Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : I(1995)ACC278; 1995(43)BLJR751; JT1995(1)SC547; 1995(1)SCALE318; (1994)2SCC369; 1995(1)LC317(SC)
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. This is a petition by the widow of deceased Ram Naresh Yadav under Article 32 of the Constitution of India against Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking, Life Insurance Corporation of India and M/s. Fixwell Push-in-cords Pvt.Ltd., praying for appropriate directions against the respondents to award to the petitioner suitable compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs on account of the death of her husband which according to her was caused by criminal negligence on the part of Respondent No. 1.2. This is an unfortunate case in which a young and sole bread-winner of the petitioner's family was lost on account of a tragic accident in which he got electrocuted by a live wire of electricity which was being supplied at the spot by Respondent No. 1, undertaking. That left the petitioner a young widow and three small children destitutes. A few relevant facts leading to these proceedings may be noted at this stage. The deceased husband of the petitioner got employment as gardener in the organis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC2256; (1996)11SCC372
1. These appeals arc directed against the decision of the High Court in references made under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 to answer the following questions:1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to thededuction of Rs. 52.531/- for the provision made bythe assessee for gratuity payable to its employeesunder the Kerala Industrial Employees Payment ofGratuity Act. 1970.2. Whether on the facts and in the circum stances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in taking into consideration for the quantification of the liability for the assessment year 1971-72 under the Kerala Industrial Employees' Payment of Gratuity Act. 1970, the completed years of services of the employees prior to the beginning of the accounting year3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that in computing the quantum of the amount to be allowed as a deduction for gratuity payable unde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC914; JT1995(1)SC618; (1995)ILLJ824SC; 1995(1)SCALE322; 1995Supp(2)SCC235; [1995]1SCR568; 1995(1)LC368(SC)
ORDERS.B. Majmudar, J.1. Leave to appeal granted in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 6395 and 13446 of 1994.2. In all these appeals a common question arises for our consideration, namely, whether the State Government of Andhra Pradesh was justified in promulgating the rules under Article 309 of the Constitution of India under which it was provided that candidates seeking appointment to the posts in the service specified in the concerned rules who had obtained basic educational qualifications prescribed for direct recruitment governing such posts. through the Telugu medium shall be given weightage in the matter ol selection to such posts by awarding them five per cent of the total aggregate maximum marks in the relevant competitive examination held by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission for recruitment to such posts.3. The State Government issued GOM. No. 603 dated 18.11.1981 under which one such rule was framed. Even earlier GOM No. 504, G.A.D. was issued on 26,6.76 to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC955; JT1995(1)SC612; 1995(1)SCALE396; (1995)2SCC135; 1995(1)LC320(SC)
ORDERSujata V. Manohar, J.1. Leave granted.2. These four appeals by special leave challenge a judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana upholding the validity of the eligibility criteria prescribed for the year 1994 for the entrance test to be conducted for the State of Haryana for the purposes of admission to medical and dental colleges in the State of Haryana. These appellants along with a large number of other petitioners challenged these eligibility criteria of 1994 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court substantially upholding the eligibility criteria, while striking down a portion of the Corrigendum, four of these petitioners have filed these appeals by special leave.3. Till 1993 the eligibility conditions required, inter alia, that a candidate should be a resident/domiciled in the State of Haryana and was required to produce a certificate of Haryana domicile/residence as prescribed in those Rules. In ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1995(1)SC571; 1995(1)SCALE734; 1995Supp(2)SCC160; [1995]1SCR555
ORDER1. The facts leading to this interlocutory application are as under :2. On 8.10.1980, an auction was held by the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the 'DDA') of the Commercial Tower Plot, Jhandewalan, Block E, New Delhi ad measuring about 2540 sq. mtrs. The first respondent, M/s. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Skipper') was the highest bidder, its bid being Rs. 9.82 crores. As per the conditions of the auction, Skipper deposited 25% of the bid amount. The said bid was confirmed by the DDA on 14.10.1980. Skipper was called upon to make the balance of payment of 75% of the bid amount within 90 days as per the conditions of the auction.3. The Government of India issued direction to the DDA accepting the request of Skipper and granting an indulgence to it by directing the DDA to reschedule the recovery of 75% of the bid amount with interest from the Skipper. Consequent to this, DDA called upon the Skipper to enter into fresh ag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)139CTR(SC)482
ORDERBY THE COURT :These appeals are directed against the decision of the High Court in reference made under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 to answer the following questions :'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to the deduction of Rs. 52,531 for the provision made by the assessee for gratuity payable to its employees under the Kerala Industrial Employees Payment of Gratuity Act, 1970.2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in taking into consideration for the quantification of the liability for the asst. yr. 1971-72 under the Kerala Industrial Employees Payment of Gratuity Act, 1970, the completed years of services of the employees prior to the beginning of the accounting year'3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that in computing the quantum of the amount to be allowed as a deduction for gratuity payable under the Kerala Indust...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(4)SCC682
M.M. Punchhi,; Faizanuddin and; K. Jayachandra Reddy, JJ.1. The only point raised on behalf of the appellant is that the chillies powder purchased from him by the Food Inspector had conformed to the standards and yet conviction has been recorded against the appellant. It has been highlighted that the moisture, total ash and ash insoluble in diluted hydrochloric acid and other non-volatile ether extracts and crude fibres were within the permissible variables and, therefore, there was no cause for the public analyst to opine that the articles offered were adulterated. This argument has been met by learned counsel for the State contending that since the article was artificially coloured that by itself made it adulterated, because the rules prescribe that no colouring matter should be added to chillies powder. A bare reading of Appendix ‘B’ Item A.05.05.01 reveals so. Addition of a colouring or flavouring matter to chillies powder is prohibited. That per se would make the artic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1995)126CTR(SC)160; [1995]212ITR650(SC)
ORDER1. The point of law involved for decision in this appeal is already settled by the decision of this Court in R.K. Upadhyaya v. Shanabhai P. Patel : [1987]166ITR163(SC) , in which it has been held that the issuance of a notice within the period of limitation gives jurisdiction to the Income-tax Officer to proceed to make the reassessment. A copy of the impugned order made by the High Court in the writ petition filed by the respondent has not been produced by the appellant. However, from the statement contained in the special leave petition, it appears that the High Court directed the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to decide the assessee's appeal in accordance with law and in doing so to also ascertain when the, notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, had been despatched by registered post. There is thus no occasion to interfere with the order made by the High Court.2. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1995)126CTR(SC)156; [1995]212ITR653(SC)
ORDER1. The question for decision in these appeals relates to the construction of the proviso to Rule 1(v) of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. It may be mentioned that the provision contained in the proviso to Rule 1(v) therein has been omitted from April 1, 1977. This question therefore is not of any practical significance at this stage.2. The High Court (see : [1977]108ITR181(Guj) ) has taken the view that there was a modification of the agreement by the subsequent correspondence between the parties as a result of which the loan fell put of the purview of the aforesaid proviso to Rule 1(v). The finding of the High Court is as under (at page 205) :Therefore, if the spread over of the repayment has been provided in the terms of the agreement in such a manner that the repayment is completed by a date beyond seven years from the first advance made under the agreement under which the moneys are borrowed, the loan in question will qualify for inclusion in th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(3)SCC723
M.M. Punchhi,; Faizanuddin and; K. Jayachandra Reddy, JJ.1. In this appeal conviction recorded under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is the subject-matter of challenge. The High Court has found the appellant guilty for not obeying its interim order whereby a student suffered and could not gain the advantage he had acquired under the interim orders of the High Court pending a writ petition. The appellant tried to justify her conduct and, in the alternative, tendered an unqualified apology. The High Court did not advert to this aspect of the matter but rather went on to reject her justification whereafter it imposed on her a fine of Rs 500 and also issued a reprimand to her. We are told that the appellant has since retired. The ends of justice in the changed scenario would now be met if we remit the fine. She stands reprimanded by the impugned order and we cannot unreprimand her by mere words. The matter can, thus, rest on the remission of fine. It is so done. And this dis...
Tag this Judgment!