Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1997ACJ1299; AIR1997SC1203; 1997(1)ALD(Cri)663; 1997(1)Crimes190(SC); JT1997(2)SC311; 2001(5)SCALE303; (1997)3SCC433
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. People's Union for Civil Liberties has filed this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus or other appropriate order or direction (1) to institute a judicial inquiry into the fake encounter by Imphal police on April 3, 1991 in which two persons of Lunthilian village were killed, (2) to direct appropriate action to be taken against the erring police officials and (3) to award compensation to the members of the families of the deceased. According to the petitioner, there was in truth no encounter but it was a case where certain villagers were caught by the police during the night of April 3, 1991, taken in a truck to a distant place and two of them killed there. It is alleged that three other persons who were also caught and taken away along with two deceased persons were kept in police custody for a number of days and taken to Mizoram. They were released on bail only on July 22, 1991. It is further submi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1997]224ITR560(SC); JT1997(2)SC401; 1997(1)SCALE763; (1997)3SCC323
1. The appellant is a public limited company. It was incorporated in the then Indian State of Kotah on 17.1.1945 for carrying on the business of quarrying stones. It is an assessee to Income-tax. This appeal is filed in pursuance to the certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench dated 26.11.1979 arising out of the judgment and order dated 30.7.1979 in Income-tax Reference No. 24 of 1970. The said judgment is reported in [CIT v. Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd.]. The High Court considered the validity of the re-assessments made on the appellant for the years 1950-51 to 1956-57 as also the legality of the assessments made for the years 1950-51 to 1956-57 as also the legality of the assessments made for the years 1957-58 to 1961-62 in its common judgment dated 30.7.1979 (ITR No. 24 of 1970). In deciding the legality and validity of the re-assessments for the years 1950-51 to 1956-57 some aspects were decided in favour of the assessee/appellant. On ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1998)9SCC268
ORDER1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26-7-1995 passed by the Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 1993. Such appeal was preferred by the respondent Mr. M.M. Rajendran against the judgment of the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Madras dated 18-12-1992 passed in CC No. 1 of 1991 (Crime No. 3/90 -- Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Police, Madras). The respondent was a Sub-Inspector of Police, Crimes attached to Saidapet Police Station. He was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Madras by the said order dated 18-12-1992 for the offence under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the consequential sentence passed for such offences. Before the High Court, it was alleged by the appellant that the said criminal case was not maintainable for not obtaining proper sanction required to be given by the appropriate authority for proceeding under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The trial court, however, proceede...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC1997b
1. A common question of law arises for consideration in both the appeals. The appeals are preferred against the judgments of the Bombay High Court in I.T.R. No. 40 of 1969 dated 7.7.1978 and I.T.R. No. 453 of 1975 dated 27.3.1987. Civil Appeal No. 1274 of 1980 preferred against the judgment of the Bombay High Court in I.T.R. No. 40 of 1969 is the main appeal. The judgment rendered therein is reported in : [1979]119ITR164(Bom) . This judgment was followed in the latter case, I.T.R. No. 453 of 1975.2. In Civil Appeal No. 1274 of 1980, the question arose with reference to the assessment year 1962-63, wherein the interpretation of Section 84 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it existed then, came up for consideration. Civil Appeal No. 9796 of 1995 is concerned with the assessment year 1969- 70, wherein Section 80J of the Act came up for consideration. It was agreed at the Bar and it is also fairly clear that the controversy in these cases, is regarding the interpretation of the crucial words...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)138CTR(SC)260
K. S. PARIPOORNAN, J. :The appellant is a public limited company. It was incorporated in the then Indian State of Kotah on 17th Jan., 1945 for carrying on the business of quarrying stones. It is an assessee to income-tax. This appeal is filed in pursuance to the certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench dt. 26th Nov., 1979 arising out of the judgment and order dt. 30th July, 1979 in IT Ref. No. 24 of 1970. The said judgment is reported in CIT vs . Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd. . The High Court considered the validity of the reassessments made on the appellant for the years 1950-51 to 1956-57 as also the legality of the assessments made for the years 1957-58 to 1961-62 in its common judgment dt. 30th July, 1979 (IT Ref. No. 24 of 1970). In deciding the legality and validity of the reassessments for the years 1950-51 to 1956-57 some aspects were decided in favour of the assessee/appellant. On a consolidated reference made by the Tribunal in re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC1030; [1997(75)FLR949]; JT1997(2)SC367; 1997(1)SCALE775; (1997)3SCC72
ORDER1. The first appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and carries on business at various places/centers in India having its registered office at Bombay. The first appellant (for short 'the Corporation') carries on its business of selling petrol and petroleum products at various places in India. The second appellant is the Director, Research and Development center, Faridabad in Haryana State.2. The respondent-Ashok Kumar Arora joined the service of the Corporation as a Junior Stenographer on August 6, 1974 and thereafter came to be promoted as Senior Stenographer on December 26, 1977.3. In the year 1964, it had come to the notice of the corporation that some of its employees were presenting false medical bills and getting them reimbursed from the Corporation. In order to verify the truth or otherwise of such claims, a vigilance enquiry was held by the office of Chairman of the Corporation (Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.) which unearthed a racket of its employe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC1436; [1997]224ITR310(SC); JT1997(2)SC284; 1997(1)SCALE758; (1997)3SCC346
ORDER1. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition Nos. 2357-59 of 1988, 3122 of 1987 and 6281 of 1986.2. In this batch of 18 cases, a common question of law-the scope of Section 10(22) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - arises for consideration. The main case is the decision rendered by the Madras High Court in Tax Case No. 114 of 1975 (Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras v. Aditanar Educational Institution, Madras). The said decision is reported in : [1979]118ITR235(Mad) . The assessee as well as the Revenue have filed appeals from the said decision, which covered a period of three years, 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68. The appeals filed by the assessee are Civil Appeal Nos. 2578-80 of 1979 and the appeals filed by the Revenue are Civil Appeal Nos. 356, 356A and 356B of 1980. Civil Appeal Nos. 41 and 42 of 1988 as also the appeals relating to Special Leave Petition Nos. 2357-59 of 1988 and 3122 of 1987 relate to the same assessee. The assessees in the other cases are different. In Ci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC1997; (1997)139CTR(SC)1; [1997]224ITR353(SC); JT1997(2)SC228; 1997(1)SCALE753; (1997)3SCC358
K. S. PARIPOORNAN, J. :A common question of law arises for consideration in both the appeals. The appeals are preferred against the judgments of the Bombay High Court in IT Ref. No. 40 of 1969 dt. 7th July,. 1978 and IT Ref. No. 453 of 1975 dt. 27th March, 1987. Civil Appeal No. 1274 of 1980 preferred against the judgment of the Bombay High Court in IT Ref. No. 40 of 1969 is the main appeal. The judgment rendered therein is reported in : [1979]119ITR164(Bom) : [1979]119ITR164(Bom) . This judgment was followed in the latter case, IT Ref. No. 453 of 1975.2. In Civil Appeal No. 1274 of 1980, the question arose with reference to the asst. yr. 1962-63, wherein the interpretation of s. 84 of the IT Act, 1961, as it existed then, came up for consideration. Civil Appeal No. 9796 of 1995 is concerned with the asst. yr. 1969-70, wherein s. 80J of the Act came up for consideration. It was agreed at the Bar and it is also fairly clear that the controversy in these cases, is regarding the interpret...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)139CTR(SC)7
K. S. PARIPOORNAN, J. :Leave granted in SLP Nos. 2357-59 of 1988, 3122 of 1987 and 6281 of 1986.2. In this batch of 18 cases, a common question of law -the scope of s. 10(22) of the IT Act, 1961 - arises for consideration. The main case is the decision rendered by the Madras High Court in Tax Case No. 114 of 1975 (Addl. CIT vs . Aditanar Educational Institution, Madras). The said decision is reported in : [1979]118ITR235(Mad) (Mad). The assessee as well as the Revenue have filed appeals from the said decision, which covered a period of three years, 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68. The appeals filed by the assessee are Civil Appeal Nos. 2578-80 of 1979 and the appeals filed by the Revenue are Civil Appeal Nos. 356, 356A and 356B of 1980. Civil Appeal Nos. 41 and 42 of 1988 as also the appeals relating to SLP Nos. 2357-59 of 1988 and 3122 of 1987 relate to the same assessee. The assessees in the other cases are different. In Civil Appeal Nos. 3881-82 of 1984 and 379-80 of 1985, the assessee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC1180; I(1997)DMC472SC; JT1997(2)SC640; (1997)116PLR670; RLW1997(2)SC236; 1997(2)SCALE46; (1997)9SCC471; 1997(1)LC628(SC)
1. This appeal by the wife arises out of a petition filed by the respondent in the Family Court at Bandra in Bombay seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion Under Sections 13(1)(1a) and 13(1)(1b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The parties were married on November 15, 1959. They have two children. The divorce petition was filed on February 26, 1990. It appears that during the period from 1990 to 1993 there was not much progress in the said petition. The Bombay High Court, while disposing of the Writ Petition No. 37 of 1993 filed by the appellant, gave the following direction in its order dated February 5, 1993:The Family Court, Bandra, is however directed to hear and dispose of M.J. Petition No. A-272/1990 as expeditiously as possible and preferably, by the end of June, 1993.2. The appellant was not being represented by any advocate before the family Court at that time. The date fixed before the Family Court in the divorce petition was March 9,1993 but since the Presidin...
Tag this Judgment!