Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1998(9)SC275; (1997)11SCC557
ORDER1. Of the six questions which were sought to be raised by the Revenue and which application under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act was dismissed by the High Court, this Court granted special leave in respect of only one of the six questions namely; 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in holding that the purchase and sales by the assessee of shares in the National Rayon Corporation Ltd. (both ordinary and preference) and the Kohinoor Mills Ltd. should be considered as regular dealings and not by way of investment and that the profits or losses in respect of these transactions be taken on revenue account?2. So far as this question is concerned it appears to be a question of fact and it is concluded by the findings recorded by the Tribunal. We see no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court on this question.3. Mr. J. Ramamurthy, the learned Counsel for the appellant, however sough to contend that the Revenue...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)9SCC631
A.M. Ahmadi, C.J. and; Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. The appellant filed an election petition challenging the election of the respondent from 208 Gotegaon Legislative Assembly Constituency of Madhya Pradesh. The respondent had contested the election on the premise that he belonged to the Scheduled Caste being a "Kumhar" residing in Shahdole District which caste was declared a Scheduled Caste by the Presidential Notification issued in exercise of powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 341 of the Constitution of India. The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 insofar as relevant for our purposes provides that the castes, races or tribes or parts of, or groups within, castes or tribes specified in Parts I to XXII of the Schedule to this order shall, in relation to the States to which these parts respectively relate, be deemed to be Scheduled Castes so far as regards members thereof resident in the localities specified in relation to them in those parts of that Schedule. Part IX of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1997(92)ELT24(SC); (1997)11SCC335
ORDER1. The controversy which fell for determination was whether the nut manufactured by the appellants in these connected appeals was such a nut which could fall within the compass of Entry 52 of the Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The appellants were successful in hammering their point that the nuts manufactured by them were not so covered in the lower hierarchy. The Central Government in revision, however, upturned those decisions and on appreciation of all evidence adduced, came to the conclusion that the nut manufactured by the appellants known as 'nylon nut' was basically a nut used for fastening and therefore fell under Entry 52. The challenge of the appellants before the High Court goaded the said court to treat the writ petition before it almost as appeals and it consciously went through the entire evidence led by the parties on record. It is thereafter that the High Court recorded a positive finding that the said 'nylon nut' was such a nut which was covere...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIIIAD(SC)746; AIR1997SC1539; 1997(1)ALT27(SC); 1997CriLJ195; 1997(1)CTC390; 1997(40)DRJ419; (1997)2GLR1302(SC); 1996(7)KarLJ801; 1996(2)KLT820(SC); (1997)1MLJ65(SC); 1
ORDER1. We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the concerned parties in the present proceedings. Having given our anxious consideration to their contentions, we deem it fit to clarify/modify our judgment dated 1st May 1996 in Writ Petition (C) No. 1128 of 1986 as under:I. The time limit mentioned regarding the pendency of criminal cases in paragraphs from 2(a) to 2(f) of our judgment shall not apply to cases wherein such pendency of the criminal proceedings is wholly or partly attributable to the dilatory tactics adopted by the concerned accused or on account of any other action of the accused which results in prolonging the trial. In other words it should be shown that the criminal proceedings have remained pending for the requisite period mentioned in the aforesaid clauses of paragraph 2 despite full cooperation by the concerned accused to get these proceedings disposed of the delay in the disposal of these cases is not at all attributable to the concerned accused, nor such dela...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC1771; (1997)IILLJ671SC; 1996(9)SCALE331; (1996)11SCC758; [1996]Supp9SCR345; 1997(1)LC288(SC)
1. These appeals by special leave arise from the orders of the E.S.I. Court, Faridabad, Haryana. The facts in CA No. 402/86 are sufficient for disposal of all the appeals. The appellants are establishments covered under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short, the 'Act'). They did not pay the contribution for the year 1980-81. Therefore, the Corporation had served the notice on december 31, 1982 calling upon the appellants to pay the damages on delayed payment with interest. The appellants had objected to it by the petition dated February 14, 1983. The Corporation, over-ruling the objections, passed the order on February 18, 1983 imposing the damages in a sum of Rs. 8843. The appellants challenged it by filing application under Section 75(2) of the Act before the Insurance Court. The Insurance Court by its order dated August 14, 1985 has upheld the damages. Since the CA Nos. 2057 & 2058 of 1981 were pending in this Court, they filed the appeal by special l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC2311; 1996(9)SCALE244; (1997)10SCC673; [1996]Supp9SCR332
1. The appellants are sons of the brother of Bhoomireddy Pedda Chennaiah. The respondents are the sons of the sister of Laxmamma, widow of Pedda Chennaiah. Pedda Chennaiah during his life time had bequeathed all his properties to his wife Laxmamma by his registered Will dated May 12, 1947 with right to enjoy the property with vested reminder in the respondents with absolute right and he died on May 25, 1947. Laxmamma held the property during her life time and she died on October 21, 1965. When the appellants started interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties, the respondents filed O.S. No. 187/69 in the Court of District Munsif at Anantapur for a perpetual injunction. The trial Court decreed it. On appeal, the Additional District Judge confirmed the same. In the Second Appeal No. 437/77, by judgment and decree dated February 21, 1979 the learned single Judge of Andhra Pradesh dismissed the same. Thus, this appeal by special leave.2. Mr. K. Madhava R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IXAD(SC)437; AIR1997SC3640; JT1996(10)SC665; 1996(8)SCALE730; (1997)2SCC183; [1996]Supp9SCR300; [1997]104STC134(SC)
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. Leave granted.2. Section 5 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act levies tax on sale or purchase or goods, Clause (iv) of Sub-section (i) of Section 5 provides for levy of tax on transfer of goods involved in the execution of the works contract. Sub-clause (a) of Clause (iv) deals with a situation where 'transfer is in the form of goods'. In such a case, the rates and the point of levy are specified in the First, Second or Fifth Schedule to the Act, Sub-clause (b) deals with a situation where the 'transfer of goods involved in the execution of works contract...is not in the form of goods but in some other form'. In such a case, the rate is specified in the Fourth Schedule to the Act. There are two provisos to Clause (iv) which we need not refer to for the purpose of this case. Section 7 provides for payment of tax at compounded rates. We are concerned herein with Sub-sections (7), (7A), (7B), 11 and 12 which were inserted along with certain other provisions by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC3767; 1997(1)Crimes260(SC); 1996(9)SCALE255; (1997)9SCC725; [1996]Supp9SCR338
1. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, made on April 29, 1988 in Original Decree No. 52/78.2. This case has a chequered history. The property bearing No. 10-D, Puddapukur Road, P.S. Bhowanipur, Calcutta-20 is the subject matter of an endless litigation at four stages. Initially, the property was shared by two brothers Haridas and Gunendra in equal shares. Haridas hypothecated his half share to Rabindra Nath Bose, who had filed Title Suit No. 130/1927 for foreclosure of mortgage and a preliminary decree therein was granted on April 7, 1927. A decree for a sum of Rs. 9,222 was passed. Since the amount was not paid the property was brought to sale and a final decree was passed on August 16, 1927 in which Rabindra Nath Bose had purchased the half share of Haridas. A sale certificate in that behalf was given on February 22, 1928.3. It would appear that Gunendra a minor represented by his mother Sailabala, filed Title Suit N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC2342; JT1996(11)SC563; 1996(9)SCALE250; (1997)2SCC629; [1996]Supp9SCR341
1. The appellant is the auction-purchaser of 5.86 acres in Peddayyasamudram village in Nellore District. The said land was brought to sale on November 2, 1967 to realise the debt due to the Govt. from one K. Sankaraiah, the brother of K. Radhakrishaniah, the respondent-plaintiff. The appellant had purchased the same in the said auction. He was granted the sale certificate on April 30, 1969 under Ex. B-1. Later, the second respondent, Radhakrishaniah filed the suit for setting aside the sale. The trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the District Judge confirmed the same. In Second Appeal No. 632/77 by judgment and decree dated February 28, 1979, the learned single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh decreed the suit. Thus, this appeal by special leave.2. The admitted facts are that K. Sankaraiah, the debtor and the second respondent are members of the joint family. At a partition dated July 28, 1954 under Ex. B-13, Radhakrishaniah was granted a greater share since he had und...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)9SCC324; [1996]Supp9SCR348
1. Leave granted in SLP (C) No. 1638/81.2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, made on March 14, 1980 in First Appeal No. 399/62 and 28/64. The Nawab Sir Mohammad Yusuf of Jaunpur had executed Wakfnama on April 5, 1956 and he died on May 3, 1956. The appellant-Zubeda Begum, his widow filed the suit for cancellation of the Wakf- name and for possession of the properties with a declaration that she is entitled to the compensation to the extent of l/4th share of the properties given in the list. The trial Court partly decreed the suit. On appeal, the High Court dismissed the suit. Thus, this appeal by special leave.3. The main controversy is with regard to the validity of the Wakf- name created by Nawab Sir Mohd. Yusuf which reads as under:I, Nawab Mohammad Yusuf, son of Nawab Abdul Majid Saheb, resident of Mohalla Alam, Post Office Sadar Jaunpur City.Whereas I am a follower of Hanfi Sunnet UI Jammat of Islam and whereas...
Tag this Judgment!