Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC2090; 1993CriLJ2669; 1993(2)Crimes336(SC); JT1993(3)SC254; 1993(2)SCALE734; (1993)3SCC208
ORDERA.M. Ahmadi, J.1. Special leave granted.2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the appellant's daughter Geetha married respondent No. 1 (original accused No.l) sometime in October 1976 according to Hindu rites and thereafter left for Ireland. A daughter was born to the couple on July 27, 1978 in Ireland. She was named Nivedita. In April 1979, the couple along with the child moved to the United States of America; the child traveling on an Irish passport. In October 1979 Geetha wrote to her mother, the appellant, expressing her desire that Nivedita should be brought up under her care in India. On the appellant expressing her willingness to look after the child, Nivedita was sent to India via Bombay where the appellant received her. The child then remained in the custody of the appellant. In March 1980 Geetha returned to India presumably because her husband had developed intimacy with an American girl and had started to ill-treat her. Within a week after her arrival in In...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC2132; JT1993(3)SC364; 1993(2)SCALE726; (1993)3SCC297
ORDERR.M. Sahai, J.1. Can a statutory tenant create a license? if the answer is in affirmative then can such licensee claim immunity from eviction in execution proceedings in view of Section 15A of the Bombay Rent Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act 57 of 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')? These are questions which arise for consideration in this appeal directed against the judgment and order of the Bombay High Court.2. What happened was that the landlord determined the tenancy of the contractual tenant in October 1966 and filed suit for his eviction in 1967 which was decreed ex-parte on 5th October, 1973. In execution of the decree the licensee obstructed and claimed to be protected licensee under Section 15A of the Act. The objection was rejected by the executing and the appellate court. The appellate court found that even though the first license was, created in 1966 before determination of the tenancy for a period of six years but the second license having been crea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC2412; (1993)4SCC401
1. Special leave granted. 2. Guru Nanak Dev University is aggrieved by the orders dated 17th August, 1992 of the High Court in Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 2732 and 4928 of 1992 respectively, directing the regularisation of the admission of the first respondent in each of these appeals, to the Internship Course. 3. Regulation 27 of the Guru Nanak Dev University regulating eligibility for ad mission to the Internship Course provides: (a) Compulsory Rotating Houseman-ship: Every candidate, on passing the final MBBS examination, shall undergo 12 months training as laid down by the Faculty of Medical Science before he is allowed full registration by the State Medical Council. The work done in a Military Hospital or any other recognised Institute (names given in the appendix) shall be accepted for this training. (Emphasis supplied) (b) There shall be an oral test at the end of the internship programme to be conducted by a Board of the College set up by the Principal of the College. The Board ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994Supp(2)SCC137
K. Ramaswamy and; R.M. Sahai, JJ.1. Special leave granted.2. The appellant is the tenant in Shop Nos. K-47/3 and K-47/343 situated in Varanasi town at a monthly rent of Rs 180. The landlord issued notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act terminating the tenancy and laid the suit for ejectment alleging that the appellant committed default in payment of rent. The trial court decreed the suit. On appeal, the District Judge confirmed the same. In writ petition under Section 227, the High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 14340 of 1992 dated September 21, 1992 confirmed the order of ejectment. Thus this appeal by special leave.3. The limited question argued across the bar is whether the provisions of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 for short the Act would apply to the building in question. Sub-section (1) of Section 2 exempts certain categories of buildings specified therein from the operation of the Act itself. Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC2302; 1993CriLJ2092; JT1993(3)SC682; 1993(2)SCALE671; 1993Supp(3)SCC336
ORDERK. Jayachandra Reddy, J.1. This is yet another case of death in police custody. There are four appellants. Dalip Singh, A-1 was an S.I. of Police, Rajmal, A-2 was A.S.I., Bikram Singh A-3 and Suraj Bhan, A-4 were the Constables attached to the Police Station Cheeka Guhla District Kurukshetra. According to the prosecution on 5.9.86 one Kailash was arrested by the police staff, Cheeka and the allegation was that he was involved in a theft of a buffalo on the basis of the complaint given by one Jodha and Jogi. However, he was released on assurance given by Balbir Singh and others. On 8.9.86 they arrested him again and, kept him in police lock-up and started beating him. The four accused are stated to have' participated in the beating and inflicted a number of injuries on the deceased. On 13.9.86 the Sarpanch Puran Singh, P.W.5 also came to the police station and in his presence also the deceased was beaten. Inspite of the requests made by P.W.4, Daryao Singh, the father of the deceas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1993(3)SC688; 1993Supp(3)SCC416
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the judgment of the Madras High Court answering the question referred to it under Section 256(1) of the Income-Tax Act in favour of the Revenue end against the assessee. The question stated, at the instance of Revenue, for the opinion of the High Court reads:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessable capital gain would be only Rs. 1,81,671/- computed in the manner set out in paragraph 14 of the order of the Tribunal?2. The assessee is a registered firm. The assessment year concerned is 1973-74, the relevant previous year being the financial year 1972-73. During the said previous year, the assessee sold shares held by him in several companies. From the sale of shares in three companies, it secured a gross long-term capital gain of Rs. 5,61,508/-. However, in the sale of shares in six other companies, it sustained a long-term capita...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1993(4)SC545; 1993(2)SCALE675
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. A common question arises in this batch of writ petitions. We may ,take the facts in writ petition (C) No. 9835 of 1983, filed by M/s. K.B. Handicrafts Emporium and Ors. as representative of the facts in all the cases. The petitioners are firms engaged in the manufacture and sale of handicrafts items. They are registered Sales Tax Dealers in the State of Haryana. They purchased raw material within the Suite against declaration forms ST 15 prescribed under Rule 81 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules read with Section 24 of the Act. By issuing From S.T. 15, the petitioners undertook that the goods manufactured by them out of the said raw material would be sold by them either within the State or in the course of inter-state trade and commerce or in the course of export within the meaning of Section 5(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act. A dealer issuing the said Form need not pay the purchase tax on such raw material. After manufacturing the items of handicrafts, the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC2414; 1993(43)ECC134; 1993(66)ELT13(SC); JT1993(3)SC134; 1993(2)SCALE702; 1994Supp(1)SCC310; [1993]3SCR433; [1993]47STC90(SC)
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture and sale of products like cast-iron pipes, man-hole covers, bends etc. For the assessment year 1989-90, the Commercial Tax Officer, Narayanguda Circle, Hyderabad levied sales tax upon the turnover relating to said products treating them as general goods. He over-ruled the petitioner's contention that the said products are declared goods liable to tax at the rate of 4% only. The assessees' appeal preferred before the Appellate Deputy Commissioner is still pending. Evidently because no stay was granted pending the said appeal, a notice was issued to the appellant calling upon him to pay the tax assessed, against which notice he preferred a writ petition, being W.P. No, 9315 of 1992, in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. His main contention in the writ petition was that by virtue of G.O.Ms. No. 383 Revenue(S) Department dated 17.4.1985, his products are 'declared goods' and are, therefore, liable to tax only @4%.2. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994Supp(2)SCC506
S.C. Agrawal and; N. Venkatachala, JJ.1. Mr V.J. Francis, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on an incorrect interpretation of the relevant regulation the petitioner is being required to obtain a no-objection certificate from all the steamer agents for the purpose of getting the licence of shipchandler. It is urged that the only requirement under the regulations is to obtain a no-objection certificate from the Customs authorities and that after obtaining the licence the petitioner can obtain a letter of permission from a steamer agent to carry on business as a shipchandler. From the judgment of the High Court it does not appear that a no-objection certificate is required to be obtained from all the steamer agents for the purpose of getting a licence as a shipchandler. The High Court, while considering the reasonableness of the regulation has held that since shipchandling is a business which involves supply of food items to the vessels which are berthed at the Port, the pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1459; 1994CriLJ2167; JT1993(3)SC535; 1993(2)SCALE659; 1993Supp(4)SCC667
ORDERN.P. Singh, J.1. The appellant along with three other accused persons was put on trial for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, for having committed the murder of one Munna, on 1.10.1979.2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 1.10.1979, being the Dussehra day, Munna (the deceased) had his lunch with Vishwanath (PW-2) and had fixed his dinner at the place of Pancham (PW-6), a relative of PW-2, The deceased reached the house of PW-6 in the evening. PW-6went to call PW-2. At that very time someone called Munna from outside, it is said that the appellant along with other three accused persons (since acquitted) started assaulting the deceased. In the meantime, PW-2 reached there and saw the deceased being assaulted. Among the four accused persons he identified only the appellant. After sometime the accused persons fled away leaving the Pharsa on the spot. PW-2 immediately ran to Prem Narayan (PW-1), the brother of the deceased, to inform him. PW-1 ...
Tag this Judgment!