Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC2714; 1998(2)BLJR1464; JT1997(6)SC201; 1997(4)SCALE640; (1997)6SCC406; [1997]Supp1SCR627; 1999(1)SLJ88(SC); 1997(2)LC312(SC)
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. The point involved in these 4 appeals being the same they were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.2. The appellants (in all eleven) started their career as Junior Engineers in the Central Public Works Department. On formation of P&T; (Civil Wing) on 1.7.1963, 'the construction and maintenance work of P&T; buildings was taken over from C.P.W.D. The services of the Junior Engineers (Elect.) of C.P.W.D. who were earlier looking after the buildings of P&T; were transferred to the P&T; (Civil Wing). Initially, they were treated on deputation without any deputation allowance but in 1969 they were absorbed in the P&T; Department and were also designated as Section Officers. They were promoted as Assistant Engineers (Elect.), on ad hoc basis between 1970 to 1977. All of them were appointed as A.Es. (E) on regular basis with effect from 20.3.1978. At that time it was directed that their names shall be arranged in order of their seniority in the grade ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1997(2)ALD(Cri)232; 1998CriLJ62; JT1997(6)SC4; 1997(4)SCALE398; (1997)11SCC546
Mukherjee, J.1. These two appeals have been heard together as they stem from a common judgment rendered by the Additional Judge. Designated Court, Karnal (at Ambala) in Sessions Trial No. 52 of 1987. Facts leading to these appeals and relevant for their disposal are as under:2(a). On December 27, 1986. at or about 3.00 A.M. Naurang Singh, a resident of Village Manakpur, lodged an F.I.R. with Om Prakash (PW-19), the then Station House Officer of Ambala (Sadar) Police Station, at Civil Hospital, Ambala, wherein he stated, inter alia, that to keep a vigil over the electric lines of their village. Gurdev Singh (P.W. 10), the Sarpanch, used to deploy some villagers every night. In the previous evening. Gurdev had sent Faquira (P.W. 15), Chowkidar of the village, to inform Harbhajan Singh and Gurnam Singh, two of the villagers, that they would have to perform the above duty in that night. Accordingly, Faquira went to the house of Harbhajan Singh at or about 8.30 P.M. and having found his nep...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC3414; (1998)2GLR70; [1997]Supp1SCR485
ORDERSuhas C. Sen, J.1. M/s. Reliance Cellulose Products Limited, the appellant-company manufactures Sodium Carboxymethyl Cellulose (hereinafter referred to as SCMC). The contention of the appellant-company is that the product manufactured by them is classifiable under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The contention of the Department is that the product comes squarely within the tariff item 15A (1) and, therefore, there is no reason to fall back upon the residuary head of tariff item No. 68.2. Tariff item ISA at the material time stood as under:ARTIFICIAL OR SYNTHETIC RESINS AND MATERIALS; PLASTIC AND OTHER MATERIALS AND SPECIFIED BELOW- ARTICLES ______________________________________________________________________ (1) Condensation, polycondensation and percent fifty percent poly addition products, whether or not modified ad valorem or polymerised, and whether or not linear (for example, pheno-plasts, amino-plasts, alkyds, loyally esters and other unsaturated polyesters, sili...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC2845; JT1997(5)SC721; 1997(4)SCALE421; (1997)11SCC683; 1997(2)LC360(SC)
Mrs.Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. The respondent was appointed as Assistant Medical Officer in the Railways on ad hoc basis in 1986. His case along with the case of other ad hoc Assistant Medical Officers was referred to the Union Public Service Commission for the purpose of regularisation. The Commission, after the scrutiny of the confidential service record and after conducting an interview, has rejected the case of the respondent for regularisation. The Tribunal, however, by its order dated 3rd November, 1992 has directed that the case of the respondent should be considered de novo only on the basis of his service record and he should be retained in service if found fit on regular basis. Hence the present appeal.2. The case of the respondent is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Dr. Gyan Prakash Singh : (1994)ILLJ632SC where this Court has laid down that the decision of this Court in Dr. A.K. Jain and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. : [1988]1SCR335 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC2831; [1997]227ITR356(SC); JT1997(6)SC45; 1997(4)SCALE469; (1997)11SCC56; [1997]Supp1SCR555
ORDERD.P. Wadhwa, J.1. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition.2. These appeals arise out of the two judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated January 18, 1990 and November 25, 1988 The first judgment arose out of the Income Tax Reference under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the I.T. Act') for the assessment years 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74 and Wealth Tax Reference under Section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (for short 'the W.T. Act') for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 and second judgment is in reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act for assessment year 1975-76.3. The questions which arise from the references under the I.T. Act are:1. Whether, in view of clauses 41 of the Trust Deed, Clause 39 of the Trust Deed can be legally amended. If so, whether such amendment would give rise to a legally enforceable mandate, as contemplated by the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?2. Whether, on the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC2927; JT1997(5)SC715; 1997(4)SCALE425; (1997)10SCC736; 1997(2)LC566(SC)
ORDERG.N.Ray, J.1. Leave granted. Heard the appellant appearing in person and the learned Counsel for the respondents. This appeal is directed against the order dated January 15, 1988 passed by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in C.W.P. No. 109 of 1988.2. The appellant moved a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in Delhi High Court which was numbered as C.W.P. No. 1098 of 1988 assailing the decision of the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi as contained in Memo No. 1303 dated April 17,1986 rejecting the representation of the appellant for the post of Senior Scientific Officer (Grade I) and Memo No. 8553 dated March 25, 1987 and Memo No. 1639 dated 18.5.1987 rejecting the appellant's further representation and also assailing the decision of the respondents in not calling the appellant for interview on January 15,1988 for the post of Assistant Professor in the civil engineering department. By the impugned order, the Delhi High Court has dismissed the wri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC3126; 1997(5)ALT4(SC); JT1997(6)SC594; 1997(5)SCALE38; (1997)6SCC277; [1997]Supp1SCR638
ORDER1.This special leave petition arises from the Judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, made on August 7, 1996 in C.R.P. No. 1917 of 1993.2. The admitted facts are that the petitioner filed declaration in respect of certain lands under his holding and requested for exclusion of lands from his holding. The primary Tribunal found that the family of the petitioner was holding 0.1358 standard holding of land, in excess of the ceiling area on the notified date. It was confirmed by the High Court in C.R.P. No. 1917 of 1993. Resultantly, notice in Form VI was issued to the petitioner to surrender the said excess and under Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling of Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1972 (for short, the 'Act'). The petitioner filed an I.A. before the Land Reforms Tribunal, Eluru seeking appointment of a Commissioner stating that 5 acres 66 cents of the lands are non- agricultural lands and, therefore, it is required to be excluded from...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1997(93)ELT646(SC); (1998)2GLR990; JT1997(5)SC742; 1997(4)SCALE434; (1997)6SCC464
Sen, J.1. M/s. Reliance Cellulose Products Limited, the appellant-company manufactures Sodium Carboxymethyl Cellulose (hereinafter referred to as SCMC). The contention of the appellant-company is that the product manufactured by them is classifiable under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The contention of the Department is that the product comes squarely within the tariff item 15A(1) and, therefore, there is no reason to fall back upon the residuary head of tariff item No. 68.2. Tariff item 15A at the material time stood as under:ARTIFICIAL OR SYNTHETIC RESINS AND PLASTIC MATERIALS; AND OTHER MATERIALS AND ARTICLES SPECIFIED BELOW-(1) Condensation, Fifty poly-condensation and percent poly-addition products, whether ad or not modified or polymerised, valorem and whether or not linear (for example, pheno-plasts, amino- plasts, alkyds, polyally lesters and other unsaturated polyesters, silicones); polymerisation and co-polymerisation products (for example, polyethylene, polytetra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998(3)ALLMR(SC)207; 1997(46)BLJR1471; JT1997(6)SC37; RLW1997(2)SC347; 1997(4)SCALE475; (1997)7SCC147; [1997]Supp1SCR508; 1997(2)LC261(SC)
D.P. WADHWA, J. The appellant is an advocate practising in Delhi. He ha filed this appeal under section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 ( in short the Act,) against order dated May 4, 1996 of the Disciplinary Committee of Bar council of India holding him guilty of misconduct and suspending him from practice for a period of one Year. This order by the Bar council of India was passed as the Disciplinary committed of the Bar council of Delhi could not dispose of the complaint received by it with in a period of one year and proceedings had thus been transferred to the Bar council of India under section 36 B of the Act. Section 36 B enjoins upon the Disciplinary committee of state Bar council to dispose of the complaint receive by it under section 35 of the Act expeditiously and in any case to conclude the proceedings within one case to conclude the proceedings within one year from the date of the receipt of the complaint or the date of initiation of the proceedings if at the instance of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC2758; JT1997(5)SC736; 1997(4)SCALE416; (1997)10SCC741; [1997]Supp1SCR499; 1997(2)LC402(SC)
ORDERG.N. Ray J.1. The short question involved in these appeals is whether the age of superannuation of the non-teaching staff of the Osmania University should be raised to 60 years when the University has fixed the age of superannuation of the teaching staff of the University at 60 years. As the Osmania University authorities refused to raised the age of superannuation of the non-teaching staff to 60 years by implementing the mandate uniformity in the conditions of service of all the salaried staff of the University under Section 38(1) of the Osmania University Act, 1959 (hereinafter) referred to as 'the Act'), a number of non-teaching staff of the University moved Andhra Pradesh High Court by filing writ petitions claim was allowed by learned single Judge and by the impugned judgment the Division Bench of the High Court has also upheld the claim of the writ petitioners that the age of superannuation of the non teaching staff of the University will also be 60 yuears. 2. The learned So...
Tag this Judgment!