Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993(66)ELT547(SC); JT1993(4)SC72; (1993)IILLJ817SC; 1993(2)SCALE349; 1993Supp(3)SCC35; 1993(3)SLJ124(SC)
S. Mohan, J.1. Leave granted.2. Both these appeals arise out of the dismissal of Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 24720/ 92 & 32100/92 filed by the appellant herein before the High Court of Allahabad.3. The short facts are as under:4. In terms of G.O. No. 2626/30-2-84-32-G.E./72 dated 17.9.1984 the post of Additional Transport Commissioner in Uttar Pradesh Government Services is to be filled in by promotion from among the senior most Deputy Transport Commissioners who have completed five years continuous service as such. Initially, the senior most Deputy Transport Commissioner is appointed ad hoc and promoted to the post of Joint Secretary (Transport) which is an ex-cadre post in the Secretariat. Thereafter, he is posted as Additional Transport Commissioner. In accordance with this procedure, the appellant who was the senior most Deputy Transport Commissioner was promoted to the post of Joint Secretary (Transport). He continued on that post till 11.9.1990. The post of Joint Secretary is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994Supp(3)SCC718
M.M. Punchhi and; S.P. Bharucha, JJ.1. On the findings recorded by the courts below the parties to the dispute are governed by Agricultural Custom known as Customary Law as applicable in the State of Haryana, which was formerly part of the erstwhile State of Punjab, in the matter of inheritance and succession. The last male holder Shiv Chandi made the gift in question of agricultural land in favour of a collateral's daughter. The other collaterals objected to it and the gift was set aside. While proceedings were pending for having the gift set aside, Shiv Chandi died. A suit for possession of the disputed land was additionally brought by the collaterals. When the gift was set aside, the donee resisting possession projected that Shiv Chandi before his death had executed a Will in her favour. The Will was factually proved before the courts below and held to be otherwise valid. The point which arose before the courts below as well as before the High Court, was whether on the date when the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1624; 1994CriLJ2082; 1993(1)Crimes1116(SC); JT1993(2)SC574; 1993(2)SCALE338; 1994Supp(1)SCC566
ORDERK. Jayachandra Reddy, J.1. This is a regular appeal under Section 379 Cr.P.C. read with Section 2 of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970. There are six appellants. They alongwith one Kalyan Singh who died during the trial, were tried for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur and were acquitted. The State preferred an appeal against the remaining six accused. The High Court allowed the appeal. However, two of them A-5 Prem Pal Singh and A-6 Shyam Pal Singh who were children, were not awarded any sentence and the remaining four accused were sentenced to imprisonment for life. They were also convicted under. Sections 324/149 and 148 and sentenced to two years and one year R.I. respectively. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. All of them have preferred this appeal. The prosecution case is. as follows:2. All the accused are related to each other ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC1921; 1994(48)ECC191; 1993LC529(SC); 1993(65)ELT145(SC); JT1993(2)SC587; (1993)2MLJ68(SC); 1993(2)SCALE295; 1993Supp(3)SCC69; [1993]2SCR758
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. With a view to induce the Sugar Factories in the country to produce more and also to commence their operations early in the year, the Government of India have been issuing notifications, from time to time, providing for rebate in the Excise Duty in certain circumstances. These notifications were issued by the Central Government in exercise of the power conferred by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. We are concerned in these appeals with four such notifications namely (1) the Notification dated 28.9.72 (applicable to the Sugar Year 1972-73), (2) Notification dated 4.10.73 (applicable to the Sugar Year 1973-74), (3) Notification dated 12.10.74 (applicable to the Sugar Year 1974-75) and (4) the Notification dated 30.9.76 (applicable to the Sugar Year 1976- 77). 'Sugar year' means the year commencing on and with 1st October and ending with the 30th of September of the following year. The interpretation of these notifications is involved ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1487; 1994CriLJ2169
K. Jayachandra Reddy, J.1. The appellant, Abdul Mazid (original accused No. 1) was tried along with his three sons for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. for causing the death of Mahabbat Ali with a dagger and under Section 326 read with 34, I.P.C. for causing injuries to PW-3 and other witnesses. The trial Court convicted all the four accused. But the High Court confirmed the conviction of A-1 under Section 302 and acquitted A-2 and A-3 of the murder charge but convicted them under Section 324, I.P.C. and sentenced them for causing injuries to the witnesses, to the period already undergone. A-4 was, however, completely acquitted since the evidence of the eye-witnesses did not establish his participation. The High Court while convicting A-1 took to the view that it was he who caused the fatal injury to the deceased.2. The occurrence happened on the day of Ramjan i.e. on 18-9-74 at about 8.00 p.m. Because of some disputes a quarrel took place in the after...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(4)SCC211
ORDER 1. There are two appellants in this appeal. They are original accused 1 and 3. They along with another accused Balam Venkateswara Rao, A-2 were tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The trial court acquitted A-2 and convicted A-1 and A-3 and their convictions are confirmed by the High Court. Hence this appeal. 2. The accusation against the accused is that on 15-3-1981 at about 10.00 a.m. they attacked the deceased Dharma Raju with sharp-edged weapons and inflicted multiple injuries as a result of which he died. The prosecution examined PWs 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 as eyewitnesses and also relied on the two dying declarations Ex. P-16 and Ex. P-1 recorded by the Sub-Inspector and the Judicial Magistrate respectively. Out of the direct witnesses, PW 8 turned hostile and the courts below were not prepared to place much reliance on the evidence of the other witnesses because of the improbabilities. The courts below, particularly, the High...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC2254; (1993)112CTR(SC)61; [1993]201ITR800(SC); JT1993(3)SC150; 1993(2)SCALE393; (1993)2SCC629; [1993]2SCR775
ORDERR.M. Sahai, J.1. Legal issues that arise for consideration in this appeal, directed against the decision of the High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Tamil Nadu v. Universal Radiators : [1979]120ITR906(Mad) on questions of law referred to it in a reference under the Income Tax Act (in brief 'the Act') are, if the excess amount paid to the assessee due to fluctuation in exchange rate was taxable either because the payment being related to trading activity it could not be excluded under Section 10(3) of the Act even if it was casual and non-recurring in nature or it was stock-in-trade, therefore, taxable as revenue receipt or in any case the compensation for the loss of goods could not be deemed anything but profit.2. Shorn of details the assessee, a manufacturer of radiators for automobiles booked copper ingots from a corporation in the United States of America for being brought to Bombay where it was to be rolled into strips and sheets and then despatched to assessee for being...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC115; 1993CriLJ3909
1. These two appeals are filed by the State against acquittal. There are two respondents, Rameshwar (A-1) and Inderaj (A-2). They were tried for offence punishable Under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. by the trial Court. The trial Court convicted and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life. On appeal the High Court acquitted them. Hence the present appeals.2. The two accused, deceased (Sukmander Singh) and the principal witnesses PWs 3 and 4 belong to village Lakhuwana within the limits of Dabwali Police Station. There was an enmity between the accused and his associates on one hand and the deceased and his relations on the other. It may not be necessary for the purpose of this case to give the details of the earlier incidents. Suffice it to say that there was a bitter enmity. On 26-1-1982 at about 12 noon the deceased was going to the house of Pandit Gurbachan, another resident of the village, for taking the jack for his tractor. When the deceased was passing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC923; (1994)2GLR949; JT1993(2)SC465; (1993)2MLJ140(SC); 1993(2)SCALE244; [1993]2SCR715
ORDERP.B. Sawant, J.1. Leave granted.2. These appeals arise out of the same facts and judgments of the Karnataka High Court and are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of the narration of events Civil Appeal Nos. 1461-72/ 1993 arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 7230-41 of 1991 may be referred to.The 2nd respondent-M/s. Naryanaswamy & Sons is a partnership firm. While it was carrying on the business of manufacturing and selling of polished granites, it acquired on 30.9.1953, 6 acres and 4 gunthas of land in Survey Nos. 6/1 and 6/2 of Dasarahalli in the heart of Jayanagar Extension of the city of Bangalore. Out of the said land, 1 acre and 2 gunthas had already been acquired by the 1st respondent-State Government under notification dated 1.4.1948. The acquisition proceedings had culminated in an award, granting compensation to the land owner on 3.3.1955. In a small portion of the said land, the 2nd respondent-firm (hereinafter referred to as the 'firm'), established a gr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC2329; 1993(66)ELT47(SC); JT1993(3)SC194; 1993(2)SCALE342; (1993)2SCC662; [1993]2SCR788
ORDERKuldip Singh, J.1. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions. These appeals have arisen from land acquisition proceedings initiated by the State of Rajasthan under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 (the Act). The acquisition proceedings were challenged by the appellants-land owners by way of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Rajasthan High Court A learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions on October 15, 1982 and quashed the proceedings. The appeals filed by the State of Rajasthan were, however, allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court on February 21, 1986 and the judgment of the learned Single Judge was set aside. These appeals, by the landowners, are against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court.2. The land is popularly known as Rambagh area and Princes House or Raj Mahal area. According to the appellants the lands were private properties of Maharaja of Jaipur. Gandhi Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti (Sam...
Tag this Judgment!