Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)140CTR(SC)334; [1997]225ITR447(SC)
1. These appeals are preferred against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court answering the following question in the affirmative that is in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessments for the years 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63 have been validly reopened under Section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?2. The appellant is the Andhra Bank Limited and the assessment years concerned are 1960-61 to 1962-63. The bank was following the calendar year as its accounting year. In the course of its banking business, it was purchasing Government securities and also selling them from time to time. On Government promissory notes and securities, interest is payable on specified dates, but, all the same, the transferor or the transferee can calculate the interest which has accrued on such promissory notes and pay or receive such amount of interest on the date of and up to the date of purchase or sale. The assessee ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VAD(SC)13; AIR1997SC7; JT1996(5)SC459; 1996LabIC2747; (1996)IILLJ638SC; 1996(4)SCALE478; (1996)9SCC221; [1996]Supp2SCR235; 1996(2)SLJ55(SC); (1996)3UPLBEC1943
1. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal made on September 13, 1991 in T.A. No. 302/86. The admitted position is that the appellant was appointed as a Veterinary Extension Officer on 10.10.1958. Thereafter in 1965, he was posted as a Supervisor in Milk Service Scheme at Rourkela as In-charge of animals stationed at Khapuria. In 1969 also, he was posted as Dairy Overseer. The appellant claimed to have been promoted to the rank of Dairy Supervisor on 26.11.1969 and was posted as a Farm Manager in District Livestock breeding Firm. He claimed that he is entitled to equal pay for equal work from 1969 to 1974 and from 1974 to 1977 as From Manager. It is an admitted position that in 1977, he obtained B.V.S. degree and on his securing the degree he was given the pay-scale of Rs. 525-975 applicable to Class II Gazetted scale from 1.7.77. Farm Manager is Class II post. The Tribunal has pointed out in the order that though the Farm Manager is an ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IVAD(SC)281; AIR1996SC1846; 1996(2)BLJR1436; JT1996(4)SC533; 1996(4)SCALE75; (1996)4SCC1; [1996]Supp2SCR136
ORDERS.P. Bharucha, J.1. Special leave granted.2. These appeals impugn the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in Letters Patent appeals. The Letters Patent appeals challenged the judgment and order of a learned single Judge allowing a writ petition. The Letters Patent appeals were dismissed, subject to a direction to the Union of India (the second respondent). The writ petition was filed by the first respondent to quash the certificate of exhibition awarded to the film 'Bandit Queen' and to restrain its exhibition in India.3. The film deals with the life of Phoolan Devi. It is based upon a true story. Still a child, Phoolan Devi was married off to a man old enough to be her father. She was beaten and raped by him. She was tormented by the boys of the village; and beaten by them when she foiled the advances of one of them. A village Panchayat called after the incident blamed Phoolan Devi for attempting to entice the boy, who belonged to a higher caste. Con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IVAD(SC)541; AIR1996SC2066; JT1996(5)SC333; 1996(4)SCALE305; (1996)4SCC60; [1996]Supp2SCR184; (1996)3UPLBEC2119
ORDERN.P. Singh, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal has been filed on behalf of the Gujarat University (hereinafter referred to as the university) for setting aside an order dated 30.9.1991, passed by the Court directing the appellant-university to grant admission to the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) in the super speciality course of M.Ch. (Master of Chirurgee) in Once surgery, in the session which commenced from 1.7.1991.3. It appears that the appellant-university invited applications for admission to two years' super speciality courses of D.M. and M.Ch. commencing from 1.7.1991. An entrance examination was also conducted to select the students for admission in the aforesaid courses. The number of seats in the super speciality courses are very limited, because of in which the rule framed by the appellant-university it has been provided that the first preference shall be given to the students of the appellant-university. The students from other universitie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC2082; 1997(57)ECC1; JT1996(5)SC482; 1996(4)SCALE622; (1996)4SCC433; [1996]Supp2SCR204; [1996]102STC106(SC)
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. Leave granted in Special Leave Petitions.This batch of appeals and writ petitions raise the question - whether the tranfer of an Import Licence called R.E.P. License/Exam Scrip by the holder thereof to another person constitutes a sale of goods within the meaning of and for the purposes of the Sales Tax enactments of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala. If it does, it is exigible to sales tax. Otherwise not. The Karnataka and Madras High Courts have taken the view that R.E.P. Licences/Exim Scrips constitute goods and, therefore, on their transfer, sales tax is leviable. Their judgment appears to be influenced mainly by the decision of this Court in H. Anraj Etc. v. Government of Tamil Nadu Etc. [1985] Suppl. (3) S.C.R. 342.2. With a view to conserve precious foreign exchange and to channelise the nation's economy on desired lines, the Central Legislature enacted the Imports and Exports (Control) Act in 1947. Section 3 empowers the Central Government to make pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IVAD(SC)673; AIR1996SC2224; JT1996(5)SC644; 1996(4)SCALE598; (1996)9SCC49; [1996]Supp2SCR243
1. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Kerala High Court dated March 20, 1995 made in S.A. No. 995/89. The admitted position is that the appellants' predecessor one Mr. Vellu had entered into an agreement with the respondent Devaswam for construction of residential premises on an extent of 3-1/2 cents of land under Ex. A-1 dated November 25, 1921. The extent is of 5 x 7 six ft. Koles with a boundary specified thereunder. The building constructed on this land has Municipal No. 177. Thereafter it would appear that the appellant had extended their possession to 10-3/10 cents and 13-1/5 cents at different times. The respondent has filed the suit for eviction of the appellants and possession thereof. The trial Court and the appellate Court have dismissed the suit and the appeal. But in the second appeal, the High Court declared that the permission granted by the Executive officer, Ex.B-8 does not confer any title. The appellants claim cannot extend beyond what has b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IVAD(SC)93; AIR1996SC1998; 1996(2)ALD(Cri)10; 1996(2)ALT(Cri)444; 1996(44)BLJR934; 1996CriLJ2860; 1996(2)Crimes136(SC); JT1996(6)SC120; 1996(II)OLR(SC)165; 1996(4)SCALE
ORDERK.T. Thomas, J.1. Thirteen persons were arraigned in the trial court to face charges for offences including Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC, out of which Sessions Court convicted only four of the offences under Section 304 Part I of IPC and Section 25(1) of the Indian Arms Act. Others were acquitted. The convicted persons were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years each on the first count and rigorous imprisonment for 6 months each on the second count. They filed appeal before the Patna High Court. The State of Bihar filed another appeal challenging acquittal of 9 accused as well as the order exonerating the convicted persons of the offence under Section 302 IPC. At the appellate stage there was reversal of fortune for all the arraigned persons as the High Court found all of them guilty under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. Hence the present appeals by the accused persons by special leave.2. We are informed that during the pendency of these appeals two of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IVAD(SC)455; AIR1996SC2030; [1996(73)FLR1636]; JT1996(5)SC275; 1996LabIC1730; (1996)IILLJ519SC; 1997(1)MPLJ473; 1996(4)SCALE150; (1996)4SCC504; [1996]Supp2SCR172; 1996(
ORDERG.T. Nanavati, J.1. Appellant No. 2, Dayal Dass Khanna, joined the Allahabad Bank (Respondent No. 1) as a Clerk on 24.7.1946. He was promoted as an Officer on 15.9.1967 and his further promotions from Scale I to Scale II and from Scale II to Scale III in the Officer's Cadre were on 1.1.1976 and 1.10.1977 respectively. On 15.8.1979 he was elected as a General Secretary of Allahabad Bank Officers Association (Appellant No. 1), a registered trade union duly recognised by the Bank. In November 1982 he was considered for further promotion from Scale III to Scale IV but was denied promotion because he was found lacking in potential. In March 1984 a Special Committee was constituted under Regulation 19 of the Allahabad Bank (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 to review the cases of 20 Officers, including Appellant No. 2, for recommending whether they should be retired earlier or allowed to serve till the age of superannuation. The Committee unanimously recommended compulsory retirement ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IVAD(SC)80; AIR1996SC2158; 1996(2)ALD(Cri)232; (1997)2CALLT12(SC); 1996CriLJ2885; 1996(2)Crimes133(SC); 1996(2)CTC507; JT1996(5)SC537; 1996(II)OLR(SC)108; 1996(4)SCALE1
ORDERM.M. Punchhi, J.1. This appeal by special leave is against the judgment and order dated 30th August, 1994 of the High Court of Calcutta in Criminal Revision No. 1971 of 1983, whereby proceedings in a criminal complaint filed by the appellant were quashed.2. The case of the appellant is that she was married to the second respondent Shambhu Nath Sarkar on 6.12.1976. A son was born out of the wedlock on 20th November, 1977. The marriage between the spouses statedly was not smooth. On 15.9.1983, the second respondent married the third respondent before the Registrar of Marriages, to which ceremony/proceeding the 4th, 5th and 6th respondent, illegally collaborated. The appellant having come to know of the second marriage filed a criminal complaint on 4.4.1984 before the Judicial Magistrate, Basirhat, 24 Parganas, alleging commission of offence, under Section 494 read with Section 109 IPC. Preliminary evidence as envisaged under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was adduced ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC3538a; 1996(2)ALT27(SC); 1996(44)BLJR1025; (1997)2CALLT8(SC); 1996CriLJ2380; 1996(2)CTC356; II(1996)DMC49SC; (1997)2GLR1297(SC); JT1996(4)SC701; 1996(0)MPLJ636; 19
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. 'Common Cause', a registered society espousing public causes has asked for certain general directions in this writ petition, preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, with respect to cases pending in criminal courts all over the country. The directions asked for are:(a) quashing of ail proceedings against persons accused of offences under the Motor Vehicles Act where the proceedings were initiated more than one year ago and are still pending in any court in the country;(b) to direct the unconditional release of the accused and dismissal of all proceedings pending in Criminal Courts with respect to offences under Indian Penal Code or other penal statutes which have been pending for more than three years from the date of their institution and for which offences the maximum sentence provided under law is not more that six months - with or without fine. This direction is sought in respect of all prosecutions whether lodged by police, other governmenta...
Tag this Judgment!