Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1997(4)SC310; 1997(3)SCALE173; (1997)5SCC473
ORDER1. By judgment dated 4.5.1990 in Writ Petition No. 13347 of 1983, this Court directed the Central Government to notify in the official gazette the Constitution of an appropriate Tribunal for the adjudication of water dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants.2. By Notification dated 2.6.1990, a Tribunal namely : Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') was constituted for adjudicating the water disputes regarding the inter-state river Cauvery and the river valley thereof. After the said Notification, interim application was filed by the plaintiff before the Tribunal praying for the following reliefs:(a) direct the State of Karnataka not to impound or utilise water of Cauvery river beyond the extent impounded or utilised by them as on 31.5.1972, as agreed to by the Chief Minister of the basin States and the Union Minister for Irrigation and Powers, that day : and(b) Pass on order of injunction restraining the State of Karnataka from Underta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1997(4)SC118; (1997)IILLJ156SC; 1997(3)SCALE203
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The appellant in these appeals, E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd., owns factories and commercial establishments. One of its factories is at Ranipet. Parry and Company Ltd., a subsidiary of the appellant-company has only commercial establishments. These appeals arise from claims made by various categories of employees of the appellant before the Labour Court under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking to recover, inter alia, a retirement allowance and an annual review of this retirement allowance in terms of General Office Order No. 26 dated 1.12.1943 and the settlements of 1956. The orders of the Labour Court in one set of applications were challenged before the Madras High Court in various writ petitions from which appeals were filed before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench by its judgment and order dated 25.6.1994 held that in the case of workers in the Ranipet factory, those workers who had availed of any of the Voluntary...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)139CTR(SC)378
G. B. PATTANAIK, J. :This appeal by special leave is against the judgment of the Bombay High Court in IT Ref. No. 86 of 1970. At the instance of the Revenue on an application being filed under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal referred the following two questions to the High Court for being answered and the High Court answered both the questions in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The two questions are :'(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, income by way of any 'interest on securities' received from Government could be excluded in the computation of chargeable profits in terms of cl. (x) of r. 1 of the First Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963.(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that only the proportionate interest of Rs. 5,19,804 on borrowings should be deducted from the interest amount of Rs. 12,93,828 received by the assessee from the Indian conc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC1860; [1997]225ITR1(SC); JT1997(4)SC161; 1997(3)SCALE195; (1997)10SCC88; [1997]3SCR216
ORDERG.B. Pattanaik, J.1. This appeal by special leave is against the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Income Tax Reference No. 86 of 1970. At the instance of the Revenue on an application being filed under Section 256 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal referred the following two question to the High Court for being answered and the High Court answered both the questions in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The two questions are :(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, income by way of any 'interest on securities' received from Government could be excluded in the computation of chargeable profits in terms of Clause (x) of Rule 1 of the First Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963.(2) Whether, on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that only the proportionate interest of Rs. 5, 19,804 on borrowings should be deducted from the interest amount of Rs. 12,93,828 received...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC1925; JT1997(4)SC369; 1997(3)SCALE252; (1997)10SCC1; [1997]3SCR226; [1997]105STC580(SC)
ORDERS.B. Majumdar, J.1. According to our esteemed colleague Sujata V. Manohar, J., these appeals are required to be allowed. With profound respect, it is not possible for us to agree with her findings and the conclusions in so far as it is held by her that Section 5 Sub-section (2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 will cover the transactions in question. We, however, agree with her so far as it is held that Section 2(ab) of the Central Sales Tax Act has no retrospective effect and that there is no evidence on record to attract the second part of Section 5(2) which deals with sale on high seas. We, therefore, record our separate reasons for confirming the decisions impugned in these appeals. 2. In Civil Appeal Nos. 4955-77 of 1991 a common question falls for consideration. It is to the following effect: Whether the purchases of African raw cashewnuts made by the assessees from the Cashew Corporation of India (for short 'CCI') are in the course of import and, therefore immune from lia...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : I(1997)ACC537; 1997ACJ816; AIR1997SC2049; [1997]89CompCas131(SC); 1997(2)CTC275; JT1997(4)SC180; 1997(2)KLT54(SC); (1997)2MLJ17(SC); RLW1997(2)SC177; 1997(3)SCALE228; (1997
ORDERA.M. Ahmadi, CJ.1. Special Leave granted. 2. The respondent No. 1 Sujir Ganesh Nayak & Company is a registered partnership with its head office at Quilon carrying on business in import and export of cashew. It has four factories at Kunnikode, Mulavana, Perumpuzha and Ayathil for processing cashew. The respondent No. 1 obtained two fire policies from the appellant Insurance Company dated 5.11.1976 and 2.5.1977, both for a period of twelve months, and for the amounts of Rs. 6,00,000/- and Rs. 1,20,000/- respectively. Both the policies had a Riot and Strike Endorsement to the following effect: Riot & Strike Endorsement-ln consideration of the payment of the sum of Rs...additional premium, it is hereby agreed and declared that notwithstanding anything in the written policy contained to the contrary the insurance under the Policy shall extend to cover Riot and Strike damage which for the purpose of this endorsement shall mean (subject always to the Special Conditions hereinafter contai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1997(1)ARBLR517(SC); JT1997(4)SC220; 1997(3)SCALE208; (1997)4SCC319
K. Ramaswamy, J.1. We have the advantage to read the proposed judgment by our esteemed brother Punchhi, J. Despite our deep and abiding personal respects, we express our regards for our inability to agree with the proposed judgment. Hence we are constrained to right this separate judgment.2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order dated December 19, 1979 made in A.O.O. No. 240 of 1975 by L.M. Sharma, J. (as he then was) agreeing with the dissenting opinion of one of the members of Division Bench of Patna High Court, viz., B. Section Sinha, J. The result was that the award of the umpire stood set aside.3. The appellant had entered into an agreement with the respondent on May 2, 1971 for execution of certain works. During the course of their execution, certain disputes had arisen between them. Clause 78 of the contract provided resolution of the disputes by arbitration. In furtherance thereof, the parties had referred the disputes in 1972 to two arbitratOrs. One o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1997AIHC2609; JT1997(4)SC340; 1997(3)SCALE150; (1999)4SCC330; [1997]3SCR184; [1997]106STC11(SC)
ORDERG.T. Nanavati, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellants in these appeals are manufacturers of cement and they have their manufacturing units/factories in the State of Gujarat. The cement manufactured by them is sold throughout India through a network of stockists and dealers. They filed Civil Writ Petition Nos. 656, 788, 803, 2644 and 2645 of 1994 in the High Court of Rajasthan challenging the notifications dated 8.1.1990, 27.6.1990 and 7.3.1994 issued by the State of Rajasthan under Section 8(5) of the Central Sales Tax Act (for short 'CST Act'). The High Court dismissed those writ petitions. Therefore, the appellants have filed these appeals.3. Prior to the issuance of the impugned Notifications the rate of tax payable under Section 5 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act on sales of cement was 16%. Even in respect of the inter-State sales of cement to unregistered dealers the rate of tax was 16%. By the Notification dated 8.1.90 the State of Rajasthan in exercise of the powers conferred b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1997(58)ECC74; 1997(91)ELT251(SC); JT1997(4)SC308; 1997(3)SCALE148; (1997)4SCC542; [1997]3SCR111
A.M. Ahmadi, CJI. 1. This appeal by the Collector Central Excise, Madras, is directed against the judgment and order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal' for short) July 8, 1986, whereby it affirmed the order dated August 1, 1981 of the Appellant Collector of Central Excise, Madras granting refund of excise duty to the respondent-assessee in reversal of the order passed by the Assistant-Collector of Central Excise, Tirunelveli on February 27, 1981. Briefly stated the facts are as under; 2. The respondent manufactured Trailers and Steel Furniture liable to payment of excise duty under Tariff Item No. 34(iii) and Tariff Item No. 40 respectively. The respondent was clearing the goods alter payment of duty without claiming exemption under Notification dated March 1, 1978 as amended subsequently by Notification No. 80/80 dated June 19, 1980. Paragraph 2 of the said Notification which is relevant for our purpose reads thus: (2) Nothing contained in thi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2866; JT1998(7)SC621; RLW1999(2)SC199; (1998)9SCC169
ORDER1. The appellant is the original complainant who had lodged a complaint with the Bar Council of Rajasthan, Jodhpur against the respondents who were then practising as advocates in the courts in Rajasthan. The complainant happened to be a tenant of a showroom. His landlords had filed the suit against him for arrears of rent and possession on 21-12-1974. S/Shri K.L. Saxena and Satyandra Saxena represented the plaintiffs in that suit. Later on, the two respondents appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs. A standard rent suit was filed by the landlord represented by the two respondents against the complainant bearing No. 36 of 1978 and that suit was later decreed and the standard rent was fixed at Rs 300 per month. Thereafter, it is alleged that the respondents got the showroom transferred in the name of the respondent R.C. Kasliwal's sons, Sarvshri Harshwardhan and Himanshu and Smt Ritu Kasliwal. The allegation was that the vendees were non-earning members of the family of the two respo...
Tag this Judgment!