Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2002)9SCC648
ORDER In view of the decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd.1 these appeals are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. 1 (1987) 4 SCC 530 : (1987) 167 ITR 639...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1999(81)FLR787]; JT1998(9)SC131; (1998)9SCC100
ORDER1. The appellant, a bank officer, was tried departmentally for his conduct for which he was charged and removed from the bank service on 6-3-1982. He challenged the order in appeal before the Appellate Board. The Appellate Board partly accepted the appeal and modified the order of removal by substituting it by an order of compulsory retirement with effect from 6-3-1982. The appellant challenged the said order in writ petition in the High Court. The order of compulsory retirement was upheld in the writ petition. On the question of payment of pension as per the Pension Rules the learned Single Judge in the light of the relevant rule, to which reference will be made a little later, held that the appellant was not entitled to any pension under the said rule. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The appeal got summarily rejected and that is how this appeal is filed by obtaining special leave to appeal.2. While issuing notice in this appeal, the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1999(2)ARBLR686(SC); 84(1997)CLT754(SC)
1. Leave granted.2. The parties entered into an agreement which also contains an arbitration clause. On certain differences and disputes arising between them, a reference was made to Justice G.K. Misra, Retired Chief Justice, Orissa High Court on 10.12,1986. The arbitrator entered upon the reference on 15.2.1987. During the pendency of the reference before the learned Arbitrator, respondent No. 1 failed a 'counter claim' before him on 5.7.1987. The learned Arbitrator vide order dated 14.5.1988 held that the 'counter claim' was not included in the reference, and therefore it could not be adjudicated upon in that reference. The learned Arbitrator opined that the parties could be secure a fresh reference regarding the disputes which are the subject matter of the 'counter claim' and that both the original reference and the second reference could be consolidated and decided together. The 'counter claim' was held to be not maintainable. Respondent No. 1 filed another application before the l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1998(4)SC276; (1998)1SCC717
ORDERCA No. 6949 of 1997 @ SLP (C) No. 7764 of 1981, CAs Nos. 148-152 of 1982, CA No. 1967 of 1982, CAs Nos. 6950, 6951 and 6952 of 1997 @ SLPs (C) Nos. 9050, 8737 and 8813 of 19811. Leave granted. 2. The challenge in Civil Appeal No. ... of 1997 [arising out of SLP (C) No. 7764 of 1981] and the connected matters is to the judgment of the High Court dated 3-4-1981 in Miscellaneous Petition No. 707 of 1978. Both sides are partly aggrieved by the judgment. The challenge in the appeals filed by the owners of the sugar factories is only to the construction of Clause 3(l)(e) of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 while the challenge by the Union of India is on two other points relating to the method of rounding off and the rebate which has been rejected by the High Court. There is nothing shown to us in the appeals of the Union of India to suggest any infirmity in the High Court's order on the two points of rounding off and rebate. The appeals of Union of India must, therefore, fail. 3. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2001]249ITR787(SC)
ORDERIn view of the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. : [1987]167ITR639(SC) , these appeals are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC3887; 1997(6)ALT6(SC); JT1997(8)SC332; 1990LabIC698; 1997(6)SCALE325; (1997)8SCC85; [1997]Supp4SCR377; 1999(1)SLJ114(SC); 1997(2)LC737(SC); (1997)3UPLBEC2047
ORDERK.T. Thomas, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal by the Haryana State Electricity Board ('the Board' for short) is in challenge of the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana declaring that respondent is entitled to be considered as eligible for appointment in the employment of the Board on compassionate grounds. 3. The facts leading to this appeal are the following :Father of the respondent one Hakim Singh was a Lineman in the employment of the Board. He died on 24.8.1974 in harness leaving behind him his widow and minor children including the respondent. About 14 years after the death of Hakim Singh his widow applied for appointing her son (the respondent) in the employment of the Board, on compassionate grounds mainly basing on two circulars issued by the Board, one on 26.9.1985 and the other, in partial modification of the earlier, on 1.10.1986. As per the said circulars one member of the family of the deceased employee could be considered for employment in the service of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC411; 1998(1)CTC353; JT1997(8)SC354; (1998)IMLJ75(SC); 1997(6)SCALE341; (1997)8SCC58; [1997]Supp4SCR398
ORDER1. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioners we are inclined to agree with the reasoning adopted by the High Court in the impugned order. Mr. Adhyaru, learned Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently contended that on the death of the alleged licensee pending proceedings before the Trial Court the proceedings abated. For that purpose he strongly relied upon a Division Bench judgment of the Madras High Court in Chinnan v. Ranjithammal : AIR1931Mad216 . in the said decision the Division Bench of the High Court has taken the view that a License granted under Section 59 of the Easements Act is not annexed to property, it is not transferable or heritable and once the licensor parts with the property or the licensee dies, the licence comes to an end. Strictly speaking this decision can be of no avail on the facts of the present case as the alleged licensee has died pending the proceedings under Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1997(8)SC336; 1997(6)SCALE303; (1997)8SCC60; [1997]Supp4SCR383; 1998(1)LC28(SC); (1997)3UPLBEC2109
D.P. Wadhwa, J.1. These are two appeals and are directed against the common judgment dated February 25, 1980 of the Delhi High Court by which the High Court not only directed that pension and provident fund be paid to the respondents, who were working as Assistants, but also awarded damages to them and against the appellant-Bank for wrongfully withholding these payments. The operative part of the impugned judgment reads thus:In the result, we direct that the Bank shall pay within four weeks to Sarvshri Gupta (respondent in CA No. 2141/80) and Gulati (respondent in CA No. 9943/83):1. the entire pension fund due as calculated under the Pension and Guarantee Fund Rules; 2. a sum equivalent to 9% per annum by way of damages for wrongfully with-holding the aforesaid amount from the date of retirement to the date of actual payment; and3. the provident fund due along with interest plus an amount equivalent 9% per annum by way of damages from the date of retirement to the date of payment.Amoun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)11SCC667
A.S. Anand and; K. Venkataswami, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. The parties were married on 21-4-1969 at Dehradun. Rahul, a son was born to the couple on 5-3-1974. It appears that the marriage was not sailing smoothly. The relationship between the parties became sour and went from bad to worse. Ultimately, on 26-8-1985, a petition for divorce was filed by the respondent-husband under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The petition was contested by the appellant and a written statement was filed. Thereafter, the respondent led his evidence. He appeared as his own witness and closed the evidence. The appellant led no evidence and her counsel made a statement that she did not want to lead any evidence. On the basis of the material on the record, the trial court found that the respondent had established his case that he had been treated with mental cruelty by the appellant and accordingly granted a decree of divorce. An appeal was filed against the judgment and decree of the trial...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1557; 1998SCC(Cri)698
M.K. Mukharji and; K.T. Thomas, JJ.1. Thirteen person were arrainged before the Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur for rioting, murder and other cognate offences. On conclusion of the trial the trial Judge convicted four of them. (A-1, A-8, A-12 and A-13) under Section 302/34, I.P.C. and the other nine under Section 304 (Part II)/34, I.P.C. Besides two of them (A-5 and A-10) were convicted under Section 325/34, I.P.C. and eight others under Section 323/34, I.P.C. In appeals preferred by them the High Court acquitted two of them (A-5 and A-10) while maintaining the convictions and sentences of the others. Assailing the judgment of the High Court the convicts filed two special leave petitions in this Court, one of which was filed by A-1, A-8, A-12 and A-13 and the other by the seven other convicts. While refusing leave to the former group of convicts this Court granted leave to appeal to the latter.In distinguishing the case of the seven appellants from that of other four convicts reg...
Tag this Judgment!