Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IIIAD(SC)307; AIR1996SC2395; JT1996(5)SC646; 1996(3)SCALE51; (1996)8SCC516; [1996]3SCR539; 1996(2)LC18(SC); (1996)4UPLBEC2919
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The appellants approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana seeking a direction on the respondents, which were the State of Punjab and the Director of Public Instructions (Schools), to pay them according to the scale meant for Lecturers, on their acquiring post graduate qualification, in terms of Government letter No. 5058-FE-II-57/5600 dated 23.7.1957 read with Government letter No. 8937-5 ED-II-79/2659 dated 20.9.1979. The Division Bench of the High Court has denied the prayer. Hence this appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution.3. The Government letter of 23.7.1957 is on the subject of revision of scale of pay of low paid Government servants. So far as the teachers in Education Department are concerned, they have been dealt in Para 3 and it speaks about the decision of the Government to place all teachers according to their qualifications in two broad categories : A and B. As to Category A, whose educational qualification is mainly graduation in diffe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996(1)ALD(Cri)257; 2000CriLJ2277; 1996(1)Crimes189(SC); 2000(1)SCALE410; (1996)3SCC422
ORDER1. Affidavits have not been filed by the States of Jammu & Kashmir. Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Manipur and Nagaland. Detailed affidavit has also not been filed by the State of West Bengal. The Union Territory of Lakshadweep also is in default in filing the affidavit. Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned Counsel for the State of Haryana submits that an affidavit indicating the action taken after the last affidavit was filed in this Court, shall be filed within one week.2. The affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Kamataka is incomplete. A proper affidavit shall be filed, keeping in view the orders of this Court dated 13th October, 1999 and 7th December, 1999.3. The States and the Union Territories which have not filed the affidavits so far are granted final opportunity to do the needful within six weeks.4. Mr. Altaf Ahmad, learned Additional Solicitor General, who represents the National Capital Territory of Delhi submits that an additional affidavit giving full details shall be filed by hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC1515; 1996(1)ALD(Cri)847; 1996(2)BLJR992; 1996CriLJ2168; JT1996(3)SC751; (1997)1MLJ31(SC); 1996(3)SCALE236; (1996)3SCC682; [1996]3SCR663; 1996(2)LC138(SC)
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Heard learned Counsel on both sides.3. These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment dated March 11, 1996 of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 459 of 1996 and batch. It is not necessary to narrate all the facts stated in the impugned judgment of the High Court. Suffice it to state that a large-scale defalcation of public funds, fraudulent transactions and falsification of accounts, to the tune of around Rs. 500 crores, came to light in the Animal Husbandry Department of the State of Bihar. This had taken place during the years 1977-78 to 1995-96. A similar situation prevailed in the Education, Cooperation and Fisheries Departments. It is agreed by all the counsel that an in-depth investigation is required to be made. The only controversy between counsel on either side is whether the High Court, in exercise of its power under Article 226, could take the investigation away from the State police and entrust it to the Central Bureau of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IIIAD(SC)488; AIR1996SC1887; I(1996)BC659(SC); [1996]86CompCas555(SC); (1996)133CTR(SC)505; [1996]219ITR498(SC); JT1996(3)SC410; 1996(1)KLT699(SC); 1996(3)SCALE20; (199
ORDER1. The appellant herein is M/s. Imperial Chit Funds Private Limited, a company in liquidation, represented by the Official Liquidator, High Court of Kerala. The respondent is the Income Tax Officer, Ernakulam (the Revenue). The Liquidator has filed this appeal from the order passed by a Full Bench of the High Court of Kerala dated 19.8.1978 and rendered in report No. 53 in C.P. No. 7 of 1973. In the said report the Official Liquidator prayed that orders may be passed holding that income tax claimed by the revenue is not payable at that stage, and that the Income Tax Officer should wait and prove his claim before the Official Liquidator when the list of creditors is settled. The Full Bench, by the judgment appealed against, negatived the said prayer made by the Official Liquidator in his report. It is against the aforesaid judgment the Official Liquidator representing the Imperial Chit Funds Private Limited has come up in appeal.2. The Imperial Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd. is a private com...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IIIAD(SC)727; JT1996(4)SC239; 1996(3)SCALE555; (1996)9SCC188; [1996]3SCR668
ORDER1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides.3. The only question argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant is with regard to the belting of the land. An extent of 13 acres of land situated near Ludhiana was acquired for commercial-cum-residential purpose. Notification under Section 36 of the Punjab Town Improvement Act, 1922 which is pan materia to the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition act, 1894, was published on July 13, 1973. The Land Acquisition Officer in his award dated February 3, 1976 classified the lands as leveled-up land and low-lying land. In respect of the leveled-up land he awarded compensation @ Rs. 21 per sq. yd. and for the low lying land @ Rs. 13 per sq. yd. On reference, the District Judge awarded compensation @ Rs. 107 per square yard in respect of the lands abutting the main road at a depth of 5 karanams and for other land he awarded compensation @ Rs. 80 per sq. yd. and for the low-lying area @ Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IVAD(SC)132; AIR1996SC2052; JT1996(3)SC746; 1996(3)SCALE30; (1996)4SCC208; [1996]3SCR532; 1996(2)LC463(SC)
ORDER1. This appeal has been filed for setting aside the judgment of the High Court quashing the resolution dated 27.2.1981 of the respondent - Nagpur Improvement Trust (hereinafter referred to as the Trust) and directing the Trust to transfer the land in question to writ-petitioner/respondent (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) being the highest bidder.2. The said Trust had framed a scheme known as 'Central Avenue Scheme' and plot No. 57 in Circle No. 7/12 was leased out to C.P.Syndicate, Nagpur. However, the aforesaid C.P. Syndicate on 30.10.1957 transferred its right, title and interest in the lease-hold to the appellant No. 1, Laxmikant. The other appellants are brothers of appellant No. 1. One of the conditions imposed by the Trust in respect of the aforesaid lease was that the construction should start within four years from the date of the agreement of lease and it should be completed within three years thereafter. As this condition was not complied with, a notice was is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IIIAD(SC)622; AIR1997SC249; (1997)2CALLT19(SC); JT1996(4)SC241; 1996(3)SCALE388; (1996)8SCC280; [1996]3SCR530
1. Leave granted. Heard learned Counsel on both sides.2. The admitted position is that the respondents came to be appointed by proceedings dated April 25/26, 1985 as Constables in the State Armed Police. The basis for their recruitment was the list furnished by the Employment Exchange, Katwa. They are discharged from the service by proceedings effective from January 1, 1986 which came to be challenged in the High Court. The High Court has set aside the order of discharge. On appeal, it was confirmed in MFA No. 682/1987 by order dated March 26, 1991. Thus this appeal by special leave.3. In the discharge order, it was stated that the respondents had exercised the power under Rule 34(b) of the West Bengal Service Regulations (Part I) and the instructions contained in Memo No. 4145(2) dated November 22, 1985 of the Assistant Inspector General of Police, West Bengal. It is not in dispute that the Commissioner of Labour in his letter dated September 5/7, 1985 had informed the appellants that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC2519; 1997(2)BLJR1678; [1996]87CompCas881(SC); 1996(2)CTC93; JT1996(4)SC288; (1996)113PLR315; 1996(3)SCALE609; (1996)8SCC655; [1996]3SCR527
1. This appeal is treated as special leave petitioner under Article 136 of the Constitution.2. Leave granted.3. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides.4. This appeal arises from the order dated February 17, 1995 in FA No. 510 of 1992 of the National Consumer and Redressal Commission, New Delhi. The respondent-Haribandhu Setha filed a claim before the State Commission, Orissa under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, the 'Act') for damages. The State Commission awarded damages against the first respondent-LIC. In appeal, the appellant was impleaded as party-respondent and the National Forum awarded damages against the State in a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh only) and directed to pay compensation within a period of three months. Thus, this appeal by special leave.5. The only question is : whether the appellant is liable to pay compensation to Haribandhu Setha under the Act and whether the claim is maintainable. Section 2(1)(o) of the Act defines 'services' as under...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IIIAD(SC)116; AIR1996SC3054; [1996]219ITR358(SC); JT1996(3)SC391; 1996(2)SCALE830; (1996)8SCC4
ORDERS--Order of ITO refusing to condone delay in filing Form No. 12.Ratio & Held :The appeal filed by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against Income Tax Officer's order refusing to condone delay in filing Form No. 12 and thereby refusal to continue registration under section 184(7) is maintainable.Case Law Analysis :CIT v. Ashoka Engg. Co. (SC) followed.Application :Not to current assessment years.Income Tax Act 1961 s.246 1. This appeal is liable to be dismissed in view of this court's decision inCommissioner of Income Tax v. Ashoka Engineering Company : [1992]194ITR645(SC) . The question which was referred to the High Court Under Section 256(1) of theIncome Tax Act runs thus: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appeal filed by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against refusal to continue registration Under Section 184(7) is maintainable?2. In this case, Form No. 12, seeking renewal of registration was not fil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IVAD(SC)415; AIR1996SC3169; JT1996(4)SC155; 1996(3)SCALE339; (1996)8SCC282; [1996]3SCR520
1. Leave granted. Heard both the parties.2. This appeal by special leave arises from the order made on November 7, 1994 in W.P. No. 4190 of 1994 by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissing the writ petition in limine. It related to the challenge to the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the 'Act') acquiring the land in question for extension of S.T. Bus stand and depot in Pandharpur in Maharashtra State. It is no doubt true Pandharpur is one of the ancient and renowned temple town of Lord Vithoba to which all the devotees from several parts of the States, in particular of Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra congregate particularly in Ashad-hamas. It is the case of the appellant that due to traffic congestion it would not be feasible to extend the existing S.T. Bus stand and the depot in the congested area which gets reflected from the orders passed by the municipality, the recommendation made by the District Collecto...
Tag this Judgment!