Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC3780; 1997(1)CTC478; JT1997(4)SC413; (1997)2MLJ37(SC); 1997(3)SCALE236; (1997)4SCC30
ORDERS.C. Sen, J.1. Leave granted.2. The Tamil Nadu State subordinate judiciary originally consisted of two separate services, Tamil Nadu State Magisterial Service and Tamil Nadu Judicial Service. The Magisterial Service consisted of two categories. Subordinate Magistrates (later redesignated as Judicial Second Class Magistrates) and Additional First Class Magistrates (later redesignated as Judicial First Class Magistrates).3. The Judicial Service also consisted of two categories, the Subordinate Judge and below the post of Subordinate Judge was the post of District Munsif.4. The recruitment and promotions to the posts in the Tamil Nadu Judicial Service was governed by Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') which came into force on 1.1.1955. Under these rules, recruitment to the post of Subordinate Judge was only by promotion from the post of District Munsif. The appointments to the post of District Munsif was by direct recruitment from the bar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1999]96CompCas792(SC); [1999]236ITR46(SC); JT1998(8)SC13; (1998)9SCC166
ORDER1. The Revenue has filed these appeals against the judgment of the Madras High Court dated 2-11-1997 in TCs Nos. 147, 146, 171 and 240 of 1974. The appeals have been filed on the basis of certificate of fitness granted by the High Court under Section 261 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The High Court has, however, granted certificate to the Revenue only in respect of the judgment in TC No. 147 of 1974 because the questions referred to in that case alone were answered against the Revenue. In the other three tax cases the questions referred to were answered in favour of the Revenue and certificate of fitness was granted to the assessee. Under a misapprehension appeals have also been filed by the Revenue against the judgment in Tax Cases Nos. 146, 171 and 240 of 1974. The said appeals are dismissed as not maintainable. We would confine ourselves to the appeal against the judgment in Tax Case No. 147 of 1974 wherein the following two questions were ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC2089; JT1997(5)SC635; 1997(3)SCALE381; (1997)5SCC112; [1997]3SCR140
K. Ramaswamy and S. Saghir Ahmad, JJ.1. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the single Judge of the High Court of Patna, made on April 27, 1979 made in S.A. No. 326/1978 dismissing the appeal in limine.2. The respondent-plaintiff laid the suit for declaration of title to 3 bighas and six kathas of land bearing Plot No. 235 and 243 in Khata No. 952 situated in Mauza Nainijore Pachhim Diara, Police Station Brahmpore, District Bhojpur.3. The admitted position is that the respondent had purchased the land on May 23, 1957 for a sum of Rs. 82.2 annas from the Raja Dumraon Raj. Proceedings under Section 145 of Cr. PC were initiated in which it was held that the appellant was found in possession of the land. Consequent thereto, the above declaratory suit came to be filed by the respondent. It is the case of the appellant that he has been in possession of the land as a lessee since the year 1925. The trial Court accepted his contention and recorded a finding as under :These...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1961SC1144; (1997)139CTR(SC)455; [1997]225ITR235(SC); JT1997(4)SC355; 1997(3)SCALE353; (1997)11SCC583; [1997]3SCR130
S.C. Agrawal and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.1. The common question that falls for consideration in these appeals filed by the Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') is whether the assessee is entitled to claim exemption from payment of income tax under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the reason that the income of the assessee was derived from property held under trust for charitable purposes. The appeals relate to assessment years covering the period prior to December 1973.2. The assessee is a company limited by shares. It was incorporated in the year 1947 with a view to acquire and take over, as a going concern the activities, functions and business of the Delhi Stock & Share Exchange Limited and the Delhi Stock and Share Brokers Association Ltd. The object for which the assessee was established was generally that of conducting a Stock Exchange and thus to promote and regulate the business in stocks, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC2384; 1997(2)BLJR1112; JT1997(4)SC329; (1997)IILLJ685SC; 1997(3)SCALE245; (1997)4SCC43; [1997]3SCR115
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Patna, in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12274 of 1992. Civil Appeal No. 11240/95 is filed by the State of Bihar and Civil Appeal No. 11241/95 is filed by Dr. Choudhary, who was respondent No. 3 in the writ petition. The writ petition was filed by Dr. Ramesh Chandra, respondent No. 1 in these appeals and hereafter referred to as the respondent'.2. The respondent after obtaining MBBS degree joined the Prince of Wales Medical College, Patna as a demonstrator in the department of Anatomy. He did M.S. in General Surgery and thereafter M.Ch. in Neuro Surgery in 1967. He then joined (he Christian Medical College, Vellore for some time and then went to a foreign country for further studies. He returned to India in 1973. By that time the Prince of Wales Medical College, Patna, was taken over by the State Government. As leave for two years which he had obtained while working as a demonstrator...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1997(4)SC8; 1997(3)SCALE111; (1997)9SCC1
Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant, at all material times, held the rank of Acting Major General in the Indian Army. He filed a writ petition in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh challenging the inquiry proceedings held against him and his trial by a General Court Martial under the Army Act, 1950. This writ petition has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. Hence he has preferred the present appeal.3. During the pendency of these proceedings and after the vacation of stay on the holding of a General Court Martial, the trial of the appellant has proceeded to a conclusion and a sentence has been passed that he be cashiered from service which is subject to confirmation as per the provisions of the Army Act, 1950. The appellant has filed additional grounds of appeal before us challenging these findings. An earlier writ petition being Misc. Petition 717 of 1991 which was filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the sam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)7SCC757
ORDER Having read the decisions reported in State of U.P. v. L.J. Johnson1 (two-Judge Bench) and the decision reported in Meera Gupta v. State of W.B.2 and the referring order in Angoori Devi v. State of U.P.3 we think that there are certain areas in these judgments which would require consideration and it would, therefore, be proper if the matters are placed before a larger Bench of 5 Hon'ble Judges so that it is resolved once for all. Court Masters 1 (1983) 4 SCC 110 2 (1992) 2 SCC 494 3 (1997) 2 SCC 434 : JT (1997) 2 SC 88...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1567; JT1998(9)SC504; (1997)11SCC157
ORDER1. Special leave granted.2. The only question which arises for consideration is whether a Hindu widow who after the death of her husband re-marries another person can lay a claim to the property of her son through the first marriage, if that property happens to be agricultural land. The learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on a decision of a three-Judge Bench in Smt. Kasturi Devi v. Deputy Director of Consolidation : [1977]2SCR25 . This Court applying the general law under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and on principles governing Hindu Law answered the question in the affirmative stating that in such a situation she is not claiming as the widow of her first husband but is laying a claim as the mother of the pre-deceased son. Their Lordships did not apply the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 in the facts of that case or their Lord-ship's attention was not drawn to the Special law, Section 171(b) whereof, in terms, excludes a widowe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1999LabIC221; (1998)IILLJ170SC; (1997)11SCC469
ORDER1. Special Leave granted.2. The facts giving rise to this appeal lie in a narrow compass. The appellant was working in the Pune Telecom Department in 1984 when his services were terminated. He contended that the telecom Department being an industry the termination of his service amounted to retrenchment and, therefore, it was obligatory on the part of the Management to follow the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He had, therefore, moved the Industrial Tribunal for reinstatement and backwages. The Industrial Tribunal set aside his retrenchment and directed reinstatement with full backwages.3. The Management then approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, by way of an application under the provisions of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 without carrying the matter to the Forum which had superintendence over decisions of the Industrial Tribunal. Before the Central Administrative Tribunal, the employee raised the contentio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1532; (1998)IILLJ40SC; (1997)11SCC641
ORDER1. Special leave granted. 2. This appeal by the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce is directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court of Madras in Writ Petition No. 3949 of 1990 whereby he directed that the employees of the Leather Garment unit of the State Trading Corporation, whose services were terminated on the closure of the unit, shall be continued in service by the Government of India (respondent No. 3 in the writ petition) on the same terms and conditions either in the Government Department or in the Government Corporations within three months. In passing this order, the learned single Judge based his decision on this Court's order in G. Govinda Rajulu v. Andhra Pradesh State Construction Corporation Limited : (1988)ILLJ328SC , in which this Court made a brief order in these terms: 1. We have carefully considered the matter and after hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we directed that the employees of the Andhra Pradesh St...
Tag this Judgment!