Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1995)IILLJ32SC; 1994(5)SCALE29; 1995Supp(1)SCC214; 1995(1)LC197(SC)
,B.P.Jeevan Reddy J.1. Leave granted. Heard counsel for both the parties.2. Pursuant to the disciplinary enquiry held against the respondent, he was dismissed from service by an order dated January 12, 1982 by the Welfare Commissioner (Special Grade) Coal Mines Welfare Organisation, Dhanbad (5th respondent in the Original Application and hereinafter referred to as such for the sake of convenience) The respondent challenged the said order by way of an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna. The main ground urged by him was that the order of dismissal passed by the 5th respondent was invalid inasmuch as he was subordinate to the 'Coal Mines Welfare Commissioner of Coal Mines Welfare Organisation, Dhanbad', who appointed him. The Tribunal upheld the said contention, negativing the plea put forward by the appellants, who were respondents in the Original Application, that the 5th respondent was vested with all the powers of the 3rd respondent. The correctness...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1995)125CTR(SC)54; [1995]211ITR447(SC)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. In view of the decision of this Court in Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO : [1993]203ITR456(SC) , the plea raised herein by the assessee does not merit consideration. In view of the said decision, question No. 1 has necessarily to be answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. We order accordingly. So far as question No. 2 is concerned, since it is merely an order of remand, it cannot be said to constitute a question of law which merits consideration by us. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1997(96)ELT19(SC); JT1998(9)SC174; (1998)8SCC335
ORDER1. The dispute in this appeal is whether the product manufactured by the appellant is wrapping/packing paper or millboard. We are concerned herein with the period 1980-81. For this period, the appellant filed a classification list treating the said product as wrapping/packing paper. It was approved. But, later a notice was given seeking to revise the classification. The authorities now wanted to treat it as millboard. After considering the explanation furnished by the appellant, the first authority confirmed the show-cause notice. An appeal preferred by the appellant before the Tribunal failed.2. The contention of Shri Dave, learned counsel for the appellant is that the authorities have gone by the test evolved in Trade Notice issued on 14-4-1955 (which evolved the test of gram mage per square metre), whereas, according to Trade Notice issued on 19-11-1977, the test evolved is one of 'thickness'. In other words, it is pointed out that while according to 1955 Trade Notice, the dens...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994(5)SCALE189; (1995)1SCC500; [1994]Supp6SCR205; 1995(1)LC643(SC)
ORDER1. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in L.P.A. No. 32/1980, dated 10.9.1981.2. Section 6(3B) of the Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, 1960 defines 'family' as: Where a family or a joint family consist of more than five members comprising a person and other members belonging to all or any of any of the following categories, namely:(i) minor son,(ii) widow of a pre-deceased son,(iii) minor son or unmarried daughter of a pre-deceased son, where his or her mother is dead, such family shall be entitled to hold land in excess of the ceiling area to the extent of one-fifth of the ceiling area for each member in excess of five, so however Order dated November 30, 1994 in C.A. No. 3687 of 1984 that the total holding of the family does not exceed twice the ceiling area; and in such a case, in relation to the holding of such family, such area shall be deemed to be the ceiling area.3. It is an admitted fact that the appellant ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1995(2)SC83; 1995(1)KLT498(SC); 1994(5)SCALE323; (1995)1SCC635; [1994]Supp6SCR215
ORDER1. This appeal raises question of law of general importance. Though the respondents were successful all through, they are now losing the battle in this Court. The property Order dated November 30, 1994 in C.A. No. 1911 of 1984 initially belonged to one Subramonian Pillai. By the sale-deed dated October 5, 1955, Subramonian Pillai sold the property in question to one Vaikuntam Pillai. By agreement dated October 15, 1956, the respondent agreed to purchase the property from Vaikuntam Pillai. Based on that agreement, he filed a suit of specific performance which was decreed and ultimately confirmed by the High Court on November 18, 1963. Thereafter, the respondents filed O.S. No. 76/67 on the file of Munsif Court, Trivendrum for possession on the ground that the appellant trespassed into the land and the hut on November 4, 1955, and that, therefore, she is liable to be ejected. The suit was decreed by the trial court. On appeal, it was reversed and in Second Appeal No. 686/78, by judg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994(5)SCALE339; (1995)2SCC43; [1994]Supp6SCR220
ORDER1. One Upasi Mahto is the common ancestor. He had four sons, out of them Mohit Mahato Order dated November 30, 1994 in C.A. No. 3246/84 and Chaturi are his first and third sons. Fargudi and Sukan pre-deceased him leaving no heirs. Therefore, the question of their genealogy does not arise. Mohit Mahato had two sons, namely, Bigu and Bihari. Bigu died. Bigu's wife is Smt. Munnia. Chaturi had two sons, Deni Mahato and Raghubir. First defendant Bhullan is the son of Deni Mahato. Raghubir's children are the plaintiffs/appellants before us. The appellants laid a suit against the Bhullan and his alienees claiming title to and possession of the suit property inherited by their father Raghubir Mahato or in the alternative to get the land of Munnia on her demise as reversioners. It is the case of Bhullan, the first defendant, that he was adopted by Munnia, widow of Bigu when he was young and he was entitled to the possession of the property in his own right as an adopted son of Bigu. Theref...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994(5)SCALE325; 1995Supp(1)SCC479; [1994]Supp6SCR208
ORDER1. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in A.S. No. 45 of 1975, dated February 1, 1984.2. The respondents laid the suit before the Principal Sub-ordinate Judge, Trivandrum for possession on the ground that the appellant had surrendered his tenancy rights and, thereafter, trespassed into the land, thereby he is in illegal possession. It is the case of the appellant that he never surrendered the land and he continued to be the tenant and that therefore, the respondents are not entitled to the possession of the land. Since there was a controversy as regards the tenancy, by operation of Section 125 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act 1 of 1964 (for short, 'the Act'), the Civil Court referred the matter to the Land Tribunal. Alter the filing of the suit but, before the reference was made, the appellant filed an application under Section 72-B of the Act for permission to purchase the respondent's interest in the land as an occup...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1994]Supp6SCR200; 1995(1)LC239(SC)
ORDERK. Ramaswamy, J.1. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') was published in the State. Gazette on March 1, 1974 acquiring a total extent of 881 acres of land for planned development of the municipality. The Land Acquisition Collector in his award dated March 31, 1976 determined the compensation to the plain lands at Rs. 39,400/- per acre and to the land abutting upto a depth of 100 karams (5-1/2 feet each karam) from the Ludhiana-Chandigarh main road @ Rs. 42.400/- per acre and for the other lands different rates were given with which we are not presently concerned On reference under Section 18. the Addl. District Judge by his award and decree dated October 18, 1978 fixed the market value of the land abutting the Ludhiana-Chandigarh Road upto a depth of 100 karams at Rs. 72,600/- per acre and for the remaining land @ Rs. 58,000/- per acre. The State filed no appeals. On appeal by the claimants for further enhancement, the learned Sin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1995)1SCC311; [1994]Supp6SCR193
ORDER1. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the High Court at Patna in Second Appeal No. 262/90 dated August 29, 1993 dismissing the Second Appeal in limini. The appellant-plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 238/26 of 1962-65 for declaration of title to and possession of Plot No. 1093 and 1994 as owner and for possession of Plot No. 1095 as ljradar. The trial court decreed the suit, the appellate court found that though the plaintiff had title and possession at one point of time but there is no definite date of dispossession or discontinuation of the plaint-schedule property. The plaintiff had failed to prove possession of the suit land within 12 years of the suit when the possession was discontinued. It is not known as to when he came into possession. The suit was, therefore, barred by limitation under Article 142 of the Limitation Act, 1908 for short 'the old Act'. It was accordingly dismissed.2. Article 142 of the First Schedule and First Division to the old Limitati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995(1)SCALE32; (1995)2SCC495; [1994]Supp6SCR196
ORDER1. Leave granted in S.L. Ps. No. 13360/86, 8584/92, 14567/87, 14591-92/87, 14657/87, 2201/91, 2833/91, 2835/91, 2868/91, 3175/91, 4062/91, 2136/91.2. Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') was published in the Stale Gazette on June 8, 1979, acquiring 527 and odd acres of land situated in Bhagu along with the lands in the villages Bibiwala, Bachu Khurd, Bachu Kalan, Gobindpura and Mehna in Batinda district to establish cantonment for the defence purposes at Bhatinda. The Land Acquisition Officer (for short 'the LAO') in his award dated March 30, 1981, awarded a sum of Rs. 22,000/- per acre for Nehri and Chahi land and Rs. 8,000/- per acre for Barani land and Rs. 4,000/- per acre for Gair-mumkin (waste) land. On reference under Section 18, the Addl. District Judge, by his award and decree dated August 6, 1983, enhanced compensation to Nehri and Chahi lands to Rs. 36,000/- per acre and for Gair mumkin land at the rate of Rs. 6,0...
Tag this Judgment!