Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IAD(SC)917; AIR1996SC2249; JT1996(1)SC618; (1996)113PLR321; 1996(1)SCALE594; (1996)7SCC559; [1996]1SCR924; 1996(1)LC419(SC)
ORDER1. Leave granted2. Substitution of legal representatives of the first respondent is allowed.3. Bhagwan Singh, the respondent has sold 48 canals of land from undivided joint family properties, but in specie to Prithvi, Rattan, Krishan sons of Banwari and Karan Singh son of Sis Ram on June 15, 1978. Admittedly, they were strangers to Bhagwan Singh and were resident of village Malkos. The lands are situated in village Kayala. Though the sale deed was questioned by the wife and children of the respondent, the litigation proved unsuccessful. Prithvi Singh and Krishan have subsequently sold 34 canals 13 marlas purchased from Bhagwan Singh to the appellant. Rattan Singh also has sold 13 kanals 7 marlas of the said land on May 18, 1982. Bhagwan Singh, thereafter, filed the suit for pre-emption under Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. Apart from other pleas, the principle plea was that being co-owner, he is entitled to pre-emption of the land purchased by the appellant. The trial court decreed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IAD(SC)919; AIR1996SC3151; JT1996(1)SC668; 1996(1)SCALE593; (1996)2SCC144; 1996(1)LC283(SC)
ORDERSuhas C. Sen, J.1. Special leave granted.2. The appellant, Anamika Bishnoi, was an applicant for migration during the year 1993 to the Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak. Even though her position was No.2 in the order of merit, she was not granted admission since the mark-sheet of the First Professional Entrance Examination was not annexed to her application. This mark-sheet was submitted later on. On a representation made by the appellant to the Maharishi Dayanand University, her case was referred to the Medical Council of India. The Medical Council of India, after taking into consideration the fact that the appellant was No. 2 in the order of merit, directed the University to grant migration to the appellant by adjusting her for the quota for the year 1994. In compliance with the directions given by the Medical Council of India, the Maharishi Dayanand University allowed the appellant to join MBBS course. It appears that in the judgment under appeal dated 23rd February, 1995. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1999]236ITR410(SC); (1998)8SCC331
ORDER1. This is a reference made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under Section 257 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to answer the following question of law, namely:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the provisions of Section 187(2) of the Income Tax Act, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that consequent to the death of partner Alagappan on 28-5-1976, two separate assessments and not one assessment should be made for the Assessment Year 1977-78?'2. The two assessee firms consisted of five and six partners respectively. Shri T. Alagappan was one of the partners in each of the two firms. He died on 28-5-1976. The relevant assessment year is 1977-78 for the period ending on 31-3-1977. The two firms claimed that on 28-5-1976, they were dissolved on the death of the said partner and fresh partnerships were entered on 29-5-1976. The Income Tax Officer did not accept the claim of the assessees and held that there was only a chang...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1998(9)SC101; (1998)9SCC702
ORDER1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred under Section 257 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the following question of law for decision of this Court, namely:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of assessment passed by the ITO under Section 143(3) read with Section 144-B on 31-7-1978 had merged with that of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 15-12-1979 in respect of the three items in dispute so as to exclude the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263(7)'2. The assessee is a company. The relevant assessment year is 1975-76 ending on 31-12-1974. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144-B on 31-3-1978 in which the net business loss was computed at Rs. 3,61,086 and the income under the head 'capital gains' at Rs. 38,874. The Income Tux Officer had made certain additions and disallowances while computing the loss and income as above and had also accepted, inter alia, the following three claims:(...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IIAD(SC)69; AIR1996SC1587; JT1996(1)SC667; 1996(1)SCALE597; (1996)2SCC565; 1996(1)LC301(SC)
ORDERSuhas C. Sen, J.1. Special leave granted. 2. The appellant, Puneet Sardana, was granted admission in the North bengal Dental College at Siliguri in the B.D.S. course. In January, 1993 the appellant passed the first professional examination of the B.D.S. course at Siliguri and secured 381 out of 600 marks. On the basis of the result of this examination, the appellant sought for migration to Maharishi Dayanand University at Rohtak and was granted admission to the B.D.S. course in D.A.V. Centenary Dental College. Yamuna Nagar, against a vacant seat. The appellant, however, wanted admission in the Dental College at Rohtak and, therefore, filed a Civil Writ Petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, praying for a direction to the Maharishi Dayanand University to admit the appellant to the Dental College at Rohtak on the basis of the marks obtained by him. This Civil Writ petition was allowed. The Principal, Dental College, Rohtak, decided to implement the judgment of the Court a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1998)8SCC438
ORDER1. The appellant filed a complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madras (State Commission) against the respondent-Insurance Company. The complainant was the owner of the truck which met with an accident on October 14, (sic) and suffered extensive damage. The truck was insured with the respondent for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000. The respondent repudiated its liability under the policy on the ground that at the time of the accident, the vehicle was carrying passengers in violation of the terms of the policy. The complainant admitted that some rose plants were being carried in the truck and three occupants -- owners of the rose plants were travelling in the truck. The case of the appellant was that no fare was charged from the persons travelling in the truck. The State Commission accepted the plea of the complainant that the three passengers in the truck were taken along with their rose plants and had not paid any fare. On that finding, the State Commission al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IAD(SC)1001; AIR1996SC1563; JT1996(1)SC673; 1996(1)SCALE591; (1996)2SCC155; 1996(1)LC284(SC)
ORDERSuhas C. Sen, J.1. Special leave granted. 2. These appeals relate to admission to the Second Professional MBBS course in Maharishi Dayanand University by migration from other universities. The case of the appellants. Ms. Bhawana Narula, Manish Jain and Ajnali Hooda, is that theyhave satisfied the requirements stipulated by the Medical Council of India and also Maharishi Dayanand University and were granted migration from the colleges where they were pursuing the MBBS course. They joined Maharishi Dayanand University on the strength of migration granted by the University. On 4th June, 1994, the appellants received communication from Maharishi Dayanand University that their applications for migration to the Second Professional MBBS course in Maharishi DayanandUniversity had been granted. On receipt of this intimation, they left the colleges in which they were studying in Karnataka andjoined Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak. Since June, 1994 they were pursuing their studies in M...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1998)147CTR(SC)474
BY THE COURT :The Tribunal has referred under s. 257 of the IT Act, 1961, the following question of law for decision of this Court, namely :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of assessment passed by the ITO under s. 143(3) r/w s. 144B on 31st July, 1978, had merged with that of the CIT (A) dt. 15th December, 1979, in respect of the three items in dispute so as to exclude the jurisdiction of the CIT under s. 263 ?'2. The assessee is a company. The relevant assessment year is 1975-76 ending on 31st December, 1974. The assessment was completed under s. 143(3) r/w s. 144B, on 31st March, 1978, in which the net business loss was computed at Rs. 3,61,086 and the income under the head 'Capital gains' at Rs. 38,874. The ITO had made certain additions and disallowance while computing the loss and income as above and had also accepted, inter alia, the following three claims :(i) Deduction of a sum of Rs. 23,82,621 by way of provision for gratuity;(ii) Deprecia...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1999]237ITR61(SC); (1998)8SCC360
ORDER1. This is a reference made by the Tribunal under Section 27(3-A) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 to answer the following question of law namely:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in computing the net wealth of a firm under Rule 2 of the Wealth Tax Rules, assets exempt under Section 5 should be excluded, or whether such assets also should be included therein and then apportioned among the partners for granting exemption in their individual assessments after computing their own individual net wealth?'The occasion for such a reference was the conflicting view taken on this point by the Karnataka and the Patna High Courts.2. The relevant assessment year is 1975-76 corresponding to the valuation date 31-3-1975. The assesses-HUF had an interest in the firm called M/s. Properties Development Syndicate through its Karta who is the partner of the firm. The assessee returned the balance in the capital account with the firm at Rs 1,25,000 and claimed deduction of Rs 75...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1998)8SCC484
ORDER1. Both these appeals by special leave are against the judgment of the High Court allowing a writ petition filed by Respondents 1 and 2 and quashing the order dated 1-7-1982 passed by the Registrar recognising the appellants as the representative-Union and also quashing thereby the order dated 13-7-1982 cancelling the recognition of Respondent 1 -Rajya Parivahan Karamchari Mahasangh. 2. One of the grounds on which the recognition of the appellant as representative-Union was quashed by the High Court is that there was non-compliance of Rule 13 of the M.P. Industrial Relations Rules, 1961 framed under the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960. Rule 13 required notice to be put up in the prescribed manner of an application for recognition received from a Union under Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act enabling any person within the period specified in the notice to file objections thereto. Admittedly, the notice as envisaged by Rule 13 was not put up of the application made by the...
Tag this Judgment!