Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993(66)ELT23(SC); JT1993(3)SC73; 1993(2)SCALE490; (1993)3SCC114
N.P. Singh, J.1. One appeal is on behalf of Hari Singh and the other is on behalf of Satbir and Gulbir. They were put on trial along with Suresh, Vijender and Virinder for having committed the murder of Mange Ram on 7th October, 1982. Virinder being a minor his trial was separated so that the said may be conducted by Children Court. The remaining five accused were convicted for offences under Section 302 read with 149, Section 148 and Section 323 read with 149. Sentence of imprisonment for life was imposed against all the five accused persons under Section 302 read with 149, whereas under Section 148 each one of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, and rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 323 read with 149. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. The High Court dismissed their appeal.2. Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2160 of 1985 was filed on behalf of accused Hari Singh, Suresh and Vijender. On 23rd September, 1985 this Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994Supp(1)SCC564
K. Ramaswamy and; R.M. Sahai, JJ.1. By notification, issued under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act of 1894 (for short the Act), dated February 5, 1971, 38 bighas and odd, land situated in village Khanpur has been acquired for a public purpose, namely, for the construction of 132 KV Sub-Station at Khanpur. The Land Acquisition Officer by award dated May 23, 1972 determined the compensation at the rate of Rs 9,900 per acre. On reference under Section 18, the civil court by order dated May 3, 1975 enhanced the market value to Rs 25,600 per acre with usual solatium and interest. Dissatisfied therewith, the State carried the matter in an appeal. The appellant also filed cross-objections. The learned single Judge by his judgment dated July 18, 1979 allowed the appeal set aside the enhanced award and confirmed the award of the Land Acquisition Collector. On Letters Patent Appeal No. 165 of 1979 the Division Bench confirmed the same on December 7, 1979. Thus this appeal, by special leave u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993(65)ELT471(SC); JT1993(3)SC186; 1993(2)SCALE558; (1993)3SCC16; [1993]3SCR81; [1993]89STC532(SC)
Kuldip Singh J.1. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the mandate, under Section 20(3) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (the Act), to pay the undisputed tax before the appeal is entertained, is also applicable to the additional tax payable under Section 6B of the Act. In other words whether it is obligatory under the Act to deposit the tax and the additional tax before the appeal is entertained.2. The respondent-assessee challenged the best judgment assessment made against him for the year 1972-73 before the First Appellate Authority which was dismissed in limine on the ground that the respondent failed to pay the tax 'not disputed in appeal'. The second appeal filed by the assessee before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal was also dismissed. On a revision petition under the Act the Karnataka High Court reversed the findings of the authorities below the ground that unpaid 'not disputed' tax was the additional tax which was different than the tax envisaged under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1456b; 1993Supp(4)SCC42; [1993]90STC1(SC)
ORDER1. This appeal arises from the Judgment of the Madras High Court in a Sales Tax Revision Case. The appellant is a co-operative sugar factory having its sugar factory at Chittur in Kerala State. Inasmuch as sufficient quantity of sugarcane was not available within the State of Kerala, the appellant and the Government of Kerala approached the State of Tamil Nadu for supply of sugarcane to the appellant-factory. In pursuance of the understanding arrived at between them, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued an order contained in G.O. M.S. No. 2260 dated July 20, 1963. By virtue of this order, the appellant was permitted to draw sugarcane from not more than 3,000 acres in Coimbatore and Pollachi taluks in Tamil Nadu, subject to the conditions specified therein. Condition No. 5 read thus:(Clause (5) : The Co-operative Sugar Ltd., Chittur, should remit to this Government the Sales Tax on the cane supplies made from areas in Madras State. The basis for purposes of calculation will be taken...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994Supp(3)SCC561
K. Ramaswamy and; R.M. Sahai, JJ.1. This is a second round of litigation at the behest of the appellants' father who had in the first instance ultimately suffered the decree against him in O.S. No. 314 of 1961. Initially a suit was filed against Respondents 4 and 5. That suit came to be decreed and confirmed in Second Appeal No. 1600 of 1970 by judgment dated December 22, 1970. It became final. Thereafter on the behest of the father, the appellants have filed O.S. No. 138 of 1971 for declaration that the decree in O.S. No. 314 of 1961 does not bind them and for perpetual injunction. The trial court granted the decree. On appeal, it was confirmed but in the Second Appeal No. 570 of 1977 by its judgment dated February 11, 1985, the High Court reversed the decree of the trial court and the appellate court dismissed the suit. Thus this appeal by special leave.2. The main contention which was urged and accepted by the High Court was that the appellants' father was a party in the earlier sui...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC1585; JT1993(2)SC705; 1993LabIC1317; (1993)IILLJ692SC; 1993(2)SCALE551; (1993)3SCC204; [1993]3SCR45; (1993)2UPLBEC1428
ORDERJ.S. Verma, J.1. The respondent, Kewal Kumar, was Deputy Chief Electrical Engineer, Northern Railway at New Delhi when the Departmental Promotion Committee (D.P.C.) met on 23.11.1989 for considering the respondent and some others for promotion to the Senior Administrative Grade. The D.P.C. followed the sealed cover procedure in the case of the respondent, in view of the fact that the decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him for imposition of major penalty had been taken by the competent authority earlier, on 20.11.1989. The decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings was taken on the basis of the First Information Report (F.I.R.) registered on 30.9.1988 by the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I) which was received by the concerned departmental authorities on 31.5.1989. Even though the decision was so taken on 20.11.1989 on the basis of the F.I.R. made such earlier, the chargesheet was actually issued to the respondent on 1.8.1990. Toe respondent challenged b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1999LC298(SC); 1999(111)ELT324(SC); (2000)10SCC548
ORDERP.B. Sawant and S. Mohan, JJ.1. Heard counsel for the parties. We feel that it is not necessary in this case to go into the merits of the High Court's order. The Officer conducting the regular assessments proceedings should not allow himself to be influenced by any observations made or findings given in the summary proceedings under Section 132.2. There is no grievance that during the regular proceedings which are in progress at present no access is given to the documents. However, the grievance is that although the petitioner is entitled to the original documents, the Commissioner of Income Tax by his letter dated 8-6-1992 accorded sanction for continuing the retention of the account books. If the petitioner is aggrieved by this order or if any such order passed in future he may approach the appropriate forum. The special leave petitions are dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994Supp(1)SCC609
K. Ramaswamy and; R.M. Sahai, JJ.1. This Court in M.M.R. Khan v. Union of India1 held that the employees appointed in the statutory canteens as well as those engaged in non-statutory recognised canteens in the railway establishments are the railway employees and they are entitled to be treated as such. In other respects, this Court had not granted relief to other non-statutory employees while the writ petitions were pending. The petitioners' association representing the persons appointed by the commission vendors on the railway platforms on the various places also claimed parity to be treated as railway catering service. This writ petition came to be dismissed and for review of that order the petitioners have filed this petition. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in another case Writ Petition No. 575 of 1987 etc., etc. the petitioners therein claimed that there will be an order in same terms as in T.I. Madhavan v. Union of India2. That judgment was rendere...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1521; 1994LabIC754; (1994)IILLJ812SC; (1994)1SCC192
1. This appeal, by special leave, arises against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeal No. 20 of 1981 dated February 3, 1981. The respondent made an application to the appellant to appoint him as a clerk as his father died in harness in 1967 while working in the office of the Auditor-General, Government of India at Andhra Pradesh. He was qualified for appointment. He passed his PUC examination and he applied for the appointment on compassionate grounds. The application made on December 26, 1978 since was not considered nor appointed, he filed Writ Petition No. 6173/79 and the learned single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition. On appeal, while dismissing, the Division Bench declared that the Memorandum is violative of Article 16(2) of the Constitution as the appointment of descendent is ultra vires of Article 16(2). However, while granting leave, the appellant had given an undertaking to absorb him in any vacancy that would arise in future. The respondent appears t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC2275; 1993CriLJ2605; 1993Supp(3)SCC667
1. The appellant was the first accused before the trial court. He along with three others was tried for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201/34, Indian Penal Code. The appellant was also charged with under Section 25(1)(a) of the Indian Arms Act. The deceased Mathew Manjooran was the husband of A-4. It is alleged that the accused used to visit the house of the deceased and was friendly with A-4. The deceased did not like it. The accused also used to take liquor in the company of A-4 in the house of the deceased. On the day of occurrence, i.e. on 8-12-79, A-1 along with PW-1 went to the house of A-4 and the deceased was not in the house at that time. He then wanted to take liquor and since it was not available A-4 began to distil illicit liquor. Just then the deceased came to the house and abused A-1. A-1 brought the gun with him, which is M.O. 3, and it had been placed in the kitchen of the house. The appellant took the gun and shot the deceased dead. Thereafter the dead body...
Tag this Judgment!