Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)11SCC366
ORDER 1. This appeal arises out of the order dated 18-9-1975 passed under Rule 2046(h)(i) of the Railway Establishment Code regarding compulsory retirement of the appellant from service. At the relevant time the appellant was employed as Production Engineer, Loco Works in the Southern Railway. He had been promoted to the post of Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer on officiating basis on 20-11-1974 but was reverted to the senior scale as Production Engineer in May 1975. An adverse remark was recorded in his performance appraisal by the Divisional Superintendent, Tiruchirapalli on 19-3-1975 that “his integrity is doubtful”. The General Manager has also made adverse remarks with regard to integrity of the appellant in the confidential report for the year 1973-74. Having regard to the service record of the appellant, the competent authority passed the order dated 18-9-1975 for compulsory retirement of the appellant. The writ petition filed by the appellant to challenge the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1998)8SCC730
ORDER1. These appeals have been filed on behalf of the State of West Bengal against the order of the High Court dismissing the writ petitions filed on behalf of the appellant-State.2. The respondents claimed settlement on the basis of Amalnamas granted in the year 1955. Thereafter, the revisional survey records of rights were finally published under Section 44(2) of the aforesaid Act showing the settles to be in possession of the lands in question. After 12 years from the final publication of RS records of rights, the Revenue Officer issued notices in purported exercise of power under Section 44(2)(a) of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 to enquire into the validity of the settlements made in favour of the respondents to the said proceedings. The Revenue Officer held the settlements to be invalid. Being aggrieved by the said order, appeals were preferred before the Tribunal constituted under the Act. The Tribunal examined the controversies on the basis of the materials addu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IIIAD(SC)114; AIR1996SC1659; JT1996(3)SC383; 1996(2)SCALE827; (1996)3SCC424; [1996]3SCR355
ORDER1. This appeal by special leave is by the defendant and it arises out of a suit for redemption of a mortgage. The appellant was the lessee in the premises which is a shop in which he was carrying on his bakery business from 1965. The plaintiff later executed a mortgage in favour of the defendant on 18.7.1974 for a consideration of Rs. 13,000. On expiry of the period of mortgage, the plaintiff filed a suit for redemption and recovery of possession of the premises. The defendant contested the claim for recovery of possession, inter alia, on the ground that his possession was that of a lessee, independent of the mortgage and even after redemption of the mortgage the defendant was entitled to continue in possession under the lease. The Trial Court passed a preliminary decree granting redemption and directing recovery of possession from the defendant. The first appeal by the defendant has been dismissed by the High Court. Hence, this appeal by the defendant.2. The High Court has held t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1999(I)OLR(SC)311; (1998)8SCC470
ORDER1. We have gone through the judgment of the High Court under appeal which is of the year 1985. Thereby the appellant stands convicted under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and sentenced to a fine of Rs 2000 only. The appellant was a litigant in a subordinate court where his pleadings in a transfer application clearly contained statements which scandalised the Court. Besides the appellant, two lawyers were also similarly charged and similarly convicted and sentenced. They are the respondents herein, but against whom no specific relief is claimed by the appellant. It is obvious that these pleadings in the transfer application were prepared by counsel and were signed by the appellant. The plea of the appellant before the High Court that without realising the impact of those pleadings, he had signed at the asking of his counsel is neither here nor there. This plea is not open to him when he is presumed to have instructed his counsel to proceed in that particular manner....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IIAD(SC)623; AIR1996SC3051; 1996(1)ALD(Cri)333; 1996(1)Crimes181(SC); JT1996(4)SC1; 1996(2)SCALE689; (1996)9SCC233; [1996]3SCR389
ORDER1. Five accused, namely, Amarjit Singh, Raghubir Singh, Jagat Singh, Joginder Singh and Ranbir Singh were sent up for trial before the learned Addl. Judge, Special courts, Hoshiarpur in connection with the murder of Balwant Singh and for causing injuries to Santokh Singh PW6. They were tried for various offences. Raghubir Singh and Joginder Singh were convicted for an offence under Section 302 IPC while their remaining co-accused were acquitted of the offence under Section 302/149 IPC. All the accused were convicted for an offence under Section 148 IPC. Joginder Singh was also convicted for an offence under Section 325 IPC while the rest of the accused for an offence under Section 325/149 IPC. Raghubir Singh was convicted for an offence under Section 323 IPC and the rest of the accused for an offence under Section 323/149 IPC. Amarjit Singh who is a law graduate and a practising advocate and had been attributed only a 'lalkara' at the time of assault, was in view of his previous r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1999ACJ1378; (1998)8SCC493
ORDER1. Truck No. MYE-3236 being driven by the respondent turned turtle while crossing a 'nalla' on 25-11-1982 at about 8.30 a.m. The accident resulted in the death of 15 persons and receipt of injuries by about 18 persons, who were travelling in the fully loaded truck. The respondent was charge-sheeted and tried. The learned trial court held that the respondent drove the vehicle at a high speed and it was on that account that the accident took place. The respondent was convicted for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. The respondent challenged his conviction and sentence before the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum. While the conviction and sentence imposed upon the respondent for the offence under Section 279 IPC was set aside, the appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentenced the respondent for offences under Sections 304A, 337 and 338 IPC. On a criminal revision petition being filed by the respondent be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1999]236ITR325(SC); (1998)8SCC705; [1999]114STC273(SC)
ORDERCivil Appeal No. 2109 of 1978 1. Heard counsel for the parties. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that a charge was created by the award made by the arbitrator, it cannot be said to be effective in law. The charge becomes effective only when the award is made a rule of the court and that was done in this case on 24-11-1970 whereas the attachment by the Tax Revenue Officer under the provisions of Schedule II to the Income Tax Act, 1961 was earlier, i.e., on 4-11-1970. In this view of the matter, the High Court was right in taking the view it did.2. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Civil Appeal No. 1083 of 1980 3. The appellant had instituted a suit against a third party for recovery of money. In that suit, the matter was referred to arbitration. The arbitrator passed an award in the year 1966 in which he is stated to have, inter alia, created a charge on the properties of the said third-party borrower in favour of the appellant. The appellant applied for maki...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IIIAD(SC)118; AIR1996SC1303; (1996)132CTR(SC)262; [1996]219ITR737(SC); JT1996(3)SC356; 1996(2)SCALE832; (1996)3SCC525; [1996]3SCR377
ORDER1. These appeals are preferred against the judgment of the Gauhati High Court answering the following question in favour of the assesses and against the revenue :Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that non-service of notice under Section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against nine out of the ten legal representatives of the deceased Shri B.N. Singh did not invalidate the assessment orders of the Income-tax Officer relating to the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67, and 1967-68 and that it was at best an irregularity for which the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was justified in setting aside the assessments and it was not a case fit for cancellation of the assessments2. One B.N. Singh had extensive business interests. He did not file a return for the Assessment Years 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68. He died on April 16, 1967. He left behind ten legal representatives comprising three widows, four sons and three daughters...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IVAD(SC)1; AIR1996SC1525; (1996)132CTR(SC)273; [1996]219ITR706(SC); JT1996(3)SC317; 1996(2)SCALE871; (1996)3SCC513; [1996]3SCR359
ORDER1. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.2. These are all connected cases. The matter arises under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The parties in all the appeals are the same. The appellant in the appeals is 'The State Bank of Patiala' and the respondent is the 'Commissioner of Income tax, Patiala'. The Civil Appeals filed from Special leave petitions (C) Nos. 2392-95 of 1993 are the main cases. They relate to four assessment years 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1975-76. The appellant-assessee set apart amounts as 'reserve' for 'bad and doubtful debts' in all the years. A claim was laid that such sums qualified as reserves for the purpose of Rule 1 (xi)(b) of the First Schedule and Rule 1(iii) of the Second Schedule of the Act and such sums, representing reserves, should be included in the capital of the appellant for appropriate relief. The Income Tax Officer rejected the claim. In appeal, the income Tax Appellate Tribunal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IIAD(SC)619; AIR1996SC3016; 1996(1)ALD(Cri)259; 1996CriLJ1993; 1996(1)Crimes191(SC); JT1996(3)SC299; 1996(2)SCALE683
ORDERG.N. Ray, J.1. 12 accused including the appellants in these two appeals stood charged Under Section 302 read with Section 149, 148, 201 and 447 of Indian Penal Code and the accused Nos. 1 and 2, namely Ram Pratap and Het Ram. were further charged for offence Under Section 27 of the Arms Act, in Sessions Case No. 11 of 1985 in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar. By judgment dated March 31, 1986, Ram Pratap was convicted Under Section 302 and was awarded a capital sentence for the said offence. The said Ram Pratap and accused No. 2 Het Ram were further convicted Under Section 27 of the Arms Act and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years together with a fine of Rs. 500/- in default further imprisonment for three months. All the accused were also convicted Under Section 148, 201 and 447 IPC and they were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous impri...
Tag this Judgment!