Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIIIAD(SC)601; 1997(1)BLJR481; JT1996(10)SC633; RLW1997(1)SC28; 1996(8)SCALE554; (1996)11SCC19; [1996]Supp9SCR233
J.S. Verma, J. 1. The petitioner - Smt. Phoolan Devi was in custody since February 12, 1983 when she claims to have voluntarily surrendered in the State of Madhya Pradesh with a criminal past. She was in the Central Jail at Gwalior in Madhya Pradesh. In this writ Petition filed in January, 1993 under Article 32 of the Constitution she has prayed for a direction for her release from custody; and an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the large number of prosecutions initiated against her by the State of Uttar Pradesh for commission of heinous offences, e.g. dacoity and murder. In substance, she claims that her right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution has been violated and her continued custody was without any lawful authority. By an order dated February 18, 1994 this Court directed release of the petitioner on parole in view of the fact that the petitioner had been in custody for a period of eleven years till then. The petitioner is on parole pursu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IXAD(SC)465; 1996(1)ALD(Cri)300; 1996(9)SCALE14; (1996)11SCC586; [1996]Supp9SCR252
ORDER1. This Special leave petition arises from the order of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana made, on July 19, 1996 in Civil Revision No. 4233/95.2. Respondent No. 1, elder brother of the petitioner filed the suit for declaration against the petitioner and three brothers that the decree dated May 4, 1990 was null and void which was decreed by the Subordinate Judge, Hoshiarpur on September 29, 1993. The petitioner has filed an appeal in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur. The counsel made a statement on September 15, 1995 that the petitioner did not intend to proceed with the appeal. On the basis thereof, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioner challenged the order of the appellate Court in the revision. The High Court confirmed the same in the impugned order. Thus, this special leave petition.3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner had not authorised the counsel to withdraw the appeal. The Court after admitting th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)11SCC638
S.C. Agrawal and; Faizan Uddin, JJ.1. These appeals by the Union of India relate to appointment on the posts of Enquiry-cum-Reservation Clerks in the four metropolitan cities of Madras, Bombay, Calcutta and Delhi. In April 1978 the Railway Administration took a decision that both the upper and lower class reservation counters in the Reservation Offices in the metropolitan cities of Madras, Bombay, Calcutta and Delhi would have to be manned only by women. By circular dated 30-6-1978, it was decided that the Reservation Offices in the said metropolitan cities should constitute seniority unit separate from the rest of the Enquiry and Reservation cadre in the Railways. By the impugned judgment, the Madras High Court has quashed the said circular dated 30-6-1978 on the view that it was violative of provisions of Articles 14 and 16(1) and (2) of the Constitution. The High Court has rejected the contention urged on behalf of the appellants that it was protected by Article 15(3) of the Constit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996(9)SCALE252; (1997)3SCC503; [1996]Supp9SCR266; 1997(1)LC260(SC)
ORDER1. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, made in Second Appeal No. 1252/73 dated November 30, 1980. The appellant had filed the suit for perpetual injunction to restrain the respondent from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of 10 feet/65 feet land towards east of his house No. 15/45 situated in Kanpur. According to him, he purchased the plot No. 15/45 from the Church under a sale deed in year 1937 and ever since has been in possession and enjoyment of his property. He had enclosed the disputed property by putting up a wall using it for poultry farming and during summer for sleep in the open area. It is also his case that he had paid najrana to the Church and became its owner. The plea of payment of najrana and of becoming owner was given up. The respondent has pleaded that the respondent's predecessor in title by name S.W. Lawrence had purchased plot No. 15/44 from the church in 1965, and as owner...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)11SCC621; [1997]107STC566(SC)
ORDER1. These are appeals by the State of Karnataka against the judgment and order See Sri Lakshmi Coconut Industries v. State of Karnataka : 1980(2)KarLJ76 of the High Court of Karnataka which holds that desiccated coconut is the same as coconut, coconuts being declared goods for the purposes of sales tax.2. The issue turns, basically, upon the interpretation of Section 14, entry (vi), sub-entry (viii). Section 14 declares the goods therein stated to be of special importance in inter-State trade or commerce. Entry (vi) therein refers to 'oilseeds, that is to say,... (viii) Coconut (i.e., copra excluding tender coconuts) (cocos nucifera)'.3. Copra is, in Coconuts : Production, Processing, Products, Second Edn., by Jasper Guy Woodroof, stated to be the trade name for dried coconut meat or kernel. The Encyclopaedia Britannica refers to copra as being dried sections of the oil-bearing kernel of the fruit. The less common drying of the intact whole nut kernel produces ball edible or whole ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IXAD(SC)479; AIR1997SC1763; [1997]88CompCas528(SC); (1997)138CTR(SC)1; [1997]223ITR809(SC); JT1996(10)SC740; 1996(8)SCALE564; (1997)2SCC302; [1996]Supp9SCR216
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. These appeals are preferred by Marshall Sons and Company [India] Limited [hereinafter referred to as the 'Holding Company'] as successors to Marshall Sons and Company [Manufacturing] Limited [hereinafter referred to as the 'Subsidiary Company'] against the judgment and order of the Madras High Court dismissing the writ petitions filed by them. The matter arises under the Income Tax Act.2. The Holding Company had its registered office at 33-A, Chowranghee Road, Calcutta while the Subsidiary Company had its registered office at Madras. For the purposes of assessment under the Income Tax Act, while the accounting year of the holding Company was the year ending on 30th June, the accounting year of the Subsidiary Company was the calender year. On 1st December 1982, two letters were addressed by the Subsidiary Company to the Income Tax Officer stating that the company is desirous of effecting a change in the accounting year. They stated that they would wish to cl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)11SCC341
A.M. Ahmadi, C.J. and; Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. Special leave granted.2. The impugned order of the Tribunal suffers from an infirmity which goes to the root of the matter. The respondent Hari Singh Barkodia belongs to the Scheduled Caste. His grievance is that when a Scheduled Tribe candidate was not available, the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe should have been converted to one reserved for Scheduled Caste and he should have been appointed to the post in question rather than appointing a person belonging to the general category. Now, according to the relevant rule, if a Scheduled Tribe reserved post cannot be filled up for want of availability of candidates then in the third year that post would be converted as a post reserved for Scheduled Caste and a candidate belonging to that caste would be entitled to be appointed thereto. Therefore, even if we were to assume that the general category candidate should not have been appointed, the respondent had no right to be appointed on the g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1997(3)ALLMR(SC)207; 1997(4)ALT25
ORDERMr. K.Ramaswamy, J.1. Delay condoned.Leave granted.We have heard learned Counsel on both sides.2. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal made on October 6, 1992 in O.A. No.1511 of 1991. The respondent was selected as a Sub-Inspector and sent for training on July 15, 1974. On successful completion thereof, he was appointed and gained entry into the service on July 1, 1976. Rule 36 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (for short, the 'Rules') which repealed earlier orders and came into force on 15-8-1981 would indicate that once an entry of age or date of birth has been made in a service book, the same shall not be altered afterwards unless it is shown that the entry was due to want of care on the part of some person other than the individual in question or that it is an obvious clerical error. Instructions have been issued in that behalf which read as under:Instruction - (1) Normally, no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IXAD(SC)556; AIR1997SC1986; 1996(9)SCALE22; (1997)1SCC247; [1996]Supp9SCR199
1. Delay condoned2. Leave granted.3. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides.4. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, made on October 6,1992 in OA No. 1511 of 1991. The respondent was selected as a Sub-Inspector and sent for training on July 15, 1974. On successful completion thereof, he was appointed and gained entry into the service on July 1, 1976. As per Rule 36 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (for short, the 'Rules') which repealed earlier orders and came into force on 15.8.1981 would indicate that once an entry of age or date of birth has been made in a service book, the same shall not be altered afterwards unless it is shown that the entry was due to want of care on the part of some person other than the individual in question or that it is an obvious clerical error. Instructions have been issued in that behalf which reads as under:Instruction-(1) Normally, no application f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC2152; 1996(9)SCALE9; (1997)1SCC527; [1996]Supp9SCR213
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides.3. The admitted position is that the Commissioner had invited tenders on December 21, 1996 for supply of country made liquor in various districts of U.P. for the year 1996-97. Pursuant thereto, parties had submitted their tenders. The Commissioner by his proceedings dated February 27, 1996 allotted to the Co-operative Distillery Co. Ltd., the third respondent, the Districts of Saharanpur and Haridwar. He, however, revoked the same by his proceedings dated March 27, 1996 and allotted the district of Haridwar to the appellant. Consequently, the third respondent filed writ petition challenging the cancellation and reallotment to the appellant of Haridwar District. The High Court in the impugned order has directed in the operative part as under:In the result, the writ petition is allowed and orders dated 26.3.1996 and 27.3.1996 contained in Annexures 6 and 6-A to the writ petition so far as it pertains to the allotment of...
Tag this Judgment!