Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996(1)ALT11(SC); 1996(1)ARBLR92(SC); 1995(6)SCALE546; (1996)1SCC32; [1995]Supp5SCR424; 1996(1)LC146(SC)
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The only issue involved in this appeal relates to the power and jurisdiction of an arbitrator to award interest for the period between the making of the reference to the arbitrator and his entering upon the reference (pre-reference period) after the coming into force of The Interest Act, 1978 (post Interest Act era).3. A reference to brief facts for deciding the issue would be apropos. The first respondent - Delhi Development Authority-Awarded certain work of construction of middle income group houses at Pitam Pura, New Delhi to the appellant and entered into a contract with him. Differences and disputes arose between the parties relating to the execution of the contract on 1.4.1984, when a reference to arbitration was sought by the appellant and in terms of Clause 25 of the General Conditions of Contract, the same were referred to arbitration of the second respondent. The arbitrator entered upon the reference on 8.2.1985. He made an award on 15.7.1987. The awa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IAD(SC)21; JT1995(9)SC305; 1995(6)SCALE712; (1996)1SCC85; [1995]Supp5SCR438
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') acquiring an extent of 18 acres 7 cents of land belonging to the appellants, was published on January 3, 1980 along with the lands of other persons. The Land Acquisition Officer in his award dated October 31, 1981 determined compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,500 per acre. The appellant accepted the amount without protest. Other claimants had protested and sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Civil Court, by award and decree dated November 21, 1983, enhanced the compensation to Rs. 12,000 per acre. On further appeal by the State, in A.S. No. 1483 of 1984 and cross-objections of the claimants, the High Court, by judgment and decree dated February 1, 1989, allowed the cross-objections and determined the compensation at Rs. 20,000 per acre. Based thereon, an application under Section 28-A of the Act was filed on May 16, 1989 seeking redetermination of the compensat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995(4)Crimes349(SC); 1995(6)SCALE436; (1996)7SCC16
K. Venkataswami, J.1. Leave granted.2. The parties in both the appeals are the same. The appellants was acting as Secretary of the respondent Co-operative Society from 16.3.1972 to 24.1.1978. It was alleged by the respondent that during this period the appellant has misappropriated a total sum of Rs. 2107/- and Rs. 1250/- and on that ground two criminal cases being I.C.C. Case No. 57 of 1981 and I.C.C. Case No. 56 of 1981 respectively were filed against the appellant. The trial court rejected the defence put forward by the appellant that the amounts were taken as advances after getting proper sanction by the concerned authorities and therefore, there was no case of misappropriation. Consequently, the trial court found the appellant guilty of misappropriation under Section 408 IPC in both the cases and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six month and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default of payment of which to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months in I.C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IAD(SC)205; AIR1996SC593; (1996)130CTR(SC)82; [1996]217ITR785(SC); JT1995(8)SC245; 1995(6)SCALE487; 1995Supp(4)SCC737; [1995]Supp5SCR346
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. A conflict of opinion among the High Courts on the meaning and interpretation of Clauses (i) and (ii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 64 (as they stood prior to 1st April, 1976) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 falls for resolution in this batch of appeals. Prior to April 1, 1976 the said clauses along with the explanation read thus:(1). In computing the total income of any individual, there shall be included all such income as arises directly or indirectly(i) to the spouse of such individual from the membership of the spouse in a firm carrying on a business in which such individual is a partner; (ii) to a minor child of such individual from the admission of the minor to the benefits of partnership in a firm in which such individual is a partner; Explanation : For the purpose of Clause (i) the individual, in computing whose total income the income referred to in that clause is to be included, shall be the husband or wife whose total income (excluding the income re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC704; 1996(1)BLJR1; 1995(6)SCALE567; (1996)9SCC545; [1995]Supp5SCR430
1. Leave granted.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. In this appeal the appellant who is admittedly a tribal residing in Chhotanagpur Division made an application under Section 46(4)(a) under Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act for getting back possession of the disputed land which according to the appellant was surrendered by the father of the appellant and on such surrender the said land was settled to the respondent Chando Kumari @ Most Dumari and Ors. Such application was made on 12th January. 1976 before the Deputy Commissioner, Land Reforms. The application was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner. The appellant thereafter preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector and the case was remanded back to the Deputy Commissioner, Land Reforms but the matter was again dismissed by the said Deputy Commissioner by Order dated 29th January, 1994. The appellant again preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector Land Reforms. But Additional Collector again passed an order of remand ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IAD(SC)375; (1996)7SCC269; [1995]Supp5SCR451
1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') was published in the State Gazette on July 26, 1978. An enquiry under Section 5A of the Act was made followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act, published on June 3, 1980. The Amendment Act 68 of 1984 came into force with effect from September 24, 1984. The Land Acquisition Collector made his award on September 22, 1986. The possession was taken on November 24, 1986. It would appear that in respect of Survey No. 2/11, a further award was made on 31st August, 1990.4. The respondents filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court in 1987 challenging the validity of the notification under Section 4(1) and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act on the ground of delay in making the declaration. The learned single Judge in his order dated September 15, 1987, dismissed the writ petition on the ground of laches. The Divisi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC2833; JT1995(8)SC563; (1997)IILLJ856SC; 1995(6)SCALE779; (1996)7SCC577; [1995]Supp5SCR367
ORDERK. Ramaswamy, J.1. Leave granted.2. This bunch of appeals pertains to 1363 employees, viz., Clerks (Class III) and Attendants (Class IV), All the cases arise from judgments of Division Bench of the Patna High Court dated May 6, 1994 in C.W.J.C. No. 5163/93 and batch. The principal villain behind the scene is one Dr. A.A. Mallick, Deputy Director, Health Department of the Government of Bihar, in charge of Tuberculosis. He was Director of the Tuberculosis center at Patna. Eradication of Tuberculosis was taken up as a part of 20-point programme in Planned Expenditure. The activities in the Tuberculosis center at Patna were extended to various districts. Since Mallick happened to be the Director of the center, he was made Deputy Director of the Scheme. The Government had also issued directions to the District Medical Officers to abide by the instructions of Mallick in implementation of the programme. He was made the Chairman of the Selection Committee constituted by the Government con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC455; 1995(43)BLJR892; JT1994(7)SC536; 1995(0)MPLJ494; 1994(4)SCALE985; (1995)1SCC170; [1994]Supp5SCR503
ORDERS.B. Majmudar, J.1. Special leave granted. We have heard learned Counsel for the contesting parties finally in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is being finally disposed of by this judgment.2. This appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution involves a short question about the review jurisdiction of the High Court in setting aside the earlier decision of the High Court in Second Appeal No. 569 of 1973. A few relevant facts leading up to this appeal are required to be noticed at the outset. The appellant is the original plaintiff who had filed a title suit No. 67 of 1970 in the second Court of the learned Subordinate Judge at Midnapore in West Bengal. In that suit, the appellant- plaintiff claimed partition and separate possession of two plots, namely, C.S. Plot Nos. 73 and 74. Her case was that her husband Dr. Umaprasanna Bhanja and respondent-defendant's husband Dr. Phanindra Nath Choudhury were close friends, that by two registered documents they had purch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC620; (1996)130CTR(SC)112; [1996]217ITR699(SC); JT1995(8)SC364; 1995(6)SCALE517; (1996)7SCC349; [1995]Supp5SCR300
ORDERS.B. Majmudar, J.1. In this group of 17 appeals by special leave, the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur has brought in challenge the judgment and order dated 20th February 1975 of the Allahabad High Court in Income Tax References Nos. 18 of 1973 and 715 of 1972. Respondent - Kamla Town Trust - is the common respondent in all these appeals. As common questions of law and fact are involved between the very same parties in all these appeals, the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The common respondent, Kamla Town Trust, was assessed to income tax for the relevant assessment years 1949-50 to 1965-66. These assessment orders gave rise to hierarchy of appeals under the Income Tax Act which ultimately culminated into 17 income tax appeals by the assessee before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Allahabad Bench, Allahabad. The common question in the appeals before the Tribunal was whether for the relevant assessment years the respondent-asse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1996)130CTR(SC)143; [1996]217ITR746(SC); JT1995(8)SC257; 1995(6)SCALE508; (1996)1SCC443; [1995]Supp5SCR285
B.R. Jeevan Reddy, J. 1. These appeals are preferred against the judgment and order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court rejecting the applications filed by the assessee under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee had requested the High Court to direct the Tribunal to state the following question of law for its opinion:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the applicant could be refused registration under Section 185 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the ground that its constitution was illegal for breach of the provisions of clause VI of the General Licence Conditions made under the Excise Rules, although no action was taken by the Collector for cancellation of the licence under clause 14 of the Licence in Form C.S. 3, inspite of written intimation, dated 27.4.1967 about its constitution. 2. The High Court rejected the applications on the ground that the question sought to be raised by the assessee was concluded against it by two decisions of that Cour...
Tag this Judgment!