Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC2475; 1995(4)SCALE780; (1995)5SCC593; [1995]Supp2SCR788; [1995]99STC441(SC)
ORDERK. Venkataswami, J.1. Leave granted.2. A common question of law arises for consideration in these two appeals. That question of law can be set out in the following words :Whether an exemption notification published under Section 7(3) of Bihar Finance Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred for short as the 'Act') will also cover exemption from charge of additional tax levied under Section 6 of the Act.3. Brief facts are the following :The appellant in the first case was a dealer in television sets, watches and mixers. The appellant in the second case is a manufacturer of television sets in the State of Bihar. The State Government with a view to encourage industries in the State from time to time announced various schemes granting incentives in the form of exemption from sales tax or purchase tax as the case may be. One such notification bearing No. S.O. 92 dated 18.1.88 was issued under the express provision of Section 7(3) of the act exempting from the levy of sales tax as well as purcha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC2492; JT1995(6)SC242; 1996(6)KarLJ554; 1995(5)SCALE39; (1995)6SCC355; [1995]Supp2SCR807
ORDER1. An interesting question has been raised by Shri Nagaraja, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, in this case.2. The admitted facts are that the petitioner had taken possession of the lands on 23.1.1971, but the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, 'the Act) was published in the Gazette on 2.8.1984. The award came to be made by the Land Acquisition Officer on 15.1.1986. The question is from what date the respondents-owners are entitled to the benefit of Section 23(l-A) of the act as amended by Act 68 of 1984.3. Section 23(1-A) reads thus:23(1-A): In addition to the market value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4, Sub-section (1), in respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC97; JT1995(6)SC290; 1995(5)SCALE138; (1995)6SCC155; [1995]Supp2SCR811
1. Leave granted.2. Respondent admittedly had purchased cashewnut estate on April 16, 1969. The State Government of Kerala introduced the Land Reforms Bill, 1963 on April 1, 1964. One of the clauses relates to taking away exemption of cashew nut estate or its conversion from the purview of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 [for short, 'the Act']. The Bill was made Act 35 of 1969 with affect from January 1, 1970. Section 82(4) of the Act declares that where after the commencement of the Act, any class of land specified in Schedule II has been converted into any other class of land specified in that Schedule or into a plantation, the extent of land liable to be surrendered by a person owning or holding such land shall be determined without taking into consideration such conversion. Section 84 (1) reads thus:84. Certain voluntary transfers to be null and void. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, all voluntary transfers effected after the date o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1995(6)SC623; 1995(5)SCALE159a; (1996)9SCC456; [1995]Supp2SCR815
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court on July 28, 1995 and the order dated August 11, 1995, affidavit has been filed in which it has categorically been stated that out of 169 original allottees, 57 are employees of respondent No. 2 and are described as departmental employees. Out of 112 other allottees, 9 allottees were given notice under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Remaining 103 persons are the original allottees who are still in occupation of their respective tenements with their families. They neither sold nor transferred their tenements and they are continuing to reside in the respective tenements even till date.3. Mr. Nambiar, learned senior counsel for the respondents, has stated across the bar that no action is being taken against any person other than the nine allottees who are said to have parted with their right to remain in possession of their respective tenements. The learned Counsel for the appellan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC95; JT1995(6)SC245; 1995(4)SCALE850; (1995)5SCC440; [1995]Supp2SCR798
1. Leave granted.2. The appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Civil W.P. No.19209/91 dismissing the writ petition in limine.3. The admitted facts are that the appellant is having a house in Sangrur. For the assessment year 1987-88, the respondents have assessed the rateable value of the house at Rs. 1,50,472.50 after giving standard deductions under Section 3(1)(b) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 (for short, 'the Act')- The basis on which the property was assessed was the rent being received by the appellant from State Bank of India to whom they had let out at Rs. 12,687 per month. The question is whether the actual rent received by the appellants from the tenant would be the measure for determining annual value. Section 3(1)(b) of the unamended Act reads thus:3(1) 'annual value' means -xxx(b) in the case of any house or building, the gross annual rent at which such house or building together with its appurtenances and any furniture ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC186; 1996(1)ALD(Cri)742; (1996)1CALLT14(SC); 1996CriLJ405; [1995(71)FLR827]; JT1995(6)SC532; (1996)ILLJ731SC; (1996)1MLJ37(SC); 1995(5)SCALE226; (1995)6SCC225; [19
1. Leave granted.2. Delay of 232 days condoned.3. The facts lie in a short compass. During the year 1982, while the respondent No. 1 was working as a Branch Manager in Desh Priya branch of the United Bank of India at Calcutta it was realised that certain officers working in that bank had conspired with a creditor and the bank was defrauded for a sum of Rs. 45,000. On a complaint laid, a crime case was registered and the appellant investigated the matter and submitted the report to the competent authority for sanction, who, by its order dated the 14th January, 1987 accorded sanction under 6(1-C) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short, 'PC Act) to file the charge-sheet against the respondent for the offences punishable under Section 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 201 and 109 IPC and also under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the PC Act. The respondent filed writ petition in the High Court to quash the sanction. The High Court by the impugned order dated the 2nd A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1996)1CALLT8(SC); 1995(5)SCALE32; (1995)5SCC446; [1995]Supp2SCR803
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta dated 22.9,1992 made in Appeal from Original Decree No. 130/88. The facts are not in dispute.3. The appellant had demised ground floor flat bearing No. 25A, situated in Royd Street, Calcutta to one Mr. Stayner in 1940. After his death, his wife Mrs. Stayner, succeeded to tenancy rights and she died on July 9, 1981. Thereafter the appellant laid the suit for ejectment of the respondent from the premises with the plea that when the appellant had been to the demised premises to take khas possession, to their surprise, they found the respondent in the occupation of the suit premises. When possession was demanded, she obstructed. Consequently, treating the respondent as a tresspasser, the appellant laid the suit for eviction. The trial court granted the decree for eviction. On appeal, the Division Bench set aside the decree solely on the ground that from an affi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996(1)ALT4(SC); 1995(2)ARBLR490(SC); (1996)1CALLT16(SC); JT1995(6)SC408; 1995(5)SCALE240; (1995)6SCC482; [1995]Supp2SCR824
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. This appeal by special leave arises I from the decision of a Single Judge of the High Court of Calcutta dated the September 24, 1991 in matter No. 686/91. The first respondent was appointed as a Trans-port and Handling contractor by the West Bengal State Consumers' Federation. Certain differences and disputes arose between them. Consequently, when they approached the Registrar under the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 (for short 'the Act'), the Registrar, by his proceedings dated October 8, 1989, appointed an arbitrator to decide the disputes. Since the arbitrator had not decided the reference within one year, as envisaged under Section 96 of the Act, the first respondent approached the High Court under Sections 5, 11 and 12 of the Arbitration Act, 1946 for termination of the arbitration and appointment of another arbitrator. After revoking the appointment of the third respondent Devi Prasad Lehari as an arbitrator, the High Court appointed another...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1488a; 1995(5)SCALE33; 1995Supp(3)SCC518; [1995]Supp2SCR758
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Respondent No. 3 has been served and Shri T.G.N. Nair appeared for him. Service on Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 when admittedly sought to be affected postal endorsement shows 'not known'. It would be obvious that they appeared to have managed to have the notice returned with that endorsement so as to delay the disposal of the case. Therefore, the notice must be deemed to have been served on them.3. Notification under Section 3 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act, 1961, which is equivalent to Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was published on 22nd June, 1976. The Land Acquisition Officer passed his award in 1977. On reference, the Additional Subordinate Judge enhanced compensation on 24th June, 1980. Under these circumstances, the claimants are not entitled to the enhanced solatium and interest and the benefit of additional amount as envisaged under Section 23(1-A), 23(2), and 28 of the Central Act as amended by Amendment Act 68 of 1984.4. The appeal is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995(5)SCALE66; (1995)5SCC592; [1995]Supp2SCR761
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The Land Acquisition Officer's award is dated the 12th October, 1978 and the Reference Court award is of 31st March, 1980. Under these circumstances, the claimants are not entitled to the enhanced benefits under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by the Amendment Act 68 of 1984. The award of the High Court is modified and the grant of benefits are set aside. However, the claimants are entitled to 15 per cent solatium on the enhanced compensation and interest @ 5 per cent per annum under the local amended Act on the enhanced compensation from the date of taking possession till the date of payment or deposit whichever is earlier.3. The appeals are accordingly allowed to the above extent....
Tag this Judgment!