Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC707; JT1995(8)SC152; 1995(6)SCALE218; 1995Supp(4)SCC205; [1995]Supp4SCR608; (1996)1UPLBEC678
ORDERK. Ramaswamy and B.N. Kirpal, JJ.1. The appellants, nine in number, admittedly had retired prior to September 1, 1985 as either head clerks or chief clerks, the last being June 30, 1985, It appears that a practice was in vogue at one point of time that for the discharge of special duties, a sum of Rs. 35 p.m. as special pay was granted to the upper division clerks working in certain special posts. Decision was taken that on promotion as head clerk or special clerk, they would not be entitled to carry with them the special pay of Rs. 35 per month. Admittedly, the appellants had been promoted, as stated earlier, as head clerks or chief clerks and they were not given the special pay of Rs. 35 per month from the date of their promotion till the date of their retirement prior to September 1, 1985. It is also clear that in the memo dated July 11, 1979, it was expressly stated that the special pay would not be paid to the promoted head clerks or chief clerks. Subsequently, it appears tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1995(8)SC556; 1995(6)SCALE272; 1995Supp(4)SCC650; [1995]Supp4SCR612
ORDER1. Notification under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 was published on September 14, 1975 acquiring an extent of 124 Kanals 3 marias of the land in Kapurthala Town for Kapurthala Development Scheme No. 2. Notification under Section 42 of the Act was published on August 6, 1976. The Collector in his award dated October 12, 1976 classified the lands into three belts 'A', 'B' and 'C' and granted compensation @ Rs. 300/-, Rs. 360/- and Rs. 210- per marla respectively. On reference under Section 18, the Tribunal by its award dated April 16, 1981 awarded uniform rate of compensation at Rs. 540/- per marla. When writ petitions came to be filed under Article 226, the Division Bench of the High Court by its common order on February 23, 1982 dismissehem. Thus these appeals by special leave.2. Shri S.K. Mehta, learned Counsel appearing for the Kapurthala Improvement Trust, contended that having rejected all the sale transactions, the Tribunal was not justified in awarding...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC480; (1996)1CALLT60(SC); [1996]85CompCas479(SC); JT1995(7)SC602; 1995(6)SCALE177; (1995)6SCC714; [1995]Supp4SCR579; 1996(1)LC120(SC)
ORDERJ.S. Verma, J.1. Leave granted.2. The short but ticklish question which arises for decision in the present case is the meaning of the word 'each' in the expression 'if the permission has not been granted by the stock exchange or each such stock exchange' used in Sub-section (1A) of Section 73 of the Companies Act, 1956. This is the real question for decision in the present appeal.3. Section 73 of the Companies Act, 1956 in so far as it is material is as under :73. (1) Every company intending to offer shares or debentures to the public for subscription by the issue of a prospectus shall, before such issue, make an application to one or more recognised stock exchanges for permission for the shares or debentures intending to be so offered to be dealt with in the stock exchange or each such stock exchange.(1A) Where a prospectus, whether issued generally or not, states that an application under Sub-section (1) has been made for permission for the shares or debentures offered thereby t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1996]217ITR310(SC); JT1995(7)SC598; 1995(6)SCALE184; 1995Supp(4)SCC610; [1995]Supp4SCR588
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. Leave granted.Heard counsel for both the parties.2. This appeal arises from the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court answering the question referred to it, at the instance of the Revenue, in favour of the Revenue. The question stated under Section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 reads:Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has been right in law in vacating the orders passed by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax under Section 25(2) of the Wealth-Tax Act, 1957, for the assessment years 1959-60 to 1967-68 on the ground that on his own recorded findings, the Commissioner wrongly assumed jurisdiction.3. For the Assessment Years 1959-60 to 1967-68, the appellant-assessee filed returns on August 30, 1969 declaring the value of his house property at Rs. 5,02,762/-. Since the returns were filed beyond the prescribed period, the Wealth Tax Officer issued notices under Section 18(1)(a) of the Act. The assessee filed revised returns disclosing higher valuation which...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1995(8)SC110; 1996LabIC458; 1995(6)SCALE170; (1995)6SCC642; [1995]Supp4SCR567
S.C. Agarwal, J. 1. Leave granted in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 10107 of 1995. These appeals raise common question relating to reservation in the matter of appointment on the post of Deputy Tahsildar in the State of Tamil Nadu. The appointment to the post of Deputy Tahsildar in the Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service is governed by the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Revenue Subordinate Service (hereinafter referred to as 'the Special Rules'). In the matter of reservation, provision is made in Rule 6 of the Special Rules. Prior to its amendment in 1977, the said Rule provided as under: Rule 6. Reservation of appointments: Subject to the provisions of Rule 5(d), rule of reservation of appointments (General Rule 22) shall apply to appointments to the category of Deputy Tahsildars in each district. 2. General Rule 22 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the General Rules') prior to its amendment in 1967 provided as under: Rule 22. Reservation of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1995(8)SC403; 1995(6)SCALE464; 1995Supp(4)SCC214; [1995]Supp4SCR623; (1996)1UPLBEC697
Leave granted. We have heard the counsel on both sides. We are concerned in this appeal with clause (i) of the order dated May 29, 1995, namely, "the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government, Health and Medical Education Department, Jammu shall present himself in the Court on the next date to inform the Court as to why and for what reasons the court order has not been complied with." With regard to clause (ii) of the order, we are not interfering. It would appear that Dr. Ashok Kumar Kohli was one of the candidates selected by the Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission and stood at No. 4 in the select list. He was not appointed to the post of Lecturer in Opthomology Department of Jammu & Kashmir. He sought a writ of mandamus in W.P. No. 458/94. Pending disposal of the writ petition, certain directions seems to have been issued by the High Court and for its non-compliance, the above order came to be passed. For his entitlement to be appointed to the post pursuant to the selec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1995(8)SC158; 1995(6)SCALE305; 1995Supp(4)SCC649; [1995]Supp4SCR614
O R D E R Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') acquiring an extent of six acres 21 Gunthas of land for Hydro Electric Project was published on August 12, 1975. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at various rates for wet land, dry land, garden land and phot-kharab land. On reference under Section 18, the Civil Court enhanced the compensation at a uniform rate of Rs.15,520/- per acre. On appeal under Section 54, the High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.18,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied therewith, the State Government has filed this appeal by special leave. Sri Veerappa, the learned counsel for the State, has contended that the High Court committed grave error of law in recording a finding that lands were possessed of potential value for building purposes. We find no force in the contention. It is seen that when 7,800 tenaments were constructed in the project area, it would be clear that a township had come into existe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995(3)ALT63(SC); JT1995(8)SC157; 1995(6)SCALE303; (1996)1SCC289; [1995]Supp4SCR617
O R D E R Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short, 'the Act] was published in the State Gazette on January 16, 1975, acquiring certain extent of land part of which land belonged to the appellant for construction of 'Panzar Talaw'. The Collector made his award under Section 11 on November 15, 1977. Notice of award as required under Section 12 was served on the appellant on November 17, 1977. On an objection raised, the appellant made good the deficit court-fee. Thereafter the Collector made the reference to the Civil Court. During the reference proceedings, the counsel appearing for the State raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the reference which was upheld since requisite court-fee was not paid within the limitation of six weeks from the date of the receipt of the notice of the award, as required under clause (b) of proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 18. On appeal, the High Court upheld the contention by judgment dated 27...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC403; JT1995(7)SC619; 1995(6)SCALE161; 1995Supp(4)SCC197; [1995]Supp4SCR595
PARIPOORNAN. J. 1. The third respondent in Writ Petition No.270/84 -- High Court of Bombay, M/s. National Textiles Corporation (South Maharashtra) Limited, Bombay, the appellant in this appeal assails the judgment of the High Court rendered in the said Writ Petition dated 20.7.1993 2. The Associated Building Company Limited, Bombay, (2) Ahmedabad Advance Mills Company Limited, Bombay, (3) Swadeshi Mills Company Limited, Bombay, (4) Central Indian Spinning, weaving and Manufacturing Company Limited, Bombay and (5) The Tata Mills Limited, Bombay (5 petitioners) filed Writ Petition No.270/84 in the High Court of Bombay, praying amongst other reliefs, for the issue of a writ of mandamus, prohibiting the respondents in the Writ Petition from taking any action to take over possession or control of any area of "Bombay House". The respondents in the Writ Petition are - (1) The Union of India, (2) National Textile Corporation Limited, New Delhi, (3) National Textile Corporation (South Maharasht...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1995(8)SC53; 1995(6)SCALE217; 1995Supp(4)SCC105; [1995]Supp4SCR563
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Having heard the learned Counsel on both sides, we think that the Tribunal, by the impugned order, was not justified in summarily disposing of the matter without considering the rival contentions which in the background of the facts of this case, ought to be gone into. Under these circumstances, the order of the Tribunal dated 10.1.1995 made in O.A. 3427/90 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras, for a fresh disposal according to law. It is made clear that we are not expressing any opinion on merits and the Tribunal is free to consider the entire controversy in the light of the Government order and pass appropriate orders according to Rules.3. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!