Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC106; JT1995(2)SC345; (1995)110PLR694; 1995(1)SCALE530; 1995Supp(2)SCC637; [1995]1SCR408; 1995(1)LC510(SC)
ORDER1. This appeal arises from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in RSA No. 1137 of 1970 and batch dated May 21, 1981. An extent of 20 acres 38 cents was notified and published for acquisition in the State Gazette under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on June 22, 1974 for residential colony. The lands are situated in Panchkula, near Chandigarh, as satellite town. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short 'the Collector') awarded the market value in his award dated June 25, 1976, to the Abadi land at the rate of Rs. 12.240 per acre and to the Gheir Mumkin Land @ Rs. 1200 Per acre. In addition, he also awarded compensation to the fruit bearing trees in the respective appeals as follows:-R.F.A. No. 1137 of 1979 = Rs. 1,12,993.50R.F.A. No. 1138 of 1979 = Rs. 1,56,659.40R.F.A. No. 1354 of 1979 = Rs. 40,842.00R.F.A. No. 1355 of 1979 = Rs. 1,65,688.002. On reference under Section 18, in his award and decree dated December 12, 1978, the Addl. District Judg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1995)3SCC725
S. Mohan and; S.B. Majmudar, JJ.1. The short question that arises in these cases is whether a contractual tenant alone can assign or transfer his interest in the demised property and such a right of assignment or transfer is not available to the statutory tenant? In Anand Nivas (P) Ltd. v. Anandji Kalyanji Pedhi1 it was held that after termination of the contractual tenancy the right to remain in possession is personal and is, therefore, not capable of transfer or assignment. Again, in Jaisingh Morarji v. Sovani (P) Ltd.2 this proposition was reiterated. This Court in Jagdish Chander Chatterjee v. Sri Kishan3 while dealing with the Rajasthan Act took the view that such an interest is not heritable. Then came Damadilal v. Parashram4 in which this Court took the view that the right is heritable. This view was followed in Ganapati Sitaram Balvalkar v. Waman Shripad Mage5 and Sardar Tota Singh v. Gold Field Leather Works6.2. Then comes the most important case of Gian Devi Anand v. Jeevan K...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995LabIC1387; (1995)IILLJ743SC; 1995(1)SCALE225; 1995Supp(1)SCC534; [1995]1SCR377
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. These appeals, by special leave, arise out of Writ Petition No. 60 of 1983 filed by the appellants in C.A. No. 258 of 1985, hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioners', in the High Court of Bombay, Panaji Bench, Goa, wherein they had challenged the validity of two circulars dated March 19,1983 issued by the Mormugao Dock Labour Board, hereinafter referred to as 'the Board', By one of those circulars the general levy payable in respect of handling by grab cranes fitted to ships with effect from October 30, 1982 was fixed at 400% on the actual employment of one set of Winch Drivers and on the notional employment of two gangs per hook (400% for each gang) and welfare levy relating to the above operation was fixed at 60% of the time rate wages both in respect of Winch Drivers and in respect of notional employment of two gangs per hook with effect from October 30, 1982. By the other circular a special levy @ Re. I/- per tonne was imposed in respect of all cargoes manuall...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1996)7SCC307
ORDER 1. The conviction of the appellant under Section 7 read with Section 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 rests on the substituted report of the Central Food Laboratory observing that the sample of ‘burfi’ taken from the petitioner's shop was adulterated with Rhodamine-B when tested for colour. The superseded report of the Public Analyst was somewhat different to the extent that the sample was adulterated as it was harmful for human consumption. Under the provisions of the aforesaid Act when both the reports appear on the scene, it is the Central Food Laboratory's report which holds the field. 2. It has been urged by learned counsel for the appellant, and in our view rightly, that Rhodamine as such is not a traditional colouring agent for burfi. But, otherwise, it has colour since it is used as ink in the printing process. Our attention has been brought prudently to the deposition of Rajender Singh, the Food Inspector, who caused the purchas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996(83)ELT261(SC); 1995Supp(3)SCC578
ORDER1. In both these appeals the question which arises for consideration is whether the Customs Authorities are right in refusing to grant refund of duty paid and the levy whereof had become final being contested at all departmental levels. The duty was paid by the appellant without raising any protest whatsoever. It appears that thereafter, on the basis of another decision made in a different case applications were preferred for refund of duty on the ground that it was erroneously recovered. The said applications were dismissed on the ground that the same were barred by time since they were not made within the time prescribed by Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. These appeals are against the said decisions. 2. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellants and we do not see any infirmity in the order made by the authority rejecting the application. In the first place, in the proceedings which emanated for levy of duty the order became final and without having that order set asid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996(83)ELT259(SC); 1995Supp(3)SCC588
ORDERIn this group of cases common questions arise for determination. They are covered by the decision of this Court in J.K. Cotton Spg. and Wvg. Mills Ltd. v. Union of India : 1987(32)ELT234(SC) . By the said decision this Court upheld as legal and valid the amendments made to Rules 9 and 49. It was argued that if the amendments are given retrospective effect from the date the rules were framed, i.e., from 28-2-1944, the assessees would be required to pay an enormous amount of duty. This Court appreciated the contention that if the duty has to be paid with retrospective effect from 1944 it would undoubtedly cause great hardship to the assessees but concluded that in view of Section 11A of the Act such an apprehension was misplaced. Pointing to Clause (1) of Section 11A it held that it engrafts a rule of limitation of six months and since the proviso to Section 11A is not applicable the demand though it may include even a demand for more than six months must be made within a period of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC1455; 1995CriLJ2909; (1996)11SCC282
1. The appellants, four in number, stood trial with one Gaya Ram, who along with the appellants was convicted by the court of Session under Section 302 read with Sections 149 and 147, I.P.C., but was acquitted by the High Court, whereas the conviction of the appellants was maintained, as altered, under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C., as also the sentence of life imprisonment. Hence this appeal.2. The appellants are stated to be hired men of Gaya Ram, the acquitted co-accused. Since he was under some danger, he had kept these musclemen for his protection. On the day of occurrence, Gaya Ram is said to have exhorted the appellants to kill the deceased and it is at his behest that the appellants opened the attack on the deceased killing him mercilessly by brutally causing him 17 injuries; more than half of which were serious and two of them fatal. The First Information Report was lodged with the police with utmost promptitude in which not only the names of the appellants were men...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC432; 1995(6)SCALE132; (1995)6SCC531; 1995(2)LC837(SC)
ORDERB.L. Hansaria, J.1. Special leave granted.2. Admissions in professional courses, specially medical, despite all efforts being made to secure them, have always been a vexed question and posed problems. If the efforts are within legal parameters, the same cannot boomerang. The appellants, however, over-did, so much so, that while seeking admissions to 1st year MBBS courses for the academic year 1993-94. they, in collusion with the members of the Selection Scrutiny Committee (SSC), put up higher ranking in their admission forms, by reason of which they were given admissions in various medical colleges of the State of Karnataka. However, it was subsequently found that the rankings were really not as mentioned in the admission forms, but lower. When this fact came to the notice of the authorities, their admissions were cancelled. The cancellation order was challenged on various grounds, but the High Court of Karnataka upheld the action. Hence these appeals by special leave.3. On a grie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC691; 1995(1)ALT44(SC); (1995)97BOMLR248; (1995)1GLR848; JT1995(1)SC423; 1995(1)KLT311(SC); 1995(1)SCALE181; (1995)1SCC732; [1995]1SCR304; 1995(1)LC344(SC)
ORDERA.M. Ahmadi, C.J.1. The Bar Council of India by Resolution No. 64/93 dated 22nd August, 1993 added Rule 9 in Chapter III of Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules which resolution was gazetted on 25th September, 1993. The said newly added rule reads as under :A person who has completed the age of 45 years on the date on which he submits his application for his enrolment as an advocate to the State Bar Council shall not be enrolled as an advocate.All the State Bar Councils in the country were duly informed about the insertion of the said rule. The legality and validity of the said rule is questioned in this batch of petitions as inconsistent with Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution and Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961, hereinafter called 'the Act'.2. The Act came into force with effect from 19th May, 1961. The dictionary of the Act is to be found in Section 2, Clause (a) whereof defines an Advocate as a person entered in any roll under the provisions of the Act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1995(6)SC274; 1995(1)SCALE316; (1995)2SCC427; [1995]1SCR354; 1995(1)LC304(SC)
ORDER1. This appeal by Special Leave arises from the Judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 21.2.1985 made in L.P.A. No. 26 of 1985 dismissing the appeal in limine as barred by limitation.2. The respondent filed the Writ Petition which came up before the learned Single Judge claiming alternative site on the ground that his land has been acquired for public purpose and that therefore, he is entitled to the benefit under the policy of the Government. The appellant have denied the right. The Singh Judge found that though the respondent was not the p owner on the date when the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published but as on the date when the acquisition was finalised he became the owner by virtue of purchase and that therefore he is entitled to allotment of alternative site. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay. This Court has condoned the delay and admitted the appeal.3. The question for consideration is whether the respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!