Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC2393; JT1998(1)SC158; 1998LabIC2733; (1998)ILLJ1047SC; 1998(1)SCALE142; (1998)9SCC458; 1998(1)LC403(SC); (1998)1UPLBEC578
ORDER PRONOUNCED BY K. Venkataswami, J.1. Special leave granted.2. The short question that arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether the respondents are justified in depriving the appellant (who has died pending appeal) the salary for the period from 20.2.81 to 17.5.88. The legal representatives of the deceased appellant are prosecuting this appeal. For the sake of convenience, the deceased appellant will be referred to herein as the appellant.3. To appreciate the question, brief facts are necessary, which are as follows:-4. The deceased appellant was an employee in the Railways. By an order dated 28.6.77, he was placed under suspension with effect from 1.7.77. The suspension was revoked by another order on 28.1.81. He preferred an application successfully under the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act claiming wages for the period he was kept under suspension. The respondents preferred an appeal to the learned District Judge against the order of the Authority under the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC846; JT1998(1)SC313; RLW1998(1)SC135; 1998(1)SCALE260; (1998)2SCC597; [1998]1SCR228; 1998(1)LC333(SC)
ORDER1. Special leave granted in both the matters.2. The respondent obtains electricity from the appellant. On 10th December, 1992 a surprise check was made at the respondent's place and it was found that in the potential transformer (PT) a fuse had been blown off with the result that it was not supplying any electricity from primary cable to secondary cable and as a consequences thereof, the quantum of electricity consumed was not being correctly recorded in the meter. A notice was issued requiring the respondent to show cause as to why charges for less consumption be not charged for the period December 1991 to December 1992. In order to avoid the disconnection of the electricity, the respondent, with the permission of the authority, installed a new PT on the respondent undertaking to pay in future for the supply given to it.3. On 29th December 1992 respondent gave a reply to the show cause notice and inter alia raised a dispute that the PT and the meter paneling were not working prop...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1493; 1998(100)ELT14(SC); JT1998(8)SC526; (1998)9SCC576
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. The short question is whether the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court were justified in quashing the show-cause notice which only called upon the respondent to file its counter and reply to the show-cause notice so that the adjudicating proceedings may take place. In our view on the question whether Tariff Item 33-B(ii) of the Tariff Act* applies or Item 26-AA(i-a) applies, requires investigation of available facts. The High Court should not have undertaken the onerous duty of adjudicating upon these questions which were required to be decided on merits by the authorities themselves. Only on the short ground and without going into the merits of the controversy between the parties, orders passed by the learned Single Judge and Division Bench are vacated. Now the show-cause notice will be required to be adjudicated upon on merits. The respondents will be gi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC2605; (1998)9SCC381
ORDER1. The U.P. State Electricity Board in treating the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Station at the Taj Mahal set up by the Archaeological Survey of India as an ordinary consumer is rather distressing. It is stated that continuous power supply cannot be made to this monitoring station, as they have got only 2 kV load. It is further stated that if they apply for 15 kV load, the U.P. State Electricity Board will have to provide an independent feeder line through which continuous power supply can be made to the monitoring station. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Board that, if the monitoring station installs inverters, then also continuous power supply can be ensured.2. Having regard to the fact that the whole purpose of this proceeding is to protect the monument and the setting up of the Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Station at the Taj Mahal was part of the entire job, we direct the U.P. State Electricity Board to sanction 15 kV load to the mo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)ILLJ26SC
ORDER1. Special leave granted.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.3. This appeal relates to appointment to the post of Principal of Bokaro Manila College (hereinafter referred to as 'the College'). The said appointment has to be made on the basis of selection to be made by the Bihar College Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission'). The Commission recommended the names of Respondents 6 and 7 for the said post. Both are males. The appellant was appointed on temporary basis as the Principal of the College by order dated January 14, 1983. The Commission has given concurrence to the appointment of the appellant till a final recommendation is made by it. On the basis of advertisement issued in 1994, the Commission, after considering the applicants, which included the appellant, has recommended the names of Respondents 6 and 7 for appointment as Principal of the College. The appellant filed a writ petition in the Patna High Court challenging the said recom...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1999]236ITR35(SC); (1999)9SCC159
ORDER1. These appeals are covered by the judgment dated September 26, 1996, Civil Appeal No. 3180 of 1992 titled CIT v. Sakarlal Balabhai and Co. Ltd. : [1996]222ITR486(SC) , and connected matters wherein this court had set aside the orders passed by the High Court rejecting the applications of the Revenue filed under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and directed the Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, to refer the questions of law in the different cases as specified hereinabove for the decision of the High Court and forward the same along with the statement of case and the relevant documents.2. In the same terms these appeals are allowed and the orders of the High Court rejecting the applications of the Revenue filed under Section 256(2) are set aside and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, is directed to refer the following questions of law raised by the Revenue for the decision of the High Court and forward the same along with the statement of case and the relevant d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998IAD(SC)424; AIR1998SC781; 1998(1)ALT27(SC); JT1998(1)SC141; (1998)IIMLJ92(SC); 1998(1)SCALE133; (1998)2SCC385; 1998(1)LC365(SC)
ORDERRajendra Babu, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Air extent of laud measuring 10 acres 1 cent comprised in different survey numbers situate at Puttar adjoining Govindapuram of Chittoor District was notified for acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in the Gazette on 28th April, 1977. After issuing final notification under Section 6 of the Act, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 28.2.1981 determining the compensation payable in respect of the lands in question. He grouped the lands into five categories and paid at different rates of compensation. So far as lands which were classified by him as non agricultural, her fixed a compensation of Rs. 50/- per sq. yard to the 1st and 2nd group and at Rs. 45/-, 40/- and 357- per sq. yard to the rest of the groups depending upon their locations. He also classified certain lands as agricultural lands and awarded a compensation of Rs. 93 75/- per acre and Rs. 13,334/- per acre depen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1998(8)SC436; (1998)9SCC329
ORDERCivil Appeals Nos. 425-428 of 19981. Delay condoned.2. Special leave granted.3. These appeals are directed against the judgment of the Kerala High Court dated 3-4-1996 in TRCs Nos. 126, 130 and 131 of 1993 and TRC No. 159 of 1995. By the impugned judgment the High Court has decided the following two questions against the appellant:'1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in directing the deletion of the amount of cess from the taxable turnover?2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that sales effected are in the course of inter-State sale and not sale within the State?'4. Question 1 now stands concluded in favour of the appellant by the recent judgment of this Court in State of Kerala v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd., : AIR1998SC723 As regards the second question whether the sales were effected in the course of inter-State sales or within the State of Kerala, we find that the Appellate Authority viz...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998IAD(SC)341; AIR1998SC993; JT1998(1)SC146; 1998(1)SCALE131; (1998)2SCC416; [1998]1SCR220; 1998(1)LC240(SC)
1. We have heard learned Additional Solicitor General and Shri Vellapalli, learned Senior Counsel. We consider it appropriate at this stage to constitute a Committee and to specify the specific aspects which the Committee is required to examine. We direct accordingly2. The Committee for Class I Cities (having population over one lakh) shall consist of the following1. Mr. Asim Burman, (Commissioner, Chairman Calcutta Municipal Corpn.)2. Mr. S. R. Rao, (Secretary, SSI,Member Govt. of Gujarat & ex-Commr Surat)3. Mr. S. K. Chawla, Chief MemberEngineer, CPWD4. Mr. P. U. Asnani, (Urban Env. MemberInfrastructure Rep. for IndiaUSAID and Consultant, AhmedabadMun. Corpn.)5. Dr. Saroj, (Jt. Director, MemberMinistry of Environment & Forests)6. Mr. Rajat Bhargava, (Commissioner, MemberVijayawada Mun. Corpn.)7. Mr. Yogendra Tripathi, (Dy. Secy. Member SecretaryUrban Dev. MOUA & E)8. Mrs. Almitra Patel, (Convenor, MemberINTACH Waste Network)3. The terms of Reference for the Committee shall be as unde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1999ACJ192; AIR1998SC3036; 1999(1)BLJR103; JT1998(4)SC315; (1998)3SCC145
ORDER1. Leave granted. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the appeal is heard finally and is being disposed of by this order.2. It is a claimants' appeal. Their breadwinner died in a motor accident in 1985. He was aged 39 years and had bright prospects in life as he was working as a liaison officer and tour agent and used to accompany foreign tourists in Bangalore and roundabout places. He had a lucrative future career which was cut short by the accident. The claim for compensation was adjudicated by the Tribunal and an amount of Rs 1,86,800 was granted by way of compensation. In appeal by the claimants the High Court enhanced the amount to Rs 2,11,200 but reduced the interest from 9% on the awarded amount to 6% from the date of application. That is how the claimants are before us in this appeal.3. In our view, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the future prospects available to the deceased had he not died prematurely in the accident and the econom...
Tag this Judgment!