Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1998(79)FLR831]; JT1998(4)SC357; (1998)IILLJ1088SC; (1998)1SCC183
ORDER1. Four appellants who are before us were appointed as Lekhpals under the Uttar Pradesh Board of Revenue on ad hoc basis. The dates of their appointments, as set out in the impugned judgment are -- Appellant 1, 12-11-1980; Appellant 2, 11-3-1981; Appellant 3, 6-10-1982; and Appellant 4, 12-11-1982. Their services were terminated under orders issued in 1984. Copies of only two orders of termination are annexed. The first order is dated 24-2-1984. The name of the employee is left blank in the copy. The second order bears the name of the first appellant. But the date is incomplete. It is of June 1984. Apart from stating that termination orders are dated 24-2-1984/2-6-1984, learned counsel for both the sides are unable to produce anything more. Both the termination orders refer to earlier order of 17-2-1984.2. In 1979, the U.P. Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments (on posts outside the purview of Public Service Commission) Rules were promulgated. Rule 4 of the 1979 Rules provides as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1997(8)SC70; 1997(6)SCALE53; (1997)7SCC531; [1997]Supp4SCR49; [1997]107STC187(SC)
ORDER1. Section 3AA and Section 3AAA of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948, at the relevant time read thus:3-AA. Rate and point of tax in respect of certain goods - subject to the provisions of Section 3-D, the turnover in respect of goods declared under Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (Act 74 of 1956) to be of special importance in inter-State trade or commerce shall not be liable to tax except at the point of sale by a dealer to the consumer and the rate of tax shall be such, not exceeding the maximum rate for the time being specified in Section 15 of the said Act, as the State Government may, by notification in the Gazette, declares.3-AAA: Presumption regarding certain sales. Where goods are liable to tax under this Act only at the point of sale to the consumer, every sale by a dealer.(a) to a registered dealer who does not purchase them for re-sale within the State or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, in the same form and condition in which he has pur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1997(8)SC68; (1998)118PLR276; 1997(6)SCALE114; (1997)7SCC533; [1997]Supp4SCR53
ORDER1. This Civil Appeal calls in question an order of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 427 of 1993 decided on 24th August, 1993, The impugned order reads thus:Rejected.We do not wish to exercise writ jurisdiction in view of return filed by Land Acquisition Officer.2. Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned Counsel for the appellants, submits that in the writ petition filed in the High Court specific allegations had been made that the acquisition proceedings were vitiated on account of bar of limitation. That it was averred that the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act had been made after the expiry of one year from the date of publication of the Notification under Section 4 which vitiated the declaration as well as the acquisition. According to the learned Counsel, the appellants in the writ petition had also raised a plea that there was an unexplained and unreasonable gap of almost one year between the date of the first publication of the Notification under Section 4 a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1998(7)SC393; (1998)9SCC255
ORDER1. The respondent was temporarily and provisionally appointed as Extra Departmental Branch Postmaster for a period of four months from 9-1-1978 to 8-5-1978. The provisional appointment of the respondent was extended for a further period of three months up to 8-8-1978. It was again extended for three months from 9-8-1978 to 8-11-1978. During this period, by a Memorandum dated 23-9-1978, the services of the respondent were terminated with immediate effect. The order of termination is not on record but from the narration of the facts in the impugned judgment, it appears that this order of termination was under Rule 6 of the Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct & Service) Rules, 1964. On 30-9-1978, the respondent was served with an additional memo informing him that in the order of 23-9-1978, after the words 'immediate effect', the words 'on administrative grounds' are added. The respondent made a representation against this termination but the Director of Postal Services, Kerala upheld...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC3808; 1997(2)ALD(Cri)508; 1997CriLJ1226; JT1997(8)SC1; RLW1997(3)SC400; 1997(6)SCALE99; (1997)11SCC499
ORDER1. In Sessions Case No. 122 of 1989 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fourth Court, Thane, seven persons were arraigned for rioting, five murders and other related offences. While acquitting two of them, the trial Judge convicted the other five under Sections 147 342/149 440/34 and 302/149 I.P.C. and sentenced them to different terms of imprisonment, including life, and fine. Aggrieved thereby the five convicts (who were arrayed as A 1 to A5 in the trial Court) preferred appeals in the High Court which were dismissed. Assailing the dismissal of their appeals three of them, namely A 2, A 3 and A 4 have filed these appeals which have been heard together and this judgment will dispose of them.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is as under:(a) In the Waldhuni area of Kalyan City the Railways own a number of buildings, rooms of which are allotted to its employees. Eknath Brahmane (P.W. 4), is one of such employees who was allotted room No. 7 on the ground floor of Build...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC3451; 1997(2)ALD(Cri)513; 1997CriLJ4080; 1997(3)Crimes271(SC); JT1997(8)SC10; RLW1997(3)SC406; 1997(6)SCALE30; (1997)7SCC535; [1997]Supp4SCR39
ORDERK. Venkataswami, J. 1. This appeal under Section 19(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter called the 'Act') is preferred against the judgment dated 15.7.89 of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court punishing the appellant after finding him guilty of contempt of court with simple imprisonment for a period of three months.2. The appellant contested the biennial elections to Rajya Sabha held in the year 1984. In that connection, he filed an Election Petition No. 1/84 on the file of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. That Election Petition was tried by Mr. Justice Upendralal Waghray. During the hearing of the said Election Petition, the appellant filed a Miscellaneous Application being S.R. No. 165727/ 85 requesting the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court to withdraw the said Election Petition from the Court of Mr. Justice Upendralal Waghray and transfer the same to some other learned Judge. In the said Miscellaneous Application for transfer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1998]230ITR927(SC); (1998)1SCC503
ORDER1. Under appeal is the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta answering the following question raised in a reference under Section 256 of the Income Tax Act in the negative and against the assessee: '1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of the terms and conditions of the 'leave and licence agreement' executed on 19-10-1963, the Tribunal was right in holding that the loss of Rs 20 lakhs which had been deposited by the assessee with Saksaria Cotton Mills Ltd., pursuant to Clause 17 of the said agreement, arose in the carrying on of the assessee's business and was incidental to it and was accordingly allowable as a business loss?' 2. The High Court noted the facts found by the Tribunal, as under: 'The assessee is a public limited company. It owned several tea estates and its main income was from sale of tea. Davenport and Co. (P) Ltd. are the managing agents of the assessee. In 1960, the assessee al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1998)147CTR(SC)98
BY THE COURT :Under appeal is the judgment and order of Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta answering the following question raised in a reference under s. 256 of the IT Act, 1961, in the negative and against the assessee :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of the terms and conditions of the leave and licence agreement executed on 19th October, 1963, the Tribunal was right in holding that the loss of Rs. 20 lakhs which had been deposited by the assessee with Saksaria Cotton Mills Ltd., pursuant to cl. 17 of the said agreement, arose in the carrying on the assessees business and was incidental to it and was accordingly allowable as a business loss ?'2. The High Court noted the facts found by the Tribunal, as under :'The assessee is a public limited company. It owned several tea estates and its main income was from sale of tea. Devenport & Co. (P) Ltd., are the managing agents of the assessee. In 1960, the assessee altered ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC3821; 1997(2)ALD(Cri)518; JT1997(8)SC32; RLW1997(3)SC397; 1997(6)SCALE36
ORDER1. Jaswant Singh, the respondent in these two appeals, was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Ferozepur under Sections 302 I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act for committing the murder of Harnek Singh on August 24, 1990 by firing at him. For the conviction under Section 302 I.P.C. he was sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine, and for the other conviction he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine with a direction that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. In the appeal preferred by him the High Court set aside his above convictions and instead thereof convicted him under Section 304 (Part I) I.P.C. For the conviction so recorded he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine. Assailing his acquittal of the offences under Section 302 I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act these two appeals have been filed : one by the wife of the deceased and the other by the State of Punjab.2. At the material time Balkaran Singh (P.W. 2) was the princip...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998(99)ELT490(SC); JT1998(9)SC143; (1998)9SCC662
ORDER1. These appeals raise the same point of law and can be decided together. The brief facts that we give, relate to Civil Appeal No. 3798 of 1989.2. The relevant period with which we are concerned is Assessment Year 1972-73. In the course of its business, the first respondent served at its hotels food, beverages and the like to patrons. The appellant-authority charged sales tax on the sales thereof prior to the judgment of this Court in Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, : [1979]1SCR557 . A fresh assessment order was passed thereafter, on the basis of a revised return filed by the first respondent. Ultimately, it culminated in an order which held that the first respondent had paid excess tax aggregating to Rs 11,15,562.30. On 16-3-1982, within the permissible period, the first respondent made an application for refund of the said amount of Rs 11,15,562.30. No action having been taken thereon, the first respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court at...
Tag this Judgment!