqualification of a Member of the House, rendered under the Tenth Schedule to the Constitution. In those writ petitions, the orders passed by the Speaker, in purported exercise of the power of review, setting aside the earlier orders of disqualification of certain Members made on merits by the Speaker, were challenged on the ground that the Speaker has no such power of review. The High Court took the view, that the writ petitions were filed after considerable delay, and, therefore, upholding the preliminary objection, had to be dismissed merely on the ground of Laces; and, therefore, merits of the contention that the Speaker had no ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1621; 1994CriLJ2195
K. Jayachandra Reddy, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 379 of the CrPC read with Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act. The two appellants Rajagopalswamy Konar (A-1) and Sundaramurthy (A-2) were tried along with Amminiammal (A-3) for the offence of causing the death of Ramaswamy and Ponnuswamy, the two deceased in the case and for causing injuries to P.Ws. 1 and 2. The trial Court acquitted all of them. The State preferred an appeal. The High Court relying on the evidence of the eye-witnesses P.Ws. 2-4 convicted the two appellants under Sections 302 and 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life. The High Court convicted A-2 under Section 323, I.P.C. for causing injuries to P.W. 2 and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months. Both the accused were also found guilty for causing injuries to PW-1 under Section 307 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and sentenced to under...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1993)111CTR(SC)316; [1993]201ITR816(SC); [1993]68TAXMAN56(SC)
B. P. JEEVAN REDDY J.This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing an application filed by the Revenue under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act. The question which the Revenue wanted to raise reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the receipt of Rs. 1,38,577 realised at Re. 1 per builtper customer through the bills and credited to a separate account called Dharmada was not assessable to tax as revenue receipt ?'The case of the Revenue, briefly stated, is to the following effect : the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of transport. During the accounting period ending January 31, 1970, relevant to the assessment year 1970-71, the respondent collected an amount of Rs. 1,38,577 on account of Dharmada. The Income-tax Officer called upon the respondent-assessee to explain why the said amount should not be treated as its trading recei...
Tag this Judgment!