Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IIIAD(SC)321; AIR1996SC1546; [1996(73)FLR1077]; JT1996(3)SC581; (1996)IILLJ753SC; 1996(3)SCALE125; (1996)8SCC741; [1996]3SCR942; (1996)2UPLBEC1401
ORDER1. C.A. No. 3140 of 1980.2. This Appeal by certificate granted by the High Court of Gauhati arises from its judgment dated September 19, 1979 in Civil Rule No. 82/73. The respondent-Shillong City Bus Syndicate filed the writ petition questioning the memo issued by the appellant on October 26, 1972 under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, the 'Act') alleging non-payment of employees' Provident Fund Contribution for period from January to September 1972. The principal contention raised by the respondent was that the operation of the transport service was within Khasi Hills District defined in paragraph 1 of Sixth Schedule to the Constitution as autonomous District by operation of proviso to sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 20. Although, it has been stated that no part of the area comprised within the municipality of Shillong shall be deemed to be within the Khasi Hills District for certain purposes mentioned therein, since the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IVAD(SC)106; AIR1996SC3197; 1996(1)ALD(Cri)863; 1996CriLJ2446; JT1996(4)SC95; 1996(3)SCALE286; (1996)8SCC228; [1996]3SCR1016
ORDER1. This is an appeal under Section 14(1) of the Terrorists Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984. This appeal is directed against the order dated November 28, 1984 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Ferozpur, in Trial No. 27 of 1984 arising out of F.I.R. No. 141 of 1984 of the Police Station, Abohar, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to settler imprisonment for life.2. The prosecution case in short is that the appellant had a strained relation with his wife Chameli Devi, the deceased, on account of Chameli Devi having illicit relation with one Kirpal Singh, On May 8, 1984. P.W. 1 - Bishan Dial, his brother Tej Ram and the wife of Bishan Dial, Daropati, went to the house of the appellant Pattu Lai to get the dispute between the deceased and Pattu Lai Settled. The deceased threatened to get divorce and marry Kirpal Singh. On the night of May 24 and 25 of 1984, PW. 1 Bishan Dial, said Tej Ram and Daropati slept at the house of Pattu Lai and at ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IIIAD(SC)623; AIR1996SC1901; [1996(73)FLR1292]; JT1996(4)SC420; 1996LabIC1693; (1996)IILLJ774SC; 1996(3)SCALE383; (1996)8SCC271; [1996]3SCR955; (1996)4UPLBEC2867
ORDER1. Leave granted in S.L.P. (C) NO. 2158 of 19922. The appellants are the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation of India at Kozhikode. They are ex-servicemen who were re-employed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India after their discharge from military service. There is a gap of more than three years between their discharge from military service and their appointment in the Life Insurance Corporation of India. The dispute raised in this appeal relates to the fixation of salary of these ex-servicemen on their re-employment in the Life Insurance Corporation of India. Along with this appeal, Writ Petition No. 437 of 1993 has also been heard. This petition is filed by the Ex-servicemen Life Insurance Corporation Employees Association and the issue raised in this petition is identical with the issue raised in the appeal. The dispute relates to ex-servicemen who have been appointed after a gap of three years or more from their discharge from military service to the Life Insura...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IIIAD(SC)421; AIR1996SC1522; (1996)132CTR(SC)256; [1996]220ITR43(SC); JT1996(3)SC665; 1996(3)SCALE197; (1996)4SCC216; [1996]3SCR1008
ORDER1. These appeals arise from the judgment of the Madras High Court answering the two questions referred to it at the instance of the respondent-assessee in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The two questions are :(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the lands sold during the year of account was not 'Agricultural land in India' during the year of assessment and hence not liable to be excluded from the definition of the words 'capital Asset'?(ii) Whether, the surplus realised on the sale of land in the year of account is not exempt from capital gains?2. The property known as Spencer's Hotel comprising 70 acres, 16 grounds 825 sq. ft. situated on Mount Road, Madras was purchased by one Gulab Bhai Mukund Rao Rane in 1944. Rane sold an extent of 79 grounds 242 sq.ft. (roughly 4 acres and odd) out of it to the assessee under a registered sale-deed dated October 27, 1950 for a consideration of Rs. 5, 53,705. The extent purchased by the assessee comp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IIIAD(SC)349; AIR1996SC1669; JT1996(3)SC722; (1996)IILLJ296SC; 1996(3)SCALE202; (1996)3SCC364; [1996]3SCR972; 1996(2)LC338(SC)
ORDER1. Leave granted. Heard counsel for the parties.2. This appeal preferred against the judgment and decree of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the second appeal filed by the appellant raises certain basic question concerning natural justice in the context of disciplinary proceedings.3. A disciplinary enquiry was held against the respondent in respect of two charges. They are :Charge No. 1That he did not deposit the sum of Rs. 10,000 handed over to him by Sh. Balwant Singh in December 1985, in the crop loan account of Sh. Jarnail Singh S/o. Sh. Lahra Singh. Later on the entire amount of R. 11,517-50 outstanding in the account was deposited by someone on the 22nd March 1986 under the signature of Sh. Balwant Singh. He thus utilised the amount of Rs. 10,000 for approximately 3 months for his own advantage.Charge No. IIThat he, in contravention of Regulation 50(4) of the State Bank of Patiala (Officers') Service Regulations 1979, issued an undated letter in his own handwriti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1998)8SCC485
ORDER1. This public interest petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is based on the report given by a non-governmental organisation called 'Campaign against Child Labour'. According to the said report, one Rajput used to travel to Madurai in Tamil Nadu for the purpose of procuring child labour by paying a paltry sum ranging between Rs 500 to Rs 1500 to the poor parents. The children aged below 15 years so procured were forced into bonded labour. It was further stated in the report that one of the boys, viz., Shiva Murugan, aged about 8 years was beaten to death by the said Rajput. As mentioned in this Court's order dated 18-3-1996, Rajput has already been convicted for murder by the trial court. The other four boys, viz., Raja Murugan (aged 8 years), Rajesh (aged 13 years), Muniyandi (aged 15 years) and Mukesh (aged 16 years) were not traceable after the occurrence, resulting in the death of Shiva Murugan. Under the directions of this Court, three boys, viz., Rajesh, Mu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IIIAD(SC)497; AIR1996SC1509; 1996(55)ECC51; 1996(83)ELT486(SC); JT1996(3)SC597; 1996(3)SCALE103; (1996)4SCC69; [1996]3SCR894; 1996(2)LC409(SC)
ORDER1. This appeal has been filed on behalf of the Union of India against the judgment of a Full Bench of Delhi High Court holding that an oral hearing had to be given to the respondent by the Appellate authority before taking a decision under third proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 4-M of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). On the aforesaid finding the writ petition filed on behalf of the respondent was allowed and the order passed by the Appellate authority was quashed. A direction was given to afford an opportunity to the said respondent to be heard on the question as to whether the appeal filed on behalf of the respondent should be entertained without deposit of the penalty imposed.2. The respondent obtained an advanced licence for import of brass scrap on certain conditions, under the Duty Exemption Scheme. The said licence was issued subject to the respondent's exporting 78 MT Brass Artware for approximate FOB value of Rs. 14,0...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IIIAD(SC)628; AIR1996SC3152; [1996(73)FLR1192]; JT1996(4)SC113; 1996LabIC1267; (1996)IILLJ675SC; 1996(3)SCALE419; (1996)3SCC753; [1996]3SCR918; 1996(2)LC381(SC); (1996)
ORDER1. Leave granted. Heard counsel for the parties.2. Clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India declares that no person who holds a civil post under the Union or the State 'shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges'. The second proviso to Clause (2), however, specifies three situations in which the requirements in Clause (2) do not apply. Clause (b) of the second proviso states that 'where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such an inquiry', the enquiry and the opportunity provided by Clause (2) can be dispensed with and punishment imposed straightaway. Clause (3) of Article 311 is really a continuation of Clause (b) of the second proviso. Clause...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)201; AIR1997SC445; 1996CriLJ4458; 1996(5)SCALE664; (1996)10SCC432; [1996]3SCR939
1. Preetam the appellant herein and his brother Ishwar Lal were placed trial before the Sessions Judge, Mornea for committing the murder of one Chhita on June 15, 1973 and removing ornaments from his person. The trial ended in an acquittal and aggrieved thereby the respondent-State preferred an appeal. The High Court dismissed the appeal so far as it related to Ishwar Lai but set aside the acquittal of the appellant and convicted and sentenced him under Sections 302 and 404 of the Indian Penal Code. The above order of reversal is under challenge in this appeal.2. To prove its case the prosecution relied upon three eye witnesses, the doctor who held the autopsy, a judicial confession of the appellant and some recoveries made pursuant to his statement. While accepting the evidence of the prosecution so far as it sought to prove that Chhita met with a homicidal death, the trial Court rejected the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove that the appellant was the author of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IIIAD(SC)604; AIR1996SC1517; JT1996(3)SC647; 1996(II)OLR(SC)105; 1996(3)SCALE239; (1996)3SCC403; [1996]3SCR912; 1996(2)LC468(SC)
ORDER1. Special leave granted.2. This is an extra-ordinary case. A private dispute between a landlord and a tenant was taken up in writ jurisdiction and mandatory orders were passed directing the State and the police authorities to allow the writ petitioner (the landlord) to have ingress and egress to and from the disputed premises. On the basis of this order, the landlord with the help of police authorities evicted the tenant from his flat. In other words, the landlord was able to get back possession of tenanted premises without having to go through the usual landlord and tenant proceedings before appropriate forum in accordance with law.3. It appears that after instituting proceeding under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the Court of the Executive Magistrate, the landlord moved the High Court under its constitutional writ jurisidction. Shyamal Kumar Sen J. on 13th August, 1993 passed an order directing the Officer-in-Charge, Muchipara Police Station, to make an enquiry ...
Tag this Judgment!