Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1997(1)SCALE203; (1997)3SCC180; [1996]Supp10SCR366
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Division H Bench of the Calcutta High Court, made on November 29, 1996 in G.A. No. 3616/96. We decline to go into the merits of the matter. Suffice it to state that pending appeal the Division Bench had declined to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge appointing a Receiver. When the matter was mentioned in the Chief Court for early hearing, this Court passed an order on December 4, 1996 thus:Permission to make the Receiver a party respondent granted. Notice will go to the Receiver. Dasti service permitted. There will be an ad-interim order directing the Receiver not to part with the possession of the premises to anyone till further orders. List the matter on 18.12.1996.3. Parties have filed their respective affidavits and counter- affidavits. The Receiver also was served but has not filed the affidavit. In the affidavit . filed on behalf of the appellants, they pointed out certain changes...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC568; JT1997(1)SC288; 1996(9)SCALE318; (1997)1SCC301; [1996]Supp10SCR321; 1997(1)LC187(SC)
ORDERKuldip Singh, J.1. Telephone-Tapping is a serious invasion of an individual's privacy. With the growth of highly sophisticated communication technology, the right to hold telephone conversation, in the privacy of one's home or office without interference, is increasingly susceptible to abuse. It is no doubt correct that every Government, howsoever democratic, exercises some degree of subrosa operation as a part of its intelligence out-fit but at the same time citizen's right to privacy has to be protected from being abused by the authorities of the day.2. This petition-public interest-under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the people's Union of Civil Liberties, a voluntary organisation, high lighting the incidents of telephone tapping in the recent past. The petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (the Act), in the alternative it is contended that the said provisions be suitably read-down to i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC610; 1997(1)ALD(Cri)248; 1998(46)BLJR161; 1997CriLJ743; 1996(4)Crimes233(SC); (1997)2GLR1631; JT1997(1)SC1; RLW1997(1)SC94; 1996(9)SCALE298; (1997)1SCC416; [1996]S
ORDERDr. Anand, J.1. The Executive Chairman, Legal Aid Services, West Bengal, a non-political organisation registered under the Societies Registration Act, on 26th August, 1986 addressed a letter to the Chief Justice of India drawing his attention to certain news items published in the Telegraph dated 20, 21 and 22 of July, 1986 and in the Statesman and Indian Express dated 17th August, 1986 regarding deaths in police lock-ups and custody. The Executive Chairman after reproducing the news items submitted that it was imperative to examine the issue in depth and to develop 'custody jurisprudence' and formulate modalities for awarding compensation to the victim and/or family members of the victim for atrocities and death caused in police custody and to provide for accountability of the officers concerned. It was also stated in the letter that efforts are often made to hush up the matter of lock-up deaths and thus the crime goes unpunished and 'flourishes'. It was requested that the letter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC1699; JT1997(1)SC372; 1997(1)SCALE207; (1997)2SCC544; [1996]Supp10SCR371
ORDER1. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the learned single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh made on October 12, 1985 in Second Appeal No. 309/80.2. The admitted facts are that the appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and for possession of agricultural lands covered under the schedule of the plaint. The respondent pleaded adverse possession. The trial Court, therefore, recorded a finding that the respondent had perfected his title by adverse possession for having remained in possession for more than 12 years. On appeal, the District Judge reversed the decree on the ground that the respondent had come into possession under a power of attorney and, therefore, he remained to be in possession as an agent on behalf of the principal. The appellant claimed title through one of the principals who had given power of attorney under Ex. P.3. Respondent admitted that he had come into possession thereunder and, therefore, he cannot plead adverse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1997(1)SC401; (1997)115PLR781; 1997(1)SCALE210; (1997)2SCC640; [1996]Supp10SCR368
ORDER1. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order, made on November 15, 1985 by the Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissing in limine LPA No. 1356 by confirming the judgment of the learned2. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) (for short, the 'Act') was published on July 11, 1977 acquiring a large track of land including the land in question for extension of the cantonment in Amritsar. The award under Section 11 was made and on reference under Section 18 of the Act came to be filed in the civil Court on June 15, 1983 which determined the compensation for loss of profits to the appellant's poultry at Rs. 6,54,637. Since the Assistant Director of Poultry Farm had notified to the Land acquisition Officer that the rate of return per bird was at Rs. 1.38 per month and there were 2500 birds in the poultry farm, the Additional District Judge applying 15 years' multiplier, came to determine the above amount. In writ petition, the l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1996(11)SC175; 1996(9)SCALE388; (1997)2SCC397; [1996]Supp10SCR347
K. Ramaswamy, J. 1. This appeal has been placed before this Bench pursuant to an order dated 19.4.1995 passed by a two-Judge Bench in the following terms:A decade has gone by since Pratibha Rani v, Suraj Kumar and Anr. : 1985CriLJ817 a decision by a majority of 2:1 has governed the scene. Having regard to its wider ramifications and its actual working in the last decade, we are of the view that a fresh look to the ratio in that case is necessary. We, therefore, order that this case be placed before a three-judge Bench.2. This appeal by special leave arises from the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated June 19, 1992 in Criminal Miscl. Case No. 44 of 1992. The admitted facts are that the appellant was married to the respondent on July 7, 1973 at Lucknow according to the Hindu rites and rituals. The parties have three children from the wedlock. It is not in dispute that there was estrangement in the marital relationship between the husband and the wife. It is the case of the appella...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC637; JT1996(11)SC2; 1996(9)SCALE365; (1997)2SCC292; [1996]Supp10SCR199; 1997(1)SLJ222(SC)
ORDERS.B. Majmudar, J.1. Leave granted.2. With consent of learned advocates representing the respective parties the appeal was heard finally and is being disposed of by this Judgment. The short question involved in this appeal is as to whether the appointment of respondent No. 7 as Extra Department Branch Post Master, bypassing the appellant was legally justified or not. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna has taken the view that though the appellant was more qualified to be appointed on the said post respondent No. 7 was rightly appointed as the appellant was disqualified due to the fact that his cousin brother was already working in the same Post Office as Extra Department Delivery Assistant. Consequently the Tribunal dismissed the appellant's application O.A. 192 of 1994 and confirmed the appointment of respondent No. 7 on the said post.3. Learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the aforesaid reasoning adopted by the Tribunal is patently erroneous an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC1783; 1998(4)ALT17(SC); JT1996(11)SC241; 1996(9)SCALE433; (1997)3SCC176; [1996]Supp10SCR220
G.B. Pattanaik, J.1. Leave granted.2. The short question that arises in this appeal is whether the Tribunal was justified in directing the appellant to fix up the pay of respondents in the cadre of Head Clerk by notionally holding that they are also eligible to receive the special pay of Rs. 35/- per month in the lower post even though factually the respondents were not getting the said special pay.3. The short facts leading to the filing of the application before the Tribunal by the respondents are that they were working as senior Clerks and while working they were promoted to the post of Head Clerks. Under the orders of the competent authority 10% of the posts of senior Clerks were identified to be the posts involving arduous nature of work and those of the incumbents who were being posted to those identified posts were getting special pay of Rs. 35/- per month. This was the state of affairs prior to 1.1.1986. Usually on the basis of seniority amongst the senior Clerks, postings were...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1997(89)ELT451(SC); (1997)10SCC248
ORDERS.P. Bharucha and S.C. Sen, JJ.1. The respondents imported Phenol USP Grade and claimed the benefit of an exemption notification issued under the provisions of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962. The exemption therein applied, inter alia, to 'pharmaceutical chemicals, i.e., chemicals having prophylatic or therapeutic value and used solely or predominantly as drugs, not elsewhere specified'. The Tribunal, having regard to the material before it, came to the conclusion that Phenol USP fell within the pharmaceutical chemicals described in the notification as aforesaid. We are in no doubt that the Tribunal was right in doing so.2. The appeals are dismissed, with no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC785; 1997(57)ECC232; 1997(89)ELT3(SC); JT1996(11)SC458; 1996(9)SCALE443; (1997)2SCC78; [1996]Supp10SCR266
ORDERBharucha, J1. These appeals against the judgment and orders of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal relate to the assessable value of computers for the purposes of excise duty. The appeals of M/s. Wipro Information Technology Limited (Civil Appeal No. 79 of 1989 and M/s. PSI Data Systems Limited (Civil Appeal No. 491 of 1989) relate to the tariff as it was prior to 28th. February, 1986. The appeal of M/s. Tata Unisys Limited (Civil Appeal No. 6042 of 1994) relates to the present tariff under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.2. The question, principally, is in relation to the inclusion of the value of software sold with the computer in the assessable value thereof. It is not the contention of the appellants that the firm or etched software that is implanted into a computer is not to be taken into account in the valuation thereof for the purposes of excise duty. It is their case that the value of the software, such as discs, floppies, C.D. rhoms and the like,...
Tag this Judgment!