Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)97; AIR1996SC2752; (1997)1CALLT49(SC); JT1996(7)SC480; 1996(5)SCALE574; (1996)10SCC96; [1996]Supp4SCR17
ORDERG.B. Pattanaik, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25th September, 1995 passed by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dismissing the appeal which had been filed against the judgment of the Learned Single Judge dated 9th May, 1988 passed in Matter No. 64 of 1950.3. There are mass of facts and several litigations pending between the parties but it is not necessary to go into those controversies for disposing of the present appeal. Suffice it to state that the appellants had purchased the Premises No. 22/IC, Monoharpukur Road, Calcutta from Ballygunge Estate Pvt. Limited in course of a liquidation proceedings pursuant to a court sale dated 2nd May, 1974 and the sale deed in question had been executed on 16th August, 1974. After purchasing the property they were also in possession of the same. The respondents are the owners of the Premises No. 22/ID which they had purchased also from Ballygunge Estate Pvt. Limited as early as on 13th Jan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1996)5SCC390
S.P. Bharucha and; K.T. Thomas, JJ.1. The appellant runs a photocopying business. It has been assessed to sales tax for the Assessment Year 1978-79 (in Civil Appeal No. 5339 of 1992) and the Assessment Year 1979-80 (in Civil Appeal No. 2672 of 1992) on the basis that there was a sale by it of the photocopied or xeroxed document to the customer. The question that we are concerned with, therefore, is whether the making of photostat copies with the use of a xerox or other machine and delivering the copies so taken to the customer on receipt of payment amounts to a sale of goods exigible to tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.2. Section 2(n) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 read as under at the relevant time:“2. (n) ‘Sale’ with all its grammatical variations and cognate expressions means every transfer of the property in goods by one person to another in the course of business for cash or for deferred payment or other valuable consideration, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)94; [1991]19ITR344(SC); JT1996(8)SC44; 1996(5)SCALE580; (1996)11SCC259; [1996]Supp4SCR38
ORDER1. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench made on November 21, 1980 in Misc. Petition No. 44/79. The respondents issued a notice to the appellants calling upon them to remove the sign-board put up by the appellants in the property in question. Calling that notice in question, the appellants filed writ petition in the High Court admitting that pursuant to a notification issued under Section 71 of the M.P. Town Improvement Trust Act 1960, a housing scheme was evolved and pursuant to that notification the land stood vested in the Housing Board. It is their further case that thereafter since possession could not be secured by the Housing Board, the appellants' association was requested by a letter to have the possession secured from the illegal occupants and subsequent thereto industrial scheme was formulated since the mills were burnt out in a fire. On the basis thereof, they secured the pos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996(2)ALD(Cri)244; [1996]Supp4SCR28; AIR1996SC2478
ORDERK.T. Thomas, J.1. A youngman, by name Nanji, was Murdered on 23.8.1980, near Government Degree College, Dhar. The police arraigned five persons for the said murder and the Sessions Judge, after trial, convicted the first two among them (Kannaiyalal - first accused and Maniram - second accused) of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., and acquitted the remaining three persons. State filed an appeal challenging the acquittal and the convicted persons filed another appeal. High Court of Madhya Pradesh while confirming the conviction and sentence reversed the order of acquittal of 5th accused (Dhanna) and convicted him also of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. Sentence of imprisonment for life was awarded to all the convicts. We have before us two appeals by special leave, one jointly filed by Kannaiyalal and Maniram and the other separately filed by Dhanna.2. Prosecution set up the following case against five accused. Around 3.30 P.M. deceased Nanji, PW-1 Gopilal and PW-5 Narainla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)306; JT1996(9)SC1; 1996(5)SCALE700; (1996)5SCC701; [1996]Supp4SCR59
ORDER1. This appeal by special leave arises from the order passed by the learned single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on June 29, 1979 in C.R. No. 439 of 1977. The admitted facts are that the lands of the appellant came to be acquired for a public purpose. The Land Acquisition Officer made his award dated November 15, 1973 awarding compensation @ Rs. 1,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied therewith, the respondent made an application on April 29, 1974 for reference under Section 18. In furtherance thereof, a reference came to be filed in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Raipur. The District Judge found the statement as required under Section 19 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short, the 'Act']. On July 1, 1975, he directed issuance of notice to the appellant. It came to be adjourned from time to time for service on the appellant. Ultimately, on February 2, 1976 in the proceedings of the Court the notice was stated to have been served on the appellant but no date ther...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)167; AIR1996SC2643; 1996(5)SCALE564; (1996)6SCC213; [1996]Supp4SCR1
ORDER1. Delay condoned.2. Substitution allowed.3. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are ordered to be transposed as appellants.4. This appeal by special leave arises from the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court made on January 4, 1979 in CMWP No. 2960/77. The admitted position is that the first appellant as tenure-holder under the provisions of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (Act 1 of 1961) (for short, the 'Act') held bhumiswami lands of an extent of 182 acres in Ram Nagar and Nainital Tehsils of Nainital District and in tehsil Ranikhet of Almore district. In addition, his wife Smt. Basanti Devi held 127 bighas (24 acres) of agricultural land in the village Sanwakle, Tehsil Ram Nagar. After the Act has come into force, the tenure-holder was enjoined to file his return under Section 5 in Chapter II of the Act. When the land held by this wife was sought to be included in the holding of the appellant, his wife filed objection stating that she was in possession of the lan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VAD(SC)738; AIR1996SC3482; JT1997(10)SC481; 1996(5)SCALE543; (1996)10SCC620
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.1. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short, the 'Act'] initially was published on May 25, 1956 acquiring a huge extent of 985.95 acres of land for industrial purpose in Durgapur. It would appear that subsequently the notification got lapsed. Consequently, the second notification came to be published on August 10, 1964. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation @ Rs. 2,310/- per acre. In this case, we are concerned with the extent of the lands in 5 plots in Survey Nos. 710, 762, 824 and 912 of an extent of 0.33, 0.11, 0.63, 0.13 and 0.49 acres respectively. The reference Court enhanced the compensation @ Rs. 1,45,000/- per acre relying upon Ext. l(d) dated April 24, 1964. It is settled law that the similar lands were of large extent involved for acquisition and on evidence relied upon, even the High Court has doubted the genuineness of this document. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the appell...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)265; AIR1996SC2540; 1997(57)ECC45; 1996(86)ELT182(SC); JT1996(8)SC261; 1996(5)SCALE505; (1996)5SCC373; [1996]Supp3SCR881
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. The appellants manufacture explosives from ammonium nitrate melt 80% at a plant in Rourkela, Orissa. The said ammonium nitrate is purchased from SAIL., which also has a plant in Rourkela.2. On 11th June, 1969 an Exemption Notification under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, (No. 164/1969) was issued by the Central Government exempting ammonium nitrate from the whole of the excise duty leviable thereon if it was intended to be used in the manufacture, inter alia, of explosives, provided that the procedure set out in Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, was followed. The appellants applied for a licence under the said Chapter X in respect of the said ammonium nitrate for use in the manufacture of explosives. The licence having been granted, the appellants enjoined the benefit of the said Exemption Notification.3. At all relevant times, ammonium nitrate was classified as a fertiliser under Tariff Item 14HH. On 16th April, 1977 a show cause notice was issu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)86; AIR1996SC2660; JT1996(7)SC109; 1996(5)SCALE558; (1996)5SCC547; [1996]Supp4SCR13
1. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides.2. These appeals arise from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court made on November 21, 1989 in MFA No. 2114/85 and batch. The only controversy raised and argued before us is : whether the High Court was justified in refusing to permit the appellants to pay the deficit court fees and to enhance the compensation @ Rs. 75,000 per acre? The admitted facts are that notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (For short, the 'Act') was published on September 29, 1977 acquiring large extent of land by the Bangalore Development Authority for the formation of a layout called 'Byrasandra Tavarekere Madiwala Scheme' (for short, 'BTM Layout'). The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation ranging from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 16,000 per acre in 1981. On reference by judgment dated October 18, 1985, the Civil Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs. 45,000 per acre. The appellants filed the appeals in 1986 and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)232; AIR1996SC2705; JT1996(7)SC98; 1996(5)SCALE560; (1996)10SCC456; [1996]Supp4SCR5
1. These appeals by special leave arise from the order of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court made on May 10, 1979 in W.P. Nos. 2171 and 2172 of 1977. The admitted facts are that the appellant Vidyapith though initially was a society constituted under the Societies Registration Act, by operation of Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (for short, the 'Universities Act'), it became a deemed university w.e.f. 16.1.1974 after the publication of the notification under Section (4)2 on 10.1.1974. Though proceedings were initiated in the year 1971-72 for acquisition of the lands for construction for the university campus buildings including the staff quarters etc., the notification under Section 4(1) of the land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) (for short, the 'Act') came to be published in the State Gazette on 19.4.1974. After enquiry was conducted under Section 5A declaration, under Section 6(1) was published on March 27, 1977. The respondents ca...
Tag this Judgment!