Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1994(7)SC1; 1994(3)SCALE77; (1994)5SCC121; [1994]Supp1SCR282
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. Leave granted in SLP(C) No. 6468/80.2. These appeals raise a common question involving the interpretation of Section 9(2)(a) of the Pondicherry Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The question is : whether Section 9(2)(a), which provides that for the purpose of calculating, after the appointed day, the ceiling area of a family holding land on the appointed day in excess of 6 standard hectares, the authorised officer shall take into account only those members of that family who are alive on the notified date, requires that in cases where on the appointed day one of the members of the family is an unmarried daughter or a minor son and the said unmarried daughter gets married or the minor son attains majority after the appointed day and before the notified date, the share of the said daughter or son in the family holding should be excluded for the purpose of fixing the ceiling area of the family.3. The Act has bee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994LC428(SC); 1994(72)ELT513(SC); 1994(3)SCALE66; 1994Supp(2)SCC678; [1994]Supp1SCR267
B.P. Jeewan Reddy, J.1. The respondent-company manufactures coated fabrics, popularly known as 'rexine cloth' in the market. The question in issue in this appeal is whether the said product falls within Tariff Item 19(111) of the Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, as it obtained at the relevant time. The Original Authority held that it does but the Collector (Appeals) held to the contrary. The Revenue's appeal before the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) was heard by a Bench of three Members. By majority, the Tribunal affirmed the judgment of the Collector (Appeals). The appeal preferred by the Revenue in this Court was heard in the first instance by a Bench comprising one of us (B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.) and B.L. Hansaria, J. Inasmuch as the Bench entertained a doubt as to the correctness of an earlier decision of this Court in Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta v. Multiple Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. : [1987]2SCR1226 , a judgment rendered by a Benc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994(3)ALT5(SC); (1995)1CALLT5(SC); JT1994(5)SC1; (1995)109PLR245; 1994(3)SCALE90; (1994)4SCC711; [1994]Supp1SCR252
1. The short question to which we propose to limit ourselves in this appeal directed against the decision rendered by Shyamal Kumar Sen, J. of the Calcutta High Court on December 17, 1993 in Writ Petition No. 487 of 1993, is whether any part of the cause of action for filing the petition had arisen within the jurisdiction of the said High Court to entitle it to entertain, hear and decide the said petition? The factual background in which the question of territorial jurisdiction arises may be noticed briefly.2. The Oil & Natural Gas Commission (ONGC), a Government of India Undertaking, has a Gas Processing Plant at Hazira in the State of Gujarat. Engineers India Limited (EIL) acting as Consultants for ONGC issued an advertisement dated June 27, 1991 in the leading newspapers of the country including these in circulation in West Bengal calling for tenders for setting up of a Kerosene Recovery Processing Unit at the Hazira Complex in Gujarat. According to the said advertisement the tender...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995(1)BLJR30; 1994(3)SCALE18; (1994)5SCC267; [1994]Supp1SCR231; 1994(3)SLJ170(SC)
A.H. Ahmadi, J.1. Three writ petitioners were filed by (i) Dr. Radha Krishna Poddar (ii) Shri Ambika Prasad and (iii) Dr. Rash Lal Yadav challenging their removal from the Chairmanship of the Bihar School Service Board constituted under the provisions of the Bihar Non-Government Secondary Schools (Taking Over of Management and Control) Act, 1981, hereinafter called 'the Act'. These three petitions which were heard by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court came to be dismissed by a common judgment rendered on March 24, 1992. The petitioners of the first two petitions have not preferred any appeal against the said judgment but the petitioner of the third petition Dr. Rash Lal Yadav has preferred the present appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution. It is, therefore, not necessary for us to refer to the facts of the petitioners of the first two writ petitions. We will, therefore, confine ourselves to the factual position relevant to the appeal filed by Dr. Rash Lal Yadav, hereinafte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1994(7)SC33; 1994(3)SCALE29; (1994)5SCC28; [1994]Supp1SCR203
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. These appeals manifest the on-going conflict of interest between traditional fishermen and mechanised fishing boat operators in the territorial waters of Kerala and the attempts of the government to balance their contending demands. Fishing in the territorial waters and beyond has always been the major source of livelihood for fishermen all along the coast of Kerala. Till the early seventies, fishing was confined to traditional types of vessels, viz., cetamarans, county craft and canoens. Thereafter, mechanised vessels using several types of fishing gear including bottom-trawling were introduced which soon gave rise to a conflict between the traditional fishermen and the new class of mechanised boat OperatOrs. 'While these inputs (have) contributed to enhance the marine fish production, they (have) also brought-forth a number of resource-related and socio-economic problems necessitating serious management considerations. One such problem area is the fishing duri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : I(1995)BC619(SC); [1994]81CompCas564(SC); JT1994(7)SC108; (1994)108PLR435; 1994(3)SCALE65; (1994)5SCC238
1. The grievance of the respondent-association in the High Court related to charging of compound interest on loans given to its members for the purchase of tractOrs.2. The Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa presided over by the then learned Chief Justice held that the agreement entered into by the Bank with the borrower did not stipulate the payment of compound interest and hence it was unnecessary to examine if there existed such an stipulation, the same would have been enforceable by the Bank. See paragraph 13 of the judgment. It is true that in the body of the judgment reference has been made to the case of Bank of India v. Karnam Ranga Rao : AIR1986Kant242 and it is observed that since farmers do not have regular source of income other than sale proceeds of their crops, and receive the sale proceeds annually, they cannot be expected to have agreed to pay interest with periodical rests. In paragraph 8 of the judgment the High Court has observed:The present, therefore, is a c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : II(1994)BC613(SC); [1994]81CompCas842(SC); JT1994(7)SC87; 1994(3)SCALE46; (1994)5SCC213; [1994]Supp1SCR170
A.H. Ahmadi, J.1. These appeals brought by the aforementioned Banks by special leave raise certain important questions of law touching the business activities of the Banks in the matter of grant of loans/advances and recovery thereof which may be formulated as under:1. Whether the Bank is entitled to claim interest with periodical rests, e.g., a monthly rest, a quarterly rest, a six monthly rest, or a yearly rest, or compound interest in any other manner, from a borrower who had obtained a loan or an advance for agricultural/commercial purpose, as the case may be?2. Whether the Banks are bound to follow the directives/circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India in exercise of power conferred by Section 21 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 prescribing the structure of interest to be charged on loans/advances made from time to time, and if yes, to what extent?3. Whether in view of the insertion of Section 21A in the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 by Banking Loans (Amendment) Act, 1983 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1995)1GLR152; JT1994(4)SC467; 1994(3)SCALE14; (1994)5SCC111; [1994]Supp1SCR163
1. Leave granted.2. These appeals have been filed on behalf of the State of Gujarat against orders passed by the Designated Court under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'TADA Act') directing release of the Respondents Gadhvi Rambhai Nathabhai, Karu Rambhai Gadhvi, Hitesh Vajshi Pindariya, Nagshibhai Nathbhai, Hamir Sajan Ahir, Ranmal Bogha Ahir, Bhimshi Lakhman and Ibrahim Hasan Vagher, on bail. The said respondents are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 25(1)(a)(b), 25(1A), 25(1AA), 25(1AAA), 25(1B) of the Arms Act, Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the TADA Act and Section 135 of the Customs Act.3. It is the case of the prosecution that on receipt of an information on 19.6.1993, that accused-respondents Gadhvi Rambhai Nathabhai and Hitesh Vajshi Pindariya had stored smuggled arms and ammunitions in their residential premises, situated at Harsidhdhinagar of Khambhalia town, the District Superintendent of Police a...
Tag this Judgment!