Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1997(5)SC502; 1997(4)SCALE241; (1997)5SCC390; [1997]Supp1SCR357
K. Ramaswamy, J. 1. In paragraph 135 in A.S. Narayana Deekshitulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. : [1996]3SCR543 , this Court had directed, in addition to grant of the regular scales of pay, that other welfare measures be formulated and directed the Government to constitute a permanent fund with, sum of Rs. 75 crores to start with, as corpus and to evolve procedure for spending the income to be derived therefrom towards welfare measures in respect of the Archakas, other employees and/or their dependents, as the case may be. A committee was directed to be constituted, as specified in the judgment. In accordance therewith, a committee was constituted by the Government which has formulated a scheme for the welfare measures in respect of the Archakas and other employees of the temple and their dependents and religious institutions in the State of Andhra Pradesh. A Deed of Trust was designed to be executed by the Principle Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department of the State of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1997(2)CTC383; (1997)5SCC757
K. Ramaswamy and; D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.1. In Babua Ram v. State of U.P.1 and Union of India v. Karnail Singh2 Benches of two Judges have taken the view that the limitation of three months for seeking a reference under Section 28-A would begin to run from the earliest of the awards given by the Reference Court. However a contra view was taken by a Bench of three Judges in Union of India v. Pradeep Kumari3. When the matter was referred to a Constitution Bench, the Bench of three Judges in Jose Antonio Cruz Dos R. Rodriguese v. Land Acquisition Collector4 had the two questions referred to a five-Judge Bench before them namely: (SCC p. 750, para 5)“1. Whether the award of the Court i.e., civil court made under Section 26 on reference under Section 18 would also include judgment and decree of the appellate court under Section 54?2. Whether each successive award or judgment and decree (if answer on Question 1 is positive) would give cause of action to file application under Section 28-A; if...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC2693; JT1997(6)SC32; 1997(4)SCALE314; (1997)10SCC592; [1997]Supp1SCR382; 1997(2)LC245(SC)
1. Leave granted.2. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.3. The never-ending dispute between the direct recruits and the promotees has again surfaced in these appeals. The year 1962 onwards, the Central Secretariat Service Rules (for short, the 'Rules') framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India provided a ratio of l/6th and 5/6th between the direct recruits and the promotees. On July 1, 1982, the ratio was changed to l/5th and 4/5th between the direct recruits and the promotees respectively. In the year 1983, a writ petition under Article 32 was filed by the promotee officers titled H.N. Hardasani and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. This Court had directed that the unfilled vacancies meant for the direct recruits might be carried forward for over two years and subsequently unfilled vacancies meant for direct recruits might be thrown open for being filled up by the promotees. A statutory shape was given to the said direction by amending the Rules. In th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1997(5)SC496; 1997(4)SCALE236; (1997)5SCC385; [1997]Supp1SCR369
K. Ramaswamy, J.1. I.A. No. 12/97 in Writ Petition No. 638/87 has been filed by the TTD Executive Officer, Tirupati for the following directions:(a) To direct Archakas, Gamekars, Jeeyamgars and other Mirasidars to refund the amount paid to them besides rendering account of the offerings both in cash and kind the value thereof received by them as their remuneration, salary and perquisites, to the Executive Officer, T.T.D. Devasthanams.(b) To direct the Additional District Judge, Tirupati to credit the cash securities furnished by the Gamekars of Tirumala Temple to the T.T. Devasthanams account in view of the fact that they are paid heavy amounts subject to finalisation of payments of emoluments paid to them from 22.6.1987 to 21.3.1996 on the result of the judgment in W.P. No. 638 of 1987 etc.(c) To direct the Additional District Judge, Tirupati to pass orders directing Archakas of Tirumala Temple, Tirumala to refund Cash to the T.T. Devasthanams equal to the immovable property securitie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1997(5)SC513; (1997)IILLJ788SC; (1997)6SCC189; [1997]Supp1SCR341
K. Ramaswamy, J.1. These applications are sequential to the Judgment rendered by this Court in AS. Narayana Deekshitulu v. State of A.P. and Ors. : [1996]3SCR543 . Therein, while upholding the constitutionality of various provisions, in particular, Sections 34 and 144 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (30 of 1987) (for short, the 'Act'), in paragraph 132 of the judgment, this Court mentioned about total number of temples and of the temples which are assessable institutions and the income being derived by them. It observed that the said information was furnished for the first time in the written arguments after the arguments had concluded and judgment was reserved; accordingly, it directed the State Government to look into the same and take a decision in that behalf by constituting a Committee of officers enumerated therein. In paragraph 133, this Court mentioned that hereditary right to appointment as an Archaka or other officers...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1997(5)SC606; 1997(4)SCALE318; (1997)6SCC23; [1997]Supp1SCR374
ORDERK. Ramaswamy and D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.1. This special leave petition arises from the Order of the High Court of Kerala, made on 17.3.1997 in CRP No. 2587/96.2. The respondents-mortgagors had filed O.S. No. 285/79 for redemption of the mortgage. The petitioner-mortgage claimed fixity of the tenure in respect of the entire extent of the land under Section 4A(1)(b) and Section 13 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act; in the alternative, she claimed to be entitled to deemed Kudikidappu rights over 3 cents of the total extent of 8 cents, by operation of Explanation IV to Section 2(25) of the Act. The trial Court negatived the contention by decree dated July 31, 1980. Final decree was passed on September 30, 1992. The Court found that in a suit for redemption of mortgage, claim of Kudikidappu advanced by the petitioner arises for consideration only at the time of the execution; thus, in this case, prima facie, they are not entitled to reference under Section 125(3) of the Act. When the petitioner ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC2468; JT1997(5)SC217; 1997(4)SCALE169; (1997)5SCC253; [1997]Supp1SCR309; 1997(2)LC109(SC)
ORDERS.B. Majmudar, J.1. State of Haryana and Director of Industrial Training & Vocational Education having obtained special leave to appeal from this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India have moved this appeal against the judgment and order rendered by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1267 of 1992 which was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court and whereby the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court against the appellants was confirmed.2. In order to highlight the grievance of the appellants it is necessary to note a few backdrop facts. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 who only remain in the arena of contest as respondent nos. 3 and 4 were ordered to be deleted by an earlier order of this Court dated 08th April 1997, are working as Language Teachers in Haryana Government Vocational Education Institute. They teach Hindi and English to standard 11 and 12 students who study in such institutes. The respondents were appointed in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)10SCC342
S.C. Sen and; S.P. Kurdukar, JJ.1. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material produced before us. This writ petition is filed by Mrs Anjali Anil Rangari, the mother of two minor children, namely, Miss Yutika Rangari (daughter) and Master Shankar Rangari (son) aged 9 and 5 years respectively. This petition arises out of an order dated 10-3-1997 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur on an application dated 10-3-1997 moved by Anil Kripasagar Rangari, the respondent and father of the minor children, under Section 97 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On the very same day the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate issued a warrant to produce the children before the Court in order to decide “about their future custody”. It was averred in the application by the father that the mother, the petitioner herein left the matrimonial home on 4-3-1997 along with two children for Delhi where her parents reside, without informing him as well as his parents. The ch...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1997(92)ELT449(SC); JT1997(10)SC705; (1997)6SCC64
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. 2. It was the case of the assessee (appellant) that it was merely repairing old transformers and not manufacturing them. This case the Tribunal accepted. 3. Further, it was the case of the assessee that it was entitled to the benefit of an exemption notification dated 30th April, 1975, issued under the provisions of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules whereby the Central Government had exempted from the whole of the excise duty leviable thereon goods which fell under Item 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, which were manufactured in a factory and were intended for use in the factory, in which they were manufactured. The assessee contended that, accordingly, it was not obliged to pay excise duty on parts manufactured by it in its factory which were used by it in the same factory for the repair of old transformers. It was also the assessee'...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1997(93)ELT321(SC); JT1997(10)SC675; (1997)5SCC509
ORDER1. C.A. No. 3328/1981 - So far as this appeal is concerned, the question is whether the duty of excise whereof tax credit is available would be in respect of such duty of excise as is chargeable under Central Excises and Salt Act alone. The question has already been answered by this Court in the case of Associated Cements Co. Ltd. v. Director of Inspection, Customs and Central Excise, New Delhi : [1985]153ITR322(SC) . In that case, it was held that the tax credit has to be confined to the Central Excises and Salt Act only. In view of that this appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. C.A. No. 3300 of 19812. The facts of this case are not is dispute. The respondent-Company is manufacturing various types of papers. The contention of the Department is that 'paper' (all sorts) will include all sorts of papers manufactured by the company and all types of paper have to be taken together to find out whether the production made in the base year has been exceeded. The High Court has take...
Tag this Judgment!