Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IIIAD(SC)61; [1996(73)FLR1447]; JT1996(3)SC158; 1996(2)SCALE593; (1996)7SCC545; [1996]3SCR62; (1996)2UPLBEC1425
Hansaria, J.1. The appellant joined the Prohibition and Excise Department as a Constable in the year 1961. The next promotional post is that of Sub-Inspector. He was indeed interviewed for that post in the year 1966, but was not promoted on the ground that his chest measurement was less than the standard said to be required to hold the post. He ultimately came to be promoted as a Sub-Inspector in 1970. His grievance, however, is that the promotion has to relate back to 1966 inasmuch as his rejection in that year for the promotional post on the ground above noted was not tenable for two reasons : (1) there is no such requirement as would appear, inter alia, from the decision of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal itself in the case of one Shashikant Dhaku Chavan rendered in Transfer Application No. 278 of 1991 on 27.8.1993, whereas his approach to the Tribunal was dismissed by an order dated 15.6.1993 on the ground of his having not fulfilled the physical requirement; and (2) the Go...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IIAD(SC)306; AIR1996SC2992; 1996(1)ALD(Cri)786; 1996CriLJ1887; JT1996(6)SC107; (1996)2SCC572; [1996]3SCR13
ORDER1. Water is a gift of nature. Human hand cannot be permitted to convert this bounty into a curse, an oppression. The primary use to which the water is put being drinking, it would be mocking the nature to force the people who live on the bank of a river to remain thirsty, whereas others incidentally placed in an advantageous position are allowed to use the water for non-drinking purpose. A river has to flow through some territory; and it would be travesty of justice if the upper-riparian States were to use its water for purpose like irrigation, denying the lower riparian States the benefit of using the water even for quenching the thirst of its residents.2. The plight of residents of Delhi in not getting sufficient water even for drinking, led Commodore S.D. Sinha to approach this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution by filing a public interest petition, which came to be registered as Writ Petition (C) No. 537 of 1992 seeking, inter alia, a direction to the concerned Governm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1998)8SCC760
ORDERCivil Appeal No. 1493 of 1994 1. With regard to regularisation of Casual Artistes and Field Assistants employed with Doordarshan, the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') had laid down certain guidelines in the order dated 8-2-1991 in OA No. 894 of 1990. Having regard to the said guidelines, a scheme was framed by the Directorate General, Doordarshan, vide office memorandum dated 9-6-1992, which received the approval of the Tribunal in order dated 14-2-1993 passed in OA No. 563 of 1986. In para 6 of the said Scheme, provision is made for relaxation of the upper age limit to the extent of service rendered by the Casual Artistes at the time of regularisation and a minimum of 120 days' service in the aggregate, in one year, is to be treated as one year's service rendered for this purpose. The respondent was employed as a Casual Floor Assistant during the years 1988 to 1992. His date of birth is 15-1-1964. Since he crossed the upper age limit of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IIIAD(SC)415; AIR1996SC1316; (1997)2CALLT26(SC); [1996]219ITR515(SC); JT1996(5)SC510; 1996(2)SCALE855; (1996)8SCC758; [1996]3SCR50
ORDER1. This appeal is preferred on the basis of a certificate of fitness granted by the Calcutta High Court under Section 261 of the Income-tax Act, Two questions were referred for the opinion of the High Court under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act. They are :(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is not a 'local authority' as contemplated by Section 2(31)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee is not entitled to an allowance for its contribution to the employees' provident fund gratuity funds?2. The High Court answered both the questions in the affirmative - i.e., against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. In this appeal, however, Sri Tapas Ray, argued only one question, viz, question No. 1.3. The assessee, Calcutta State Transport Corporation, is a statutory corporation established order t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IIIAD(SC)418; AIR1996SC3309; 1996(1)CTC720; (1996)132CTR(SC)217; [1996]21ITR521(SC); JT1996(6)SC68; 1996(2)SCALE812; (1996)3SCC496; [1996]3SCR65
1. These appeals are preferred against the judgment of the Bombay High Court rejecting an application under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act. The revenue had applied for referring the following two questions for the opinion of the High Court :(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the professional charges paid by the assessee company to its Solicitors for effecting the amalgamation of Nawrosjee Wadia ginning & pressing company with it, was of revenue nature and should be allowed as a deduction in the computation of its total income?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the 'assessee-company' was entitled to a deduction for a sum of Rs. 2,25,000 in respect of the contribution made by it to the Maharashtra Housing Board towards the construction of tenements for its workers.2. The facts concerning the first question are the following : a co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IIIAD(SC)109; AIR1996SC3354; 1997(45)BLJR1323; 1996(2)SCALE702; (1996)9SCC305; [1996]3SCR56
ORDER1. The order under appeal was passed by a learned single judge of the High Court at Patna. Thereby the appeal of the present appellants against the order and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Muzaffarpur in a suit filed by the respondent against them was dismissed.2. The suit related to two temples-one in the village Ramchaura and the other in the village of Majhauli, both in the district of Muzaffarpur. By a Sanad given in the year 1177 Fasli, one Madhodas alias Mohandas was granted 55 bighas of land in Ramchaura by Syed Suleman Raja Khan. This was done because Madhodas was a pious and religious man. Upon this, land Madhodas constructed a temple and installed the deities of Ram Jankiji and Charan-Paduka. He left two chelas, one of whom was Garibdas. Garibdas went to the village of Khalishpur and installed the deities of Ramjankijee on 7 bighas of fakirana land granted by Babus of that village. The other chela, Hanumandas, who remained at Ramchaura, acquired lands by purchase in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IIIAD(SC)397; AIR1996SC1334; JT1996(3)SC4; 1996(2)SCALE705; (1996)8SCC298; 1996(1)LC582(SC)
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. These two appeals by special leave have been moved by the common appellant against the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court by which the Division Bench dismissed one writ appeal and another writ petition moved by the appellant before the High Court. The Government of Andhra Pradesh; the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Hyderabad; the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Guntur and the Assistant Commissioner of Endowments, Ongole, Prakasam District, are the common respondents in these appeals. A few relevant facts are required to be noted to highlight the grievance of the appellant. 2. The appellant filed Writ Petition No. 531 of 1980 before the Andhra Pradesh High Court being aggrieved by Memorandum dated 30.12.1978 issued by Respondent No. 1, Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary, Revenue (Endowments) Department by which the order dated 30.05.1978 passed by Respondent No. 2, Commissio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IIIAD(SC)311; AIR1996SC3068; JT1996(3)SC639; 1996(3)SCALE38; (1996)9SCC51; [1996]3SCR77; 1996(1)LC794(SC); (1996)4UPLBEC2956
ORDER1. Heard counsel on both sides.2. This writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution relates to the selection of three direct recruit members of the Bar as Additional District and Sessions Judges under the Haryana Higher Judicial Service. Mohinder Singh suller, S.K. Sardana and Nawab Singh were selected by the Full Court of the High Court sitting as selection committee; they were appointed as Additional District and Session Judges by the Governor of Haryana on the recommendation made by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. Out of 65 candidates who appeared for the interview conducted between April 20, 1989 and April 21, 1989, the above three candidates came to be selected by the High Court. We are informed and it is not in dispute that the entire High Court sat as a selection committee, interviewed the candidates and recommended three candidates for appointment as Additional District and Sessions Judges under Article 233 of the Constitution. Son-in-law of one of the sitting ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1996)132CTR(SC)283; [1996]219ITR521(SC); [1996]85TAXMAN396(SC)
ORDERBY THE COURT :These appeals are preferred against the judgment of the Bombay High Court rejecting an application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act. The Revenue had applied for referring the following two questions for the opinion of the High Court :'(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the professional charges paid by the assessee-company to its solicitors for effecting the amalgamation of Nawrosjee Wadia Ginning & Pressing Co. with it, was of revenue nature and should be allowed as a deduction in the computation of its total income ?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee-company was entitled to a deduction for a sum of Rs. 2,25,000 in respect of the contribution made by it to the Maharashtra Housing Board towards the construction of tenements for its workers?'2. The facts concerning the first question are the following : a c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC1267; 1996(1)ALD(Cri)831; 1996CriLJ1997; JT1996(2)SC670; 1996(4)KarLJ740; 1996(2)SCALE557; (1996)3SCC37; [1996]3SCR19
ORDER1. Special leave granted.2. The only question involved in this case is whether in the absence of the appointment of a Municipal Magistrate, a Metropolitan Magisrate can take cognizance and try an accused for commission of an offence punishable under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 3. The circumstances in which this question has arisen need a brief notice at the thresh-hold.4. On 6.6.1989, a Junior Engineer of the complainant Municipal Corporation of Delhi (respondent No. 1 herein) filed a report against the appellant alleging unauthorised construction of roof and a stair-case on the ground floor of the appellant's property situate at 1535-1537, Church Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. The appellant apprehending demolition of his house, filed Civil suit No. 616 of 1989 in the Court of Sub-Judge, Delhi, contending inter alia - that the replacement of the roof and the alleged repairs/alterations were permissible under the building bye-laws and required no formal order of sanction...
Tag this Judgment!