Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1997(91)ELT526(SC); (1997)11SCC177
ORDER1. Mr. Harish N. Salve, the learned Counsel for the appellant urged a submission which is not found in the order impugned herein namely that the deduction is claimed on the basis of the equalised insurance and that the equalised insurance works out to be 20 paise. We find that the case proceeded before the Tribunal on the assumption that the insurance charges incurred were only Rs. 17.45/-. The extra amount was claimed on account of over head charges which the Tribunal held rightly are not liable to be deducted. We, therefore, cannot allow Mr. Salve to raise the said new question. We do not express any opinion on the question of levy of penalty. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2000]243ITR853(SC); JT1998(9)SC500; (1997)11SCC270
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is against the High Court's order rejecting the application made under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act to call for a reference on the following question of law, namely,Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A) directing the ITO to exclude the capital gains arising from the transfer of agricultural lands from the assessment?3. The High Court rejected the application in view of the decisions in Manubhai A. Sheth v. N.D. Nirgudkar : [1981]128ITR87(Bom) and J. Raghottama Reddy v. ITO : [1988]169ITR174(AP) . However, an explanation has been inserted in Sub-section (1-A) of Section 2 of the Income Tax Act by the Finance Act, 1989 with retrospective effect from 1-4-1970 to overcome the effect of those decisions. This being so, the aforesaid question of law does arise out of the Tribunal's order.4. Consequently, the appeal is allowed with the result that the application mad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC536; 1999CriLJ466; JT1998(9)SC473; (1997)11SCC286
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. Special leave granted.2. The respondent-wife has been served by substituted service but does not appear.3. The appellant-husband and the respondent-wife are estranged. The wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code for maintenance which was awarded at the rate of Rs. 350/- p.m. with effect from 3rd July, 1990, and was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 500/- p.m.4. In proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act the wife sought alimony. It was granted at the rate of Rs. 600/- p.m. on 11th August, 1987, and the amount, thereof was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 800/- p.m.5. Since the husband failed to pay the amount of maintenance as aforesaid, the wife started recovery proceedings. The husband contended that the maintenance amounts should be adjusted against the interim alimony and the Magistrate before whom the recovery proceedings were pending upheld the contention. The High Court, in the order which is under appeal, held that the Magistrate wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC892; JT1997(2)SC645; 1997(2)SCALE11; (1997)4SCC72; [1997]1SCR740; 1997(1)LC532(SC)
1. Special leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated September 16, 1994 whereby the Writ Petition No. 225 of 1992 filed by the appellant has been dismissed.3. The said Writ Petition relates to the enforcement of the 'Delivery to Mail Order 1991' (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1991 Order') issued by the Director General of Posts and Telegraphs in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (3) of Section 21 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') vide notification dated May 29, 1991. The 1991 Order was issued to deal with the growing problem of delivery of mail in high-rise multi-storeyed buildings that have come up as a result of vertical expansion of the large towns in the country. It provided for delivery of unregistered mail by the Post Office in the mail box of the addressee to be put at the ground floor of the building in which the addressee is located. By the impugned judgment, the High Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1604; 2000(121)ELT16(SC); JT1998(9)SC503; (1997)11SCC173
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. This appeal by special leave is against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dated 14th August, 1987 in Appeal No. 687 of 1984 by which the appeal of the assessee (respondent herein) was allowed setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge which had dismissed the assessee's writ petition.3. The only question for decision before the High Court was the availability of the plea of promissory estoppel to a party against issue of a notification in exercise of the statutory powers superseding the exemption from duty or tax granted earlier for a specified period. The learned Single Judge held against the assessee but the Division Bench of the High Court decided in the assessee's favour.4. The point is now settled by the decision of this Court in Kasinka Trading v. Union of India : 1994ECR637(SC) wherein such a plea of the assessee was rejected. This appeal has, therefore, to be allowed.5. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC1286; JT1997(2)SC503; 1997(2)SCALE102; (1997)4SCC480; [1997]1SCR748
1. Leave granted. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides.2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment dated May 24, 1996, passed by the High Court of Allahabad in W.P. No. 8654/95.3. The admitted position is that though lease was granted to the appellants on December 5, 1994, for one year and was executed, as admitted by the respondents, on the said date, it expired on December 5, 1995. It is contended that the lease granted to the appellants was cancelled by the Commissioner on February 17, 1995, and on a revision filed by the appellants to the State Government, by order dated March 23, 1995, the order of the Commissioner was set aside. But unfortunately the operation of the order of the Government was stayed by the High Court on May 21, 1995, and it set aside the order of the Government by the impugned order. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the direction of the High Court the auctions were conducted and third parties have been inducted to work out the excavatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC1095; [1997(75)FLR962]; JT1997(2)SC467; 1997(2)SCALE103; (1997)9SCC662; [1997]1SCR750; 1997(1)LC494(SC); (1997)2UPLBEC964
1. Leave granted. We have heard the counsel on both sides.2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, made on 3-5-1996, in C. M. W. P. No. 12592 of 1995, (reported in 1996 All LJ 1579. The legislature of Uttar Pradesh enacted the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes. Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 (for short, the 'Act'). Advertisement was issued by the University of Allahabad on January 30, 1995 inviting applications from all eligible persons for posts of ProfessOrs. Readers and Lecturers including the posts reserved for Scheduled Castes (for short, the 'Dalits'), Scheduled Tribes (for short, the Tribes') and Other Backward Classes (for short, the 'OBCs'). A clarification was issued by the Government on April 19,.1995 stating that for recruitment to the posts of Professors, Readers and Lecturers, University or College is treated as a unit and the recruitment would be made applying the rule of r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC954a; JT1997(2)SC171; (1997)ILLJ872SC; [1997]1SCR725
ORDERDr. A.S. Anand, J.1. Leave granted in both special leave petitions.2. The appellants are sister concerns. Their Letters Patent Appeals were disposed of by a common judgment and order dated 19-6-1995 upholding the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge on 18-7-1994 dismissing the writ petitions filed by appellants. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 19-0-1995.3. On 9th of December, 1986 a settlement was arrived at between the appellants and the employees union relating to service conditions of the workmen for the period 1-4-86 to 30-6-88. The settlement inter alia provided that VDA (variable dearness allowance) shall be paid at Rs. 21- per point of rise per month beyond AICPI 450 and the wages of the employees were linked with the VDA. The employees union issued a notice of its intention to terminate the settlement with a view to submit a fresh charter of demands on 1-7-88. A fresh charter of demands was submitted by the employees ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC1773; 1997(1)ALD(Cri)523; 1997CriLJ1632; 1997(1)Crimes114(SC); JT1997(2)SC72; 1997(1)SCALE538
ORDER1. These appeals are directed against judgment dated 17.4.1994 passed by the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 247 DB of 1993 arising out of judgment dated 15.6.1993 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Amritsar in Sessions Case No. 80 of 1989 renumbered as 354 of 1992 and in Criminal Appeal No. 277 88 of 1993 directed against the judgment dated 15.6.1993 passed by the Designated Court convicting the appellant under Section 25 of the Arms Act.2. In connection with the murder of Ratan Kaur in her house on 22.4.1989 at Batala Road in Amritsar, accused No. 1 Manmohan Singh the appellant herein and accused No. 2 Paranjit Singh were tried before the learned Sessions Judge Amritsar in the said Sessions Case under Section 302/34 IPC 454/120B IPC, 120B and 360 IPC. The accused No. 1 Manmohan Singh was also tried before the designated court for offence under Section 5 of TADA Act and under Section 25 Arms Act. The prosecution case in short is that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC954; [1997(75)FLR715]; (1997)3SCC150
A.S. Anand, J.1. Leave granted in both special leave petitions.2. The appellants arc sister concerns. Their Letters Patent Appeals were disposed of by a common judgment and order dated 19-6-1995 upholding the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge on 18-7-1994dismissing the writ petitions filed by appellants. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 19-o-1995.3. On 9th of December, 1986 a settlement was arrived at between the appellants and the employees union relating to service conditions of the workmen for the period 1-4-86 to 30-6-88. The settlement inter alia provided that VDA (variable dearness allownacc) shall be paid al Rs. 21- per point of rise per month beyond AICPI450 and the wages of the employees were linked with the VDA. The employees union issued a notice of its intention to terminate-the .settlement with a view to submit a fresh charter of demands on 1 -7-88. A fresh charter of demands was submitted by the employees union dem...
Tag this Judgment!