Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC532; (1996)1GLR724; 1995(6)SCALE239; 1995Supp(4)SCC167
ORDERSujata v. Manohar, J.1. The appellants in both these appeals are the owner of large piece of land. Out of this land, the appellants created tenancies of a portion of the land in favour of the original respondents with effect from 1st of April, 1964. The respondents are cow-herds. The appellants had given the said land to the respondents for keeping or grazing their cattle. The respondents were required not to make any other use of the said land. The rent note executed by each of the respondents-tenants contained the following term:'I have measured the land. I will not use the land lying beyond the said limits. I will put up a wire-fencing demarcating the demised land.2. Both the tenants, in contravention of this term in the rent note, encroached upon the adjacent land of the appellants and used it for tethering their cattle. On learned about the encroachment, the appellants addressed a notice dated 22nd of January, 1968 terminating the tenancy on the ground, inter alia, of having ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC534; JT1995(8)SC95; 1995(6)SCALE297; (1996)1SCC293; [1995]Supp4SCR831; [1996]103STC24(SC)
1. The famous city of Puri in the State of Orissa, is a municipality under the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950. It's limits extends upto the sea waters, on the side of the Bay of Bengal. Fish and prawn caught by fishermen from the sea have all along been brought within the municipal limit, sometimes through the nearest Octroi check post on payment of Octroi and more often without adopting that course. The fish and prawn are then taken to the market by fishermen where they are sold and bought by non-fishermen for local consumption or for export to other destinations. In the latter course, the goods inevitably are transported and have to pass out through Octroi check posts. The dispute between the parties i.e. the Puri Municipal Council and its officers on the one side and the Indian Tobacco Company Ltd. on the other, as projected before the High Court in writ proceedings centered around the question whether the taxing provisions of the Orissa Municipal Act and the bye-laws made thereunder, p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC538; JT1995(8)SC203; 1995(6)SCALE445; (1996)1SCC285; [1995]Supp4SCR843
O R D E R This is an appeal against the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the Patna High Court passed in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3326 of 1979, on 17-7-1980. The appellant - Dr. (Miss) Alette Grace Bell, as Medical Superintendent-cum-Administrative Officer of the Duncan Hospital at Raxaul in the State of Bihar, was served with a letter from the Drug Controller Bihar to the affect that the hospital being in the manufacture and distribution of a drug referred to a I.V. Solution, was required to take a licence under the provisions of The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, for the default of which it has to suffer prosecution. Challenging the same before the Patna High Court, the appellant contended that since its product was a preparation by compounding of glucose or sodium with distilled water and administered to patients in the hospital, this solution was manufactured not for sale but for distribution, and the act of manufacture for distribution required no licence. The High ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1996)1CALLT66(SC); JT1995(9)SC358; 1995(6)SCALE449; (1996)1SCC63; [1995]Supp4SCR797
B.N. Kirpal, J. 1. Leave granted.2. The only question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the heir of a civil servant who was prosecuted in a Court of law but was ultimately acquitted, though by that time he had died, can be permitted to continue the proceedings before the Court and claim the grant of retrospective promotion to the deceased and the consequential monetary benefits.3. The husband of the appellant, S.S. Shrivastava was a member of the Indian Audit and Accounts Services (Class-I). During the period 1964-69, he was working as a Financial Adviser to the River Valley Project Department under the State of Bihar. After the general elections of 1969, a Commission of Enquiry was set-up to enquire into the alleged misdeeds of some of the Ministers in the erstwhile Government. After the receipt of the report, the said S.S. Shrivastava along with the concerned minister and the Chief Administrator of the River Valley Project was prosecuted under the Prevention of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1(1996)CLT56(SC); JT1995(8)SC27; 1995(6)SCALE241; (1996)1SCC119; [1995]Supp4SCR806; 1996(1)LC164(SC)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J. 1. A letter written by Sri Vineet Kumar Mathur pointing out the pollution caused in the river Gomti and its causes was treated as a writ petition by this Court and orders passed from time to time. Mohan Meakins Breweries is said to be one of the industries polluting the river. It is not necessary to refer to the various orders passed in this matter from time to time. It would be sufficient to refer to the order made on January 15, 1993 which reads as under:The following order will apply to: (1) M/s. Mohan Meakins, Daliganj, Lucknow; (2) M/s. Oudh Sugar Mill, Hargaon, Sitapur; (3) M/s. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd., Gola Gorakhnath, Kheri (Sugar Unit-Distillery); (4) M/s. Sharda Sugar Mill, Palia Lakhimpur Kheri (New Name - Bajaj Hindustan Ltd., Unit Palia Lakhimpur Kheri); (5) M/s. Balaji Vegetable Product, Sitapur; (6) M/s. Kissan Cooperative Sugar Mill, Majhola, Pilibhit; (7) M/s. U.P. State Sugar Corpn., Mohali, Sitapur; (8) M/s. HAL Lucknow; (9) M/s. Lucknow Producers ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1995(8)SC193; 1995(6)SCALE387; 1995Supp(4)SCC268; [1995]Supp5SCR1; 1996(1)LC110(SC)
ORDER1. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') was published in January, 1973 acquiring Ac.3.589 of land situated in Cuttack for Telecommunication Department for residential quarters of the staff, Telephone exchange, Post office etc. In exercise of the power under Section 17(4) read with 17(1) enquiry under Section 5A was dispensed with. Before the declaration under Section 6 could be published a representation was made by the wife of the respondent No. 1 i.e. Dr. Sarojini Pradhan requesting to delete 24 decimals of land for construction of Nursing Home etc. In the meanwhile, Cuttack Development Authority declared the area to be commercial zone. In consequence, the appellant made an application requesting to permit construction upto 90 ft. and rest of the land may be permitted to be released for residential purposes. In the meanwhile, the representation made by Dr. Sarojini was pending declaration under Section 6 was published on June...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1997]228ITR20(SC); (1998)9SCC597
ORDER1. This appeal arises from the judgment of the Calcutta High Court answering the question referred to it in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue. The question referred under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 was'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of Section 23-A could be applied to the assessee for the Assessment Year 1960-61'.2. The assessment year concerned herein is 1960-61, the accounting year whereof is the year ending on 31-8-1959. The assessee owns a sugar mill and a farm attached to it in what was then East Pakistan. At the relevant time there were restrictions upon remittances from Pakistan to India. The books of the assessee for the said year showed a profit of Rs 93,449, after making provision for taxation in India and Pakistan. The Income Tax Officer, however, made an assessment on an income of Rs 6,92,441. After deducting the tax payable thereon he arrived at the balance of Rs 3,80,842.55. He found that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC848; JT1995(8)SC199; 1995(6)SCALE346; (1996)1SCC229; [1995]Supp4SCR834; 1996(1)LC556a(SC)
O R D E R Leave granted. We are conscious of the fact that impugned order is only an ad interim one passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court on October 19, 1995. But, keeping in view the importance of administration of all India Institute of Medical Sciences which is a premier and prestigious institution in the country, its smooth functioning and efficient management would be the primary and sole concern of every one including Judiciary when its intervention is deemed expedient. The Director remains in day-to-day management of the institute and must and ought to be a dynamic person, efficient and of sterling character capable to carry with him all concerned in not only proper, efficient and prompt manner to the needy patients thronging in thousands daily for treatment but also capable to mobilise needed resources to fruition, the objectives of the institute. Bearing this pragmatic consideration and not pedantic nor legalistic orientation, this court in L.P. Aggarwals vs. Un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996(1)ALD(Cri)745; (1996)1CALLT56(SC); 1996CriLJ895; JT1995(8)SC90; 1995(6)SCALE250; (1996)1SCC589; [1995]Supp4SCR825
ORDERK. Ramaswamy and K.S. Paripoornan, JJ.1. The petitioner herein is M/s. Abhijit Tea Co. (P) Ltd. and the respondents are (1) Registrar (Original Side), Calcutta High Court, (2) M/s. The New Red Bank Tea Co., Calcutta and (3) Shri Rabin Pal, Managing Director of the 2nd respondent Company.2. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, while disposing of Appeal No. 514 of 1992 on 25.4.1994, directed the Registrar (Original Side), High Court of Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as 'Registrar'), the 1st respondent herein to refund a sum of Rs. 19,33,873.74 to the petitioner. The said amount was held in Court deposit. An application for review was filed in the case. One of the members of the Bench had, by then, retired. The other member of the Bench, Shyamal Kumar Sen, J. By Order dated 21.7.1994, rejected the review application, but directed the Registrar to hold the money, for further one week. The petitioner herein filed Special Leave Petition (C) No. 9575 of 1994 in this Court and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1995(9)SC133; 1995(6)SCALE461; 1995Supp(4)SCC283; [1995]Supp4SCR793
ORDER In the affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that the General Manager came to know of the order of this Court for the first time on September 27, 1995 and immediately he directed payment of the amount. A cheque has been drawn in favour of the petitioner for a sum of Rs.50,000/- on September 29, 1995 and the cheque was offered to the petitioner. It is stated that he refused to accept the cheque on October 1, 1995 and then he was informed of the offer by Registered post with A.D. The cheque has been handed over to the counsel for the petitioner across the Bar. Under these circumstances, the compliance has been made, though belatedly. It is stated by the General Manager that action was initiated against the erring officials who had defaulted in compliance of the order of this Court. General Manager is directed to submit the report of the action taken and the result thereof to the Registry within 60 days from to-day. We accept the unconditional apology. The contempt procee...
Tag this Judgment!