Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IXAD(SC)283; I(1997)BC1(SC); [1996(74)FLR2632]; JT1996(9)SC542; (1997)ILLJ537SC; 1996(7)SCALE587; (1996)6SCC415; [1996]Supp6SCR542; 1997(1)SLJ237(SC); 1996(2)LC831(SC)
ORDER1. This petition is filed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench made on March 13, 1996 in L.P.A. No. 80/96.2. The admitted position is that the petitioner was working as a Branch Manager in the respondent-Bank. A sum of Rs. 20,000/- was found to be short in cash of the Branch. Therefore, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and an enquiry was conducted and he was removed from service. He challenged the order of his removal in an appeal which was dismissed; the writ petition filed by him was also dismissed by the learned single Judge of the High Court and on appeal, it was confirmed.3. The only controversy raised in the High Court was that as he was not supplied with the copy of the enquiry report, the order of dismissal was bad in law. The learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court have considered the effect of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Managing Director, ECU...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIIIAD(SC)164; AIR1997SC1467; JT1996(9)SC382; 1996(7)SCALE470; (1996)11SCC462; [1996]Supp6SCR529; 1997(1)LC29(SC)
1. Substitution allowed2. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.3. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the 'Act') was published on June 11,1985. The Government also exercised the power under Section 17(4) of the Act and dispensed with the enquiry under Section 5-A and had the declaration under Section 6 published on June 13, 1985. The publication of substance of the notification in the local newspapers came to be made on July 25, 1985. In August 1985, the respondents filed a batch of writ petitions in the High Court impugning the validity of the notification under Section 4(1) and of the declaration under Section 6 on six grounds. Five of the grounds raised by the respondents were negatived by the High Court as not sustainable but declaration under Section 6 was quashed on the ground that after the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 had come into force w.e.f. September 24,1984, the simultaneous publication of the declaration under Section 6 al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIIAD(SC)654; JT1996(9)SC263; 1996(7)SCALE345; (1996)10SCC671; [1996]Supp6SCR514
ORDER1. This appeal has been filed for setting aside the judgment of the High Court, dismissing the application under Section 16(3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) filed on behalf of the appellants, claiming retransfer of the lands which had been transferred by respondent No. 5 in favour of respondent No. 7 through the registered sale deed dated 30.12.1969. The respondent No. 7 by the aforesaid sale deed purchased 5 kathas of land of survey plot No. 610 and 6 kathas 10 dhurs of land of survey plot No. 614 from respondent No. 5 for a consideration amount of Rs. 4,600/-. The purchase had been made for construction of house in Mohalla Sahjadpur Aderkila within the town of Hajipur.2. An application under Sub-section (3) of Section 16 of the Act was filed on behalf of the appellants before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, for a direction that respondent No. 7, the transferee be directed to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIIAD(SC)795; 1997(1)CTC36; JT1996(9)SC343; (1997)1MLJ135(SC); 1996(7)SCALE449; (1996)6SCC399; [1996]Supp6SCR523
ORDER1. A Bench of three Judges of this Court by judgment dated May 26, 1989 while negativing all the contentions raised by the appellant-tenant found merit in the contention raised by the Counsel that if the first appellant was in effective control over the management of the business of the partnership to which he had taken two other partners, it would amount that he had not sublet the premises and that he would be 'a tenant' within the meaning of Sub-clause (a) of Clause (ii) of Sub-section (4) of Section 2 of the Tamil Nadu City Protection Act, 1922.2. Sub-section (4) of Section 2 defines the terms 'tenant' in relation to any land. Clause (i) thereof runs as follows:(i) means a person liable to pay rent in respect of such land, under a tenancy agreement express or implied.3. Sub-clause (a) of Clause (ii) of Sub-section (4) of Section 2 of the said Act runs as follows:(a) any such person as is referred to in Sub-clause (i) who continues in possession of the land after the determinati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1997(90)ELT20(SC); (1997)10SCC458
ORDER1. The appeal challenges the correctness of an order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal in an appeal filed before it by the present appellants. The appellants had a factory at Goregaon and a godown at Gaushala. It was their case that they converted steel sheets and strips into circles at the godown, and converted the circles into stainless steel utensils and surgical and hospital ware at the factory. They claimed the benefit of an exemption notification dated 18-6-1977 issued under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules whereby goods falling under Tariff Item 68 cleared for home consumption on or after 1st April in any financial year by or on behalf of the manufacturer from one or more factories were exempted from the whole of the excise duty leviable thereon if a Central Excise Officer of the rank therein stated was satisfied that the sum total of the value of the capital investment on plant and machinery installed in the industrial unit in which the goods w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC25; [1996(74)FLR2371]; JT1996(8)SC499; 1996(7)SCALE129; (1996)10SCC562; [1996]Supp6SCR486; 1997(1)SLJ229(SC)
Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. Leave granted in both the special leave petitions.Civil Appeal No. 12310/1996 (@ SLP (c) No. 13705/95.2. Respondent No. 1 appeared in the Civil Service Examination con-ducted by the Union Public Service Commission in the year 1985. He was selected for appointment to the Indian Administrative Service in the 1986 batch. The home Stale of respondent No. 1 is Nagaland and he gave his preference for allocation to his home State cadre. There were two seats which were available for allocation to Nagaland. Both these seats were earmarked for outsiders as per the 30 point roster. Hence the first respondent was allocated to the Slate of Haryana. He challenge this allocation by filing an application before the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal has allowed the application and directed the appellant-Union of India to consider the transfer of respondent No. 1 from the Haryana cadre to the Nagaland cadre in the manner set out in the order. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC25a; 1996LabIC2754; (1997)1UPLBEC65
ORDERMrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. Leave granted in both the special leave petitions.Civil Appeal No. 12310/96 (@ S.L.P. (C) No. 13705/95)2. Respondent No. 1 appeared in the Civil Service Examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission in the year 1985. He was selected for appointment to the Indian Administrative Service in the 1986 batch. The home State of respondent No. 1 is Nagaland and he gave his preference for allocation to his home State cadre. There were two seats which were available for allocation to Nagaland. Both these seats were earmarked for outsiders as per the 30 point roster. Hence the first respondent was allocated to the State of Haryana. He challenged this allocation by filing an application before the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal has allowed the application and directed the appellant-Union of India to consider the transfer of respondent No. 1 from the Haryana cadre to the Nagaland cadre in the manner set out in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996(87)ELT340(SC); (1997)10SCC225; [2003]132STC99(SC)
ORDER1. The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal has accepted the respondent's contention and classified the raincoats and caps made by the respondent within Item 22D of the Central Excise Tariff. That refers to 'articles of ready to wear apparel (known commercially as ready-made garments)'. Learned Counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the fact that the respondent had taken the stand earlier that the raincoats and caps were not classifiable under Item 22D and had changed the stand only after the residuary Tariff Item 68 was introduced. He submitted that while it was open to the respondent to change the stand, it had not produced any evidence of the trade to support the changed stand.2. In our view, plainly, a reasonable approach has been adopted by the Tribunal in classifying raincoats and caps as articles of ready to wear apparel (known commercially as ready-made garments) and no interference with the classification is called for.3. The appeal is dismissed,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIIIAD(SC)46; AIR1997SC3074; 1998(1)ALLMR(SC)149; [1997(75)FLR417]; JT1996(9)SC320; (1997)ILLJ977SC; 1997(1)MPLJ65; 1996(7)SCALE494; (1997)2SCC332; [1996]Supp6SCR503; 1
1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. On the last occasion when the matter had come up after notice, since the respondents were not represented either in person or through counsel and when the Counsel had pointed out the decision followed by the Tribunal, namely, Dr. Chakradhar Pasvan v. State of Bihar : (1988)IILLJ66SC , this Court had referred the matter to three-Judge Bench. Thus, the matter has come up today. Even now, none is appearing for the respondents; nor are they appearing in person. We have taken the assistance of Sri Goswami, learned Senior Counsel. We requested him to place on record the decisions for or against him. He has fairly argued case.4. The admitted facts are that in the National Savings Scheme Service, the Government had created various posts upto the post of Superintendent; there are number of posts but there is only one post of Secretary. This post is a feeder post for promotion as Regional Deputy Director in which category there are several posts. The Governm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)10SCC455; [1997]104STC91(SC)
ORDER1. The appeal is concerned with a notification issued by the respondent-State of Rajasthan on 9th March, 1970, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, levying sales tax at the rate of 7 per cent on 'watery coconuts'. The notification was challenged on the ground that watery coconuts fell within the purview of Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and that, therefore, the levy at the rate of 7 per cent was bad. The notification was upheld by a learned single Judge and, in the order appealed against, by a Division Bench of the High Court, reliance being placed upon the judgment of this Court in Sri Siddhi Vinayaka Coconut & Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh : [1975]1SCR440 .2. In Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act certain goods are specified which are of 'special importance in inter-State trade or commerce'. They include : (vi) Oilseeds, that is to say,- (viii) Coconut (i.e., copra excluding tender coconuts) (Coconut nuciferd...
Tag this Judgment!