Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1998(8)SC35; (1998)9SCC376
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The respondent had obtained a mining lease for a period of three years in respect of an acre of land situated in Village Mahidiya. The period of the lease was to expire on 7-3-1990. This lease had been granted for extraction of limestone. The respondent had installed a stone-crusher for making small boulders from the limestone so extracted. The Central Government, by notification under Section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition & Development) Act, 1957 declared its intention to prospect for coal in respect of areas stipulated in the said notification which included the said land over which the respondent had a mining lease. Thereafter, by a declaration dated 10-10-1988, under Section 9 of the said Act, the Central Government acquired 427 acres of land which included the said land leased to the respondent for the purpose of mining limestone. The appellants offered to the respondent under Section 14, compensation of Rs 1,49,546. Since this was not accepted ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1998(79)FLR920]; JT1998(1)SC205; 1998(1)SCALE176; (1998)4SCC104; [1998]1SCR225; 1999(1)SLJ191(SC); (1998)1UPLBEC576
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The short question that arises for decision of this Court in this appeal is whether the respondent Dr. Manju Saraswat continues as Principal of the Dayanand Arya Kanya Degree College, Moradabad, despite the fact that she had voluntarily tendered resignation from the said post long back. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has held that the acceptance of the resignation by the Managing Committee of the said college was not operative because the authorised Controller had not accepted such resignation and the Vice Chancellor the concerned University had also not accorded approval of the decision of the Managing Committee in accepting the resignation tendered by the said Manju Saraswat.4. There is no dispute to the fact that Smt. Manju Saraswat tendered resignation voluntarily and till today she had not withdrawn such resignation. There is also no dispute to the fact that at the relevant time when the Managing Committee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC768; 1998(1)ALD(Cri)332; 1998(1)ALT(Cri)220; 1998CriLJ1104; 1998(1)Crimes122(SC); JT1998(1)SC145; 1998(1)SCALE130; (1998)2SCC391; [1998]1SCR223
ORDER1. Leave granted. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. We are unable to sustain the impugned order of the High Court quashing the F.I.R. Lodged against the respondents alleging commission of offences under Sections 419, 420, 467 and 468 I.P.C. by them in course of the proceeding of a civil suit, on the ground that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr. P.C. prohibited entertainment of and investigation into the same by the police. From a plain reading of Section 195 Cr.P.C. it is manifest that it comes into operation at the stage when the Court intends to take cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1) Cr. P.C.; and it has nothing to do with the statutory power of the police to investigate into an F.I.R. which discloses a cognisable offence, in accordance with Chapter XII of the Code even if the offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in Court. In other words, the statutory power of the Police to investigate under the Code is not in any way co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : I(1999)ACC497; 1998ACJ513; 1998VIAD(SC)33; AIR1998SC2968; JT1998(4)SC300; (1998)IIMLJ124(SC); (1998)119PLR624; (1998)3SCC140
ORDER1. Leave granted. The appeal is taken up for final hearing as the appellants-claimants and the respondent-Insurance Company, which is the only contesting party in this appeal, are represented by their counsel. Counsel for respective parties were finally heard.2. The short question is whether Respondent 1, Insurance Company could have filed an appeal in the High Court against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and got the quantum of compensation reduced when the insured had not filed such appeal and when Respondent 1 Insurance Company had not moved the Tribunal under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for getting the right to contest the proceedings on merits. It may be stated that the appellants filed a claim petition in 1989 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gulbarga for death on account of motor accident of their 18-year-old son. The accident occurred on 4-9-1989. It was caused by a jeep which was owned by one Om Prakash, Respondent 2 in this app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1998(2)SC667a; 1998(1)SCALE253
ORDER1. In view of the order dated 7.11.1996 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2068/1996 arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 3337/96 which will continue to operate till disposal of the trial, no further order is required to be passed in this Special Leave Petition.2. The SLP is disposed of accordingly....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)161CTR(SC)274; [2000]243ITR181(SC)
1. In view of the decision of this court in the case of Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT : [1985]156ITR509(SC) , the development rebate was correctly withdrawn under Section 155(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appeals are, there- fore, allowed. The High Court was not right in not directing a case to be stated before it under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, in respect of the following question (see : [1985]152ITR613(Mad) : [1985]152ITR613(Mad) :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in cancelling the order of the Income-tax Officer withdrawing the development rebate already allowed for the assessment years 1965-66 to 1972-73 consequent to the conversion of the assessee's proprietary business into a partnership firm ?'2. Since the point at issue is covered by the decision of this court referred to above, we treat this question as a reference and answer it in the affirmative (sic) and in favour of the Revenue. The appeals are disp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)10SCC517
1. In view of the decision of this Court in the case of Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT, : [1985]156ITR509(SC) the development rebate was correctly withdrawn under Section 155(5) of the Income Tax Act. The appeals are, therefore, allowed. The High Court was not right in not directing a case to be stated before it under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, in respect of the following questions:'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in cancelling the order of the Income Tax Officer withdrawing the development rebate already allowed for Assessment Years 1965-66 to 1972-73 consequent to the conversion of the assessee's proprietary business into a partnership firm?'2. Since the point at issue is covered by the decision of this Court referred to above, we treat this question as referred and answer it in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. The appeals are disposed of accordingly....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998VIAD(SC)19; AIR1998SC3112; JT1998(4)SC314; (1998)3SCC167
ORDER1. Two writ petitions namely WP No. 1736 of 1982 and WP No. 144 of 1980 were filed before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court by Ashraf Hussain and others. The High Court has observed in disposing of the writ petitions that the writ petitioners filed the writ petitions in their individual capacity and not representing the Shia community. The correctness of such observation has been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is not necessary for us to make any observation whether the writ petitions were filed by some members of the Shia community or the same was made in a representative capacity. It appears that the High Court has not interfered in the writ petitions by indicating that the existence of certain rights claimed by the Shia community as indicated in the writ petitions were not admitted by the respondents. The High Court therefore was of the view that such disputed questions should not be gone into in the writ petitions. The High Court how...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC783; JT1998(1)SC126; 1998(1)SCALE108; (1998)2SCC589; [1998]1SCR202; (1998)1UPLBEC493
ORDERMisra, J.1. Delay condoned in C.C. No. 20506.2. Special leave granted.3. The Civil Appeal No. 4368 of 1991 is filed against the order dated March 30, 1990 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, Gauhati, by virtue of which the order contained in letter No. R-IV 1/87 Orp/CRPF/EP-IV dated February 24, 1989 was quashed. Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No....of (1993 (C.C.20506/93) arises out of order dated October 01.1992, allowing the application by the respondents claiming enhancement of the allowance, directing the appellant to pay 50 per cent of the amount in terms of the judgment of the Gauhati Bench in the O.A. No. 17 of 1988 dated 30.3.1990 as aforesaid. The main matter is still pending before the Tribunal to be listed after disposal of the present appeals. The C. As. arising out of Special leave petition Nos, 502-503/96 are directed against the order of the same Tribunal by which it finally disposed of the matter with a direction to the appellant ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC2612; 1998LabIC3103; (1999)IILLJ454SC; 1999(1)MPLJ172; (1998)2SCC412; (1998)1UPLBEC742
ORDER1. Both these appeals are from orders of the High Court granting appointment to the respondents concerned on compassionate grounds. The facts of both the appeals are similar. For the sake of convenience, we are setting out the facts in Civil Appeals Nos. 1761-62 of 1993.2. The father of the respondent was working as an Assistant Teacher in Basic School in the State of Uttar Pradesh under the supervision and control of the Zila Parishad. He expired on 8-6-1969 while he was in service. At the time of his death, there were no rules permitting appointment of a dependant of such a person dying in harness on compassionate grounds.3. With effect from 21-12-1973, the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 came into force. Clause 5 of the Rules clearly provides that the Rules will apply in the case of a government servant who dies in harness after the commencement of these Rules. However, even after these Rules came into force, no applic...
Tag this Judgment!