Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IXAD(SC)269; AIR1997SC2131; 1997(1)ALT13(SC); (1997)ILLJ708SC; 1996(8)SCALE685; (1997)1SCC253; [1996]Supp8SCR660
1. Leave granted.2. These appeals by special leave arise against the order of the Administrative Tribunal, Tamil Nadu passed in OA No. 708/93 and 1685/ 93 on August 2, 1994. The appellant-Corporation had adopted a dual policy of appointment of Education Officers either by promotion from the subordinate cadre or appointment by deputation from the Government service. It would appear that the post of Education Officer was upgraded to the post of Deputy Director and they sought appointment by transfer of a Government officer to fill up the post of Deputy Director to supervise the educational standards in the Corporation. The respondents-Union challenged the said action of the appellant in the Tribunal. The Tribunal while upholding the power of the Corporation had directed thus:Therefore, a post in the cadre of the Corporation equivalent to the District Educational Officer should be created to which persons from the Corporation's cadre could be appointed and such persons could be considered...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1998(8)SC434; (1998)9SCC346
ORDER1. The minutes of our order dated 4-11-1996 extracted below, shall form part of this order:'During the course of arguments, we have felt the necessity of having the reports of investigation which have been kept submitted to the Bombay High Court from time to time. Mr. Mendonca, Additional Director General of Police, CID (Crimes), Pune, who kept an eye on the CID investigation and who submitted those reports in the High Court, is directed to obtain those reports from the High Court in the sealed condition, as they are lying there, and bring them to us on Friday, the 8th November, 1996 at 12 noon for which purpose a request for facility be made to the High Court. Those shall be placed before us in that condition and we will pass appropriate orders thereon after having dealt with them in the manner we think fit. The Registry to take immediate steps to conveying this order of ours to the High Court as also to Mr. Mendonca, Additional Director General of Police, CID (Crimes), Pune. Dus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIIIAD(SC)446; AIR1997SC1758; JT1996(10)SC402; 1996(8)SCALE272; (1996)11SCC571; [1996]Supp8SCR619; 1997(1)LC376(SC)
ORDER1. In all these appeals a common question of law arises for our consideration. A common argument was addressed by counsel concerned and that is why they are disposed of by this common judgment.2. The U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 (hereinafter called 'the Act') came into force on and from July 1, 1952. On the publication of a Notification under Section 4 of the Act all the estates stood transferred to and vested in the State free from all encumbrances. Section 6 of the Act speaks of consequences of such vesting in the State. It says that on the publication of Notification under Section 4 all rights, title and interest of all the intermediaries in every estate in such area including land and in all sub-soil in such estate including rights, if any, any mines and minerals whether being worked or not shall cease and be vested in the State of Uttar Pradesh free from all encumbrances. In the light of the above provision, it appears the Collector, Agra issued notices...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998(1)CTC312; 1996(88)ELT635(SC); JT1997(10)SC392; (1997)10SCC543; [1997]107STC70(SC)
ORDER1. The appeal directed against the order of a Full Bench of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. Two learned Members held against the appellant-assessee and one Member held in its favour.2. It is not in dispute that the appellant, on job-work basis, recorded sound on magnetic cassette tapes or spool magnetic tapes, these tapes being supplied by the customer. The majority view of the Tribunal was that the appellant was engaged in the manufacture of goods which were excisable under Item 59 of the Central Excise Tariff. The dissenting Member took the view that no manufacture was involved.3. Tariff Item 59, so far as it is relevant, reads thus:59. Articles of a kind used for sound or sound and image recording, whether recorded or not, namely:(1) Magnetic tapes of ...tapes (2) Sound recorded ...tapes (3) Cassette tapes for sound recording.(4) Sound recorded cassette tapes.4. The majority judgment of the Tribunal does not appear to have discussed how the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996(88)ELT634(SC); (1997)10SCC545
ORDERS.P. Bharucha and K. Venkataswami, JJ1. The question in this appeal against the judgment of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal is whether the provisions of Rule 9(2) were properly attracted to the appellants' case. 2. The majority view of the Tribunal was that the appellants had not even disclosed the manufacture and user of the article in question, though classification lists had been filed in relation to other articles manufactured by them; this, despite the fact that the relevant form required that particulars of other goods produced or manufactured should be set out. Eight articles were listed but there was no mention of the article in question. The majority, therefore, took the view that this was a clear case on facts that even the manufacture of the article or its user - was not brought to the notice of the Excise authorities. 3. No doubt, the learned Single member took a different view, having regard to his reading of the findings of the Appellate Col...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)11SCC619
Kuldip Singh and; S. Saghir Ahmad, JJ.1. The appellants were selected and appointed as Typists by the order dated 6-8-1975. It is not disputed that the appointments were made without the appellants going through the process of selection by the Railway Service Commission. The appellants finally qualified through the Commission's selection process on 30-8-1980. The question before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench was whether the appellants are entitled to the fixation of their seniority counting their service from 1975 or 1980. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellants are entitled to the fixation of their seniority from 30-8-1980 when they were selected by the Railway Service Commission.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. As mentioned above, the appellants were appointed by the order dated 6-8-1975. Thereafter, by the circular dated October 1976 a provisional seniority list of the cadre of the Typists was circulated. In the seniority list ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1998(7)SC237; (1998)9SCC186
ORDER1. The claim made by Mr. Bagga, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, is that a wife who had separated in property from her husband, shall be treated to be a judicially separated wife for the purposes of Section 3(7) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (the Act). The contention on the face of it borders on being ridiculous and has to be rejected outright. The mere fact that the husband and the wife had divided their joint properties in the year 1949, did not establish that their matrimonial bond stood severed. In fact, at that point of time, Hindus could not in this fashion undo their matrimonial ties. The concept of 'judicial separation', as understood to modern Hindu law, came under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. And it is in this context that the wife judicially separated, has been brought within the domain of Section 3(7) of the Act. The High Court was, therefore, right in concluding that the appellant's mother was not a judicially separated wife o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1999(81)FLR29]; JT1998(8)SC81; (1998)IIILLJ715SC; (1998)9SCC192
ORDER1. The only point raised for decision in these appeals is whether the prior service of a workman continuing in service after 1-5-1972 under the Coking Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 has to be included in the length of service for determining the amount of gratuity payable to such a workman under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The High Court, by the impugned judgment, has taken the view that the same has to be included. Hence, these appeals by special leave.2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the position with regard to such workmen who were employed by one or more contractors prior to the nationalisation, with effect from 1-5-1972, is different from that of the workmen directly employed by the mine owner and, therefore, the workmen employed by the contractor and not directly by the owner would not be entitled to this benefit. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel on Section 9 of the Act to support this submission. In our opinion, Section 9 has to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1997(94)ELT23(SC); (1997)11SCC340
ORDER1. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 35A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), the appellant was served with a show-cause notice dated 21-3-1973 alleging that the goods in question were 'permitted by the Central Excise Officer(s) to be cleared without being assessed to duty' under the Act. It was further stated that since the Board felt it necessary to satisfy itself about the correctness, legality or propriety of the decision on the part of the said Officer(s) in permitting such goods to be cleared without being assessed to duty, the appellant should show-cause within ten days of the receipt of the notice why the proper Officer(s) should not be directed to require them to take out a Central Excise Licence for the purpose and to demand the due duty leviable under any of the items, namely, 22-B, 19-I(2), 19-III, 22(3) or 22-AA of the First Schedule to the Act. It would be seen from this notice that even at that stage the Central Boar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)116PLR694; (1998)8SCC672
ORDER1. The question before the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, was whether the land in dispute was a 'shamlat deh' land and as such owned by the Gram Panchayat or it was owned by the proprietors of the village. The Additional Director came to the conclusion that the respondents were the owners and proprietors of the land. The Gram Panchayat challenged the order of the Additional Director by way of a writ petition before the High Court. The petition was dismissed in limine. 2. Sections 11 and 13 of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act, 1961 (the Regulation Act) are as under: '11. Decision of claims of rights, title or interest in shamlat deh.--(1) Any person claiming right, title or interest in any land vested or deemed to have been vested in a Panchayat under this Act, or claiming that any land has not so vested in a Panchayat, may submit to the Collector, within such time as may be prescribed, a statement of his claim in writing and signed and ver...
Tag this Judgment!