Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC1995; (1999)2CALLT2(SC); JT1997(3)SC62; (1998)9SCC108; [1997]2SCR199; 1997(1)LC670(SC)
The petitioner is the judgment-debtor. A decree for specific performance was granted by the Trial Court way back in June 15, 1982 in Title Suit No. 46/1976 which way reversed by the Appellant Court but restored by the High Court. Special Leave Petition was dismissed by this Court. Consequently, the decree for specific performance has become final. It would appear that Trial Court directed the respondents to deposit the balance consideration of Rs.500/- and draft sale deed on or before June 7, 1982. An application for extension with the challen came to be filed and the same was ordered by the Court on August 20, 1982. The petitioner filed an application under Sec.28 (1) of the Specific Relief Act to rescind the contract. The Trial Court dismissed the petition. On appeal it was confirmed. In the revision also, the High Court confirmed the same. Thus, this Special Leave Petition. It is true that, as pointed out by Shri Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Trial Court whi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1997(3)SC356; (1999)IMLJ10(SC); 1997(2)SCALE499; (1997)4SCC102; [1997]2SCR210
ORDERCA. No. 947 of 19801. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment dated 19th March, 1980 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Allahabad in SA No. 1940 of 1977.2. The admitted position is that one Hari Das owned considerable properties situated in the town Khair of Aligarh District which is part of Schedule 'B' attached to the Plaint. He constructed a temple, by name Shri Jugal Kishoreji Maharaj Mandir. Therein, the principal deity is Lord Krishna & Radha. He endowed all his properties to the Mandir. During his life time, he was in-charge of the temple as de facto trustee and he did seva (service) and pooja to the deity. After the abolition of the estate under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950, Bhumidari rights in the properties were conferred on the deity Lord Krishna and Radha. Hari Dass left behind him four chelas by name, Narian Das, Bansi Dass, Manohar Dass and Ram Dass alias Ram Chander Appellant No. 1 Rambir Das and his Brothe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC1115; JT1997(2)SC624; 1997(2)SCALE200; (1997)4SCC114; [1997]2SCR175
ORDERK.S. Paripoornan, J.1. This appeal by special leave is filed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, rendered in C.R.P. No. 1894 of 1988 dated 18.7.1994. The appellants are the legal representatives of T. Mammad, the 'declarant' under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The declarant had three wives and ten children by the said three wives. He filed a declaration regarding the land held and possessed by him before the Taluk Land Board, Taliparamba (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'). In his statement, he had opted his wife Pathu (first wife) and her minor children as his 'statutory family' by exercising the option specified in explanation I to Section 82 of the Act. The Board, by order dated 28.8.1986 directed the declarant to surrender 160.54 acres of land held by him in excess of the ceiling area. In revision, C.R.P. No. 2131 of 1986 the High Court set aside the order of the Board and ordered a remit. Thereaft...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC1240; 1997(2)ALT1(SC); JT1997(2)SC699; 1997(2)SCALE205; (1997)3SCC443; [1997]2SCR152
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. A question of some general importance arises in these appeals. The question is whether a person who disobeys an interim injunction made by the Civil Court can be punished under Rule 2-A of Order 39 of the CPC where it is ultimately found that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit? A learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court has opined, following certain earlier decisions of that Court, that he cannot be. The reason given is : once it is found that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the said suit, all interim orders made therein must also be deemed to be without jurisdiction and, hence, a person flouting such interim orders cannot be punished for their violation. The correctness of the said view is questioned in this appeal by the plaintiff- appellant. 2. The first defendant, Hind Rubber Industries Private Limited, is the tenant of the ground floor in the suit house. The appellant is the landlord. On August 25, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)140CTR(SC)275; [1997]224ITR591(SC); JT1997(3)SC223; 1997(2)SCALE433; (1997)3SCC659
1. This appeal by the assessee arises out of a reference made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') to the Allahabad High Court wherein two questions were referred for opinion. Both the questions have been answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. In the present appeal we are only concerned with question No. 2 which is in the following terms:Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the payment of Sales Tax composition fee of Rs. 1,91,887/- was an allowable expenditure for the assessment year 1968-69?2. The matter relates to the assessment year 1968-69. The assessee deals in the business of manufacture and sale of biris. By notification published in the U.P. Gazette dated December 14, 1957 it was prescribed that no sales tax was payable with effect from December 14, 1957 in respect of biris provided that the additional central excise duties leviable thereon from the close of business on December 13, 1957 had b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1997(3)SC214; 1997(2)SCALE380; (1997)4SCC451; [1997]2SCR208; 1997(1)LC655(SC)
ORDER1. Delay condoned.2. This special leave petition arises from the judgment and order dated July 16, 1996 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in C.R.P. No. 5643 of 1990.3. The respondent suffered a decree in a sum of Rs. 3,825.85 for recovery of which his property was brought to sale on December 18, 1978 and the petitioner purchased the same for a sum of Rs. 67, 000. An application was filed by the respondent under Order XXI, Rule 90 of the CPC (CPC) impugning the legality of the sale conducted. The executing Court dismissed the application by order dated August 16, 1990. On appeal, the appellate Court set aside the order of the executing Court and allowed the petition declaring that the sale was illegal. On revision, the High Court by the impugned order has confirmed the same. The finding recorded by the appellate Court and the High Court is that non-compliance of the procedure required under Order XXI, Rule 64, CPC had vitiated the sale. 4. It is contend...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000(121)ELT17(SC); (1997)10SCC235
ORDERS.P. Bharucha and S.B. Majmudar, JJ.1. It was found as a fact that the respondents fit, part by part, specialised equipment on to a motor vehicle chassis so as to produce the sort of specialised motor vehicle that is commonly seen at airports and the like. Finding that the specialised equipment had not been assembled first and then mounted onto the chassis, the Tribunal referred to Explanation II of Item 34 of the erstwhile excise tariff, which was applicable, and held that the authorities below had been in error in seeking to levy excise duty under Entry 68 on the specialised equipment on the chassis. 2. This view is so plainly correct that it is not necessary to go into the alternative contention on behalf of the assessee, which was also accepted by the Tribunal. 3. The civil appeal is dismissed, with no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC1329; 1997(90)ELT276(SC); JT1997(3)SC72; 1997(2)SCALE221; (1997)4SCC77; [1997]2SCR117
ORDERS.P. Bharucha, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal and it concerns the assessment of project imports for the purposes of Customs duty.2. Prior to the introduction of Item 72A in the earlier Customs Tariff, individual imports, though intended for a single project, were separately assessed to Customs duty. To obviate the inconveniences that resulted, the facility of project imports was introduced and it required that the contract relating to the project import should be registered. The Project Imports (Registration of Contract) Regulations, 1965, were introduced as a consequence. They provide that every importer claiming assessment of articles falling under the relevant entry, being Heading 84.66 of the present Customs Tariff, should apply to the appropriate officer of Customs at the port where the goods are to be imported for registration of his contract. The application in that behalf must specify 'such...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1997(92)ELT18(SC); (1997)5SCC762
ORDER1. The question that falls for determination in this case is whether the Board could in exercise of the power under Section 35E(1) call for and examine the record of an order passed by the Collector in revision, under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that this order in revision passed by the Collector is not an order of adjudication, but only an order passed in revision of the order of adjudication. That being the case, the Board could not invoke its power under Section 35E(1) of the Act to further revise the revisional order of the Collector.2. We agree with the views of the Tribunal. The Appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)10SCC230
Order 1. These special leave petitions relate to appointment on the posts of Assistant Linemen and Shift Attendants in the Haryana State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”). The petitioners were selected and have been appointed on these posts. Their appointments were challenged in the writ petitions filed before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana which were allowed by the learned Single Judge by his judgment dated 25-11-1995. Before the learned Single Judge it was submitted on behalf of petitioners that the selection was made by a Selection Committee in each circle on the basis of marks and that out of 25 marks that were prescribed 5 marks were allotted for experience and 5 marks were allotted for extra-curricular activities and 15 marks were allotted for interview. It was also pointed out that although in the advertisement whereby applications were invited it was stated that there were 791 posts of Assistant Linemen and 250 posts of Shift Att...
Tag this Judgment!