Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1998)9SCC217
ORDER1. Delay condoned. 2. Special leave granted. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. The question that falls for consideration in this appeal is whether a person born in a forward caste family can be treated as belonging to a Scheduled Caste by virtue of his/her marriage to a person who belongs to a Scheduled Caste and can claim the benefit of the reservation contemplated by Article 16 of the Constitution in the matter of employment in service. 5. The facts, briefly stated, are that the respondent was born in a forward caste family. She married a person belonging to the Namsudra community which is a Scheduled Caste in the State of Tripura. On 30-4-1975 the respondent submitted an application to the District Magistrate & Collector, West Tripura stating that she belongs to a Scheduled Caste community (Namsudra) and she requested for a certificate certifying the same. On the basis of the averments made by her in the said application, the District Magistrate & Collector, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1999CriLJ5023; (1998)9SCC266
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The appellant divorced the respondent, Smt. Laxmi Bai through a decree of divorce dated 16-12-1993. Amit, son of the parties bom on 26-2- 987 was at that time living with the appellant. On 16-2-1995, the respondent sought search warrants under Section 97 of the CrPC for recovery of Amit. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate opined that the appellant was the natural guardian of Amit, the nine-year-old son of the parties, and, therefore, he could not be said to be under any illegal confinement and consequently the application for issuance of search warrants under Section 97 CrPC was dismissed vide an order dated 20-2-1995. It appears that the respondent in the meantime had filed an application under the Guardians and Wards Act in 1995. We are informed by learned counsel for the appellant that the said application is still pending. Against the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated 20-2-1995, the respondent filed a revision petition and the learned Addition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1999ACJ1128; JT1998(9)SC117; (1998)9SCC271
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. one lakh for an injury which resulted in shortening of one leg of the victim by approximately two inches. The question of adequacy of the amount of Rs. one lakh as compensation does not arise for consideration since the claimant did not demand a higher amount. However, the insurer challenged the quantum and the High Court had reduced that amount from Rs. one lakh to Rs. 80,000 only. Hence, this appeal by special leave.3. We are unable to uphold the High Court's judgment reducing the amount of compensation from Rs. one lakh to Rs. 80,000 for no cogent reasons. It is settled that in appeal interference is made with the quantum of compensation only on the ground of inadequacy or the same being too excessive, as the case may be. Obviously, in this case the amount of Rs. one lakh could not be called too excessive nor was that the view taken by the High Court which merely reduced the amount to Rs. 80,000 without giving any supporting...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1998)9SCC269
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as for the contesting respondents.3. The short question raised by the appellant-Gram Panchayat before us is whether the contesting respondents could have invoked the provisions of Section 42 of the Punjab Consolidation of Holdings Act (in short 'the Act') after a period of almost 34 years when the consolidation proceedings were completed in the year 1959-60 and they applied under Section 42 of the Act on 20-1-1994. That question was not considered by the High Court while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. In an identical situation a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court in civil appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 6989 of 1995 decided on 8-12-1995, has taken the view that in such circumstances the matter should be remanded to the High Court for a fresh decision also keeping in view the question of reasonableness of delay or otherwise in moving the authorities under Section 42 of the Act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC3501; 1997(2)ALD(Cri)558; 1997CriLJ4394; 1997(3)Crimes259(SC); JT1997(7)SC565; 1997(5)SCALE584
ORDERM.K. Mukherjee J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated June 14, 1993 passed by the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, in Criminal Appeal No. 300 of 1992 whereby it reversed the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur acquitting the four appellants (hereinafter referred to as 'A 1 to A 4') of the charge under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and convicted them thereunder.2. Shorn of details the prosecution case is as follows:(a) On February 2, 1990, at or about 6 A.M. Suresh Bhute (the deceased) along with Madhav Chauhan (P.W. 1), Gangadhar Badwaik (P.W. 2), Vijay Babre (P.W. 3), Lok Nath Bhure (P.W. 8) and others went to Nagpur airport to receive Ashok Dhawad, who was the sitting M.L.A. from Nagpur. After receiving him they went to his house at Ganeshpeth. At or about 8 A.M. Ashok Dhawad asked his supporters, including the deceased and the above witnesses, to assemble at Yeshwant Stadium at 11 A.M. as from there he would go to the Office of the Collector to fil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC3871; 2002(84)ECC795; 1997LC257(SC); 1997(94)ELT460(SC); JT1997(7)SC557; 1997(5)SCALE600; (1997)7SCC47; [1997]Supp3SCR601; [1998]111STC254(SC)
ORDERThomas, J. 1. The common question involved in all these appeals is whether the benefit of excise duty exemption (granted by the Central Government as per certain notifications) can be claimed in respect of commodities made out of raw materials on which no excise duty was payable. The relevant notifications exempted such commodities from excise duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (for short 'the Act'), if they were produced from materials on which the appropriate amount of duty of excise has already been paid. As the Central Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short the Tribunal) by different orders upheld such claims made by certain manufacturers the Revenue has filed these appeals through the Collectors of Central Excise concerned.2. Avoiding proliferation with facts in different appeals we think it is enough to reproduce the facts in Civil Appeal No. 2319 of 1989 filed by the Collector of Excise, Patna against the respondent M/s. Usha Martin Industrie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1999)157CTR(SC)476; [1999]239ITR514(SC); (1998)9SCC657
ORDER1. Leave granted in SLP No. 6765 of 1992. 2. This is a case of partial partition of a Hindu joint family. The claim of the assessee was that the joint family had effected partial partition in respect of certain properties of the family. The claim was rejected by the Tribunal but was upheld by the High Court. The properties in question, as set out in the judgment of the Tribunal are: Venugopal Mohanlal A/C LF 8 By cash in hand Rs 3500.00 Telephone deposit Rs 350.00 Osmangund Extension Co-op. Society Rs 54,750.00 M/s. Hiranand Ramsukh Bankers Rs 1,20,122.68 Balmukund, Madnoor Rs 91,504.54 M/s. Balaji Venugopal Rajahmundry Rs 1 ,53,392.56 Treasury savings deposit Rs 11,000.00 By annuity deposit Rs 8250.00 Shares Account Rs 8245.00 ---- Rs 4,50,114.68 ---- 3. The case of the assessee is that they have not divided these joint properties by metes and bounds but it is permissible in law in case of partial partition not to divide these properties invested in business in case of continuing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC3409; 85(1998)CLT312(SC); JT1997(7)SC545; 1997(5)SCALE589; (1997)7SCC104; [1997]Supp3SCR592; [1997]107STC204(SC)
ORDERKirpal, J. 1. In these appeals by special leave what arises for consideration is whether the respondent is liable to pay sales tax and to be registered as a dealer under the relevant provisions of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act').2. The respondent's main business is of running of buses and providing transport facilities to the travelling public. Along with these services the respondent has been disposing of unserviceable, old, obsolete and unutilised parts from its stores. These parts used to be disposed of at yearly intervals. The respondent did not get it self registered as a dealer under the said Act. According to it, no business was being carried on in respect of which any sales tax could have been levied.3. The Sales Tax Officer considered that the respondent was liable to pay tax. He accordingly made an order of assessment under Section 12(5) of the said Act seeking to tax the respondent's turn-over on the sale of unserviceable old p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1998(9)SC227; (1998)7SCC484
ORDER1. These three appeals arise out of a common judgment of the High Court of Allahabad whereby the learned Single Judge of the High Court disposed of two writ petitions and confirmed the order passed in revision by the Deputy Director of Consolidation functioning under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The dispute between the parties centers round the right to remain in possession of 109 disputed plots of lands situated in Gonda District in the State of U.P. The respondents herein were the Zamindars of these lands and were admittedly recorded as Khud Kasht (in personal cultivation) of these lands in the relevant records of rights till 1947 by Entry No. 1354 Fasli. The said entry related to the year beginning from 1-7-1946 and ending on 30-6-1947. All authorities functioning under the Act concurrently held that such was the factual position till 30-6-1947, Therefore, the respondents were found to be in actual possession and being Zam...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC3269; JT1997(7)SC520; 1997(5)SCALE594; (1997)7SCC443; [1997]Supp3SCR624; 1998(1)LC317(SC)
ORDERM. Jagannadha Rao, J. 1. The appellant, after going through the process of selection by the Public Service Commission, was appointed as Civil Judge, Class 2 in the Madhya Pradesh Subordinate Judicial Service by an order dated 22-10-1985. The order stated that he would have to undergo training for six months and be on probation for 2 years. The appellant completed training on 29-5-1986 and was put on probation for 2 years. He completed probation by 22-5-1988. On 2-3-1990, he was placed under suspension pending some charges. The charges were served on 3-3-1990, an inquiry report was given by the District Judge on 12-4-1991 and the High Court, in its Full Court Meeting dt. 27/ 28-4-1991 resolved to impose a punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect. On 7-8-1991, the suspension was revoked and he resumed duties as Civil Judge Class II w.e.f. 7-8-1991. There were certain adverse remarks in the ACRs during 1987-88, 88-89, 89-90, 91-92 and 92-93. The inspecti...
Tag this Judgment!