Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(3)SCC455
J.S. Verma,; Sujata V. Manohar and; G.T. Nanavati, JJ.1. In spite of notice for final disposal, none appears for the respondents.2. Leave granted.3. The only question is whether dismissal of the appellant's application made under Section 152 read with Section 151 CPC for modification of the decree passed in the suit in the plaintiff-appellant's favour calls for any interference.4. Admittedly, the plaintiff claimed a decree for a specific amount of money specified in rupees in the relief clause of the plaint together with interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum for which a decree was passed in its favour. However, by the aforesaid subsequent application made after the passing of the decree, without there being any amendment in the plaint, the appellant prayed for modification of the decree by increasing the amount decreed in terms of rupees on the basis of the rise in the value of Japanese yen in the meantime. This application has been dismissed by the High Court. Hence this appea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1996)7SCC115
N.P. Singh and; Faizan Uddin, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. The sole appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life by the trial court. The conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court was confirmed by the High Court.3. This court issued notice to the respondent-State on 29-7-1993, on a limited question in respect of nature of the offence committed by the appellant. Pursuant to the said notice the respondent-State has appeared.4. From the judgment of the trial court, it appears that the prosecution case itself is that the deceased used to tell the wife of the appellant that he will carry her away and marry her. On 4-6-1989, at about 8 in the morning, the wife of the appellant had gone to fetch water from a water kundi. While the wife of the appellant was taking water the deceased caught hold of her hand and asked her to come with him. Somehow, she got herself released and ran away to her house and informed the appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC1739; JT1995(4)SC226; 1995(3)SCALE214; (1995)4SCC584; [1995]3SCR883; 1995(2)LC542(SC)
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. Leave granted. Heard counsel for the parties.2. The appellant is canvassing the correctness of the judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court allowing Writ Appeal No. 1035 of 1991 filed by the respondents herein (Director of Mines and Geology and the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology) and dismissing his writ petition. The learned Single Judge had allowed the appellant's writ petition and directed the respondents to execute the lease deed in his favour in respect of 300 acres in Survey Nos. 20 and 21 of Kudagali village. The pink granite concerned herein is a minor mienral, the quarrying whereof is regulated by the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1969 framed under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957.3. The appelant applied on July 4, 1980 for grant of a quarry lease in respect of pink granite in Survey Nos. 20 and 21 admeasuring 300 acres. On January 6,1981, a lease was granted to him in re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1995(4)SC238; 1995(3)SCALE60; 1995Supp(3)SCC357; [1995]3SCR864; 1995(2)LC703(SC)
Faizan Uddin, J.1. In this appeal the appellant Akhilesh Hazam has challenged his conviction under Section 302 of the Penal Code recorded by the Sessions Judge, Rohtas, Sasram in Sessions Trial No. 30/1981 for which he had been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The said conviction and sentence have been affirmed by Patna High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 630/1982 decided on 30.9.1982.2. The relevant facts leading to this appeal are that on 10.10.1979 at about 4.00 PM when Somaru Dusadh, Chowkidar of village Dehlabad was going towards the east of village Dehlabad and had reached near the house of one Kedar, Goldsmith, he was informed by one Raja Singh that the appellant after committing the murder of his mother, sister, wife and a daughter, had absconded. On receiving this information Chowkidar, Somaru went to the house of appellant where some persons had also assembled. The Chowkidar alongwith one Ram Dev went into the house and to his amazement he found the dead body of the moth...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC1644; [1995]215ITR55(SC); JT1995(4)SC424; 1995(3)SCALE538; (1995)4SCC576; [1995]3SCR894; 1995(2)LC400(SC)
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. Leave granted in Special Leave Petitions.2. A common question arises in this batch of appeals. For the sake of convenience and with the consent of the counsel for the parties, we treat the facts in Civil Appeal No. 1180 of 1991 (Gosar Family Trust, Jamnagar) as representative of the facts in all the cases. It is agreed by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the relevant recitals in the Trust Deeds concerned in all the appeals are identical. The appeals arise from the judgment and orders of the Gujarat High Court.3. The High Court has answered the following two questions referred to it, at the instance of the Revenue, under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee:(1) Whether, in law and on facts and having regard to the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 164 of the Income- tax Act, 1961, the assessee is entitled to the concessional rate of tax?(2) Whether, in law and on facts and in view of the pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1996)131CTR(SC)13
B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. :Leave granted in special leave petitions.2. A common question arises in this batch of appeals. For the sake of convenience and with the consent of counsel for the parties, we treat the facts in Civil Appeal No. 1180 of 1991 (Gosar Family Trust, Jamnagar) as representative of the facts in all the cases. It is agreed by learned counsel for the appellants that the relevant recitals in the trust deeds concerned in all the appeals are identical. The appeals arise from the judgment and orders of the Gujarat High Court [reported as CIT vs . Gosar Family Trust : [1991]189ITR18(Guj) (Guj)].3. The High Court has answered the following two questions referred to it at the instance of the Revenue, under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee :' (1) Whether, in law and on facts and having regard to the provisions of sub-s. (1) of s. 164 of the IT Act, 1961, the assessee is entitled to the concessional rate of tax?(2) Whether, in law a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC1891; 1995(3)SCALE682; (1995)4SCC147; [1995]3SCR855; 1995(2)LC558(SC)
ORDER1. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on November 17, 1980 acquiring the lands in question. The Collector made an award for a sum of Rs. 38,500. Since the petitioner laid claim for a higher amount, a reference under Section 18 was made. The civil court disbelieved the. agreement of sale put forth by the petitioner; therefore, reference was ordered in favour of the respondents. In appeal, the High Court said that the said agreement was in violation of Section 4 of the Delhi Land (Restriction & Transfer) Act, 1972 and that, therefore, the agreement is void. Accordingly, the findings of the Reference Court was accepted. Thus, this appeal by Special Leave.2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the under the agreement of sale dated 5th December, 1981 the respondents had received consideration and kept the petitioner in possession of the land and that, therefore, by operation of Section 53-A of the Transfer the Property Act,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC1955; 1995(3)ALT9(SC); 1995(0)MPLJ751; 1995(3)SCALE700; (1995)4SCC229; [1995]3SCR857; 1995(2)LC389(SC)
1. Leave granted.2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order dated 7th February, 1986 passed by the Patna High Court at Patna in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 16 of 1986. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, 1/94 (for short, 'the Act') was published on February 13, 1957 acquiring the disputed land alongwith other lands for public purpose, namely construction of the houses by the Housing Board, known as the Peoples Cooperative House Construction Society Ltd., Patna. The declaration under Section 6, was published on March 27, 1957. The possession of the land was taken on March 22, 1957 and the same was given to the Housing Board on the same day. It would appear that several encroachments have been made in the land and unauthorised constructions appears to have been made. Steps were taken by the Housing Board to have the encroachers ejected from those lands. As sequel thereof, it would appear that the respondent laid Title Suit No. 329/85 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC1984; II(1996)BC301(SC); (1995)111PLR273; 1995(3)SCALE698; (1995)4SCC244; [1995]3SCR861; 1995(2)LC409(SC)
1. Leave granted.2. The appellant plaintiff laid the suit for declaration of title and for possession of the plaint schedule property. On August 3, 1993 the appellant filed an application enclosing the list of witnesses to issue summons to them for adduction of evidences to prove her case. In the affidavit filed by the husband, who is the general power of attorney holder, it was stated that he was under bonafide mistaken impression that the list of witnesses was already filed, but he noticed that mistake when he was getting ready, in consultation with the counsel, to adduce evidence at the trial. It was, therefore, stated that the failure to file the list of witnesses was not intentional. Accordingly, he sought permission of the court to file the list of witnesses. The trial court in its order dated September 6, 1993 dismissed the application holding that there is no proper explanation for the delay in filing the list of witnesses. On revision, the High Court of Karnataka declined to i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995(77)ELT256(SC); JT1995(4)SC88; 1995(3)SCALE1; 1995Supp(3)SCC45; [1995]3SCR839
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. This group of civil appeals moved by the same appellant M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited under Section 35(A) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), against the Union of India and the concerned authorities raise a common question of law for our consideration. That question is to the following effect - 'whether the appellant who exported the concerned excisable goods as ship's stores for consumption on board vessels bound for any foreign ports has to pay on these goods excise duty as per Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules or whether the appellant's goods are liable to pay excise duty as per Rule 12 of these Rules'.2. A few relevant introductory facts leading to these appeals are required to be noted at the outset.I. Facts leading to Civil Appeal nos. 2855 and 2856 of 19853. The appellants filed a refund claim for a sum of Rs. 18,859.50p being the duty paid by them on Light Diesel Oil (LDO) supplied as ship's stor...
Tag this Judgment!