Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998VIIAD(SC)590; AIR1999SC1461; 1998(2)ALD(Cri)807; 1999(1)ALT(Cri)14; 1999CriLJ590; 1998(4)Crimes74(SC); JT1998(7)SC197; 1998(5)SCALE617; (1999)1SCC168; 1999(1)LC33(SC)
ORDERNanavati, J.1. Leave granted.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The appellant and the other two co-accused were convicted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur, in Sessions Trial No. 181 of 1979 for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. All the three accused filed Criminal Appeal No. 396 of 1980 in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The High Court held that the accused had acted in exercise of their right of private defence but had exceeded the same and, therefore, their conviction under Section 302 was not proper. It, therefore, partly allowed the appeal by setting aside their conviction under Section 302 IPC and by convicting them under Section 304, Part I, IPC, and sentenced them to suffer 7 years' R.I. Out of the three convicted accused, only the appellant has filed an appeal challenging his conviction under Section 304, Part I, IPC, and also the order of sentence.4. What is urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1999)156CTR(SC)300; [1998]238ITR461(SC)
ORDERLeave granted.2. In respect of the assessment years 1978-79, 1979-80 and 1980-81 returns were filed by the respondent, after search and seizure had taken place under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Returns were filed belatedly and the assessments which were made were at a figure more than what was the returned income.3. Prosecution was launched against the respondent alleging that he had committed an offence under section 276C of the Act, since his returns had been filed much after the date of search and he had wilfully attempted to evade tax chargeable or imposable under the Act.4.The respondent thereafter moved an application under section 482 before the Allahabad High Court. It was contended before the court that the assessment which was made was on the basis of compromise arrived at between the respondent and the Income Tax Commissioner, Kanpur and there was also an understanding that no penal action would be taken against the re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC196; 1998(2)ALD(Cri)805; 1999(1)ALT(Cri)8; 1998(4)Crimes75(SC); [1999]238ITR461(SC); JT1998(7)SC384; 1998(5)SCALE702; (1998)7SCC652; [1998]Supp2SCR356; 1999(1)LC31
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. In respect of the Assessment Years 1978-79,1979^80 and 1980-81 returns were filed by the respondent, after search and seizure had taken place Under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act.1 Returns were filed belatedly and the assessments which were made were at a figure more than what was the returned income.3. Prosecution was launched against the respondent alleging that he had committed an offence Under Section 276-C of the said act, since his returns had been filed much after the date of search and he had wilfully attempted to evade tax chargeable or imposable under the Act.4. The respondent thereafter moved an application Under Section 482 before the Allahabad High Court. It was contended before the Court that the assessment which was made was on the basis of a compromise arrived at between the respondent and the Income-tax Commissioner, Kanpur and there was also an understanding that no penal action would be taken against the respondent. A further contention wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998(2)ALD(Cri)801; 1998(2)ALT(Cri)349; JT1998(7)SC208; RLW1999(2)SC193; 1998(5)SCALE612; (1998)7SCC450; [1998]Supp2SCR337; 1999(1)LC39(SC)
M. Srinivasan, J.1. The appellant and six other persons stood prosecuted for offences Under Section 147, 148, 302 read with 149 and 307/149. They were acquitted by the Additional District Judge, Narisinghgarh, Distt. Rajgarh (Byara), M.P. State. On appeal, the High Court confirmed the acquittal of five persons but reversed the Judgment of the trial Judge with reference to the appellant and another by name Ram Singh. The appellant was convicted for offences Under Section 302 and 324 IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life Under Section 302 and imprisonment for four months and a fine of Rs. 1000/- Under Section 324. We are not concerned with the other accused as he has not come to mis Court.2. The case of the prosecution is shortly as follows : There was prior enmity between the accused persons on the one side and Gorelal and others on the other. The accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and on 29.12.86 at about 2 P.M. committed the murder of Gorelal in the jungle of Padiliya Kh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998VIIAD(SC)508; AIR1999SC194; JT1998(7)SC212; 1998LabIC3619; (1999)ILLJ811SC; 1998(5)SCALE618; (1998)8SCC133; 1999(1)LC298(SC); (1999)1UPLBEC86
ORDERNanavati, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Nilu Sharma, respondent No. 1, filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court against the National Airports Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'NAA') and others, challenging appointment of C.V. Marthandan, respondent No. 9, as Private Secretary and for a direction to NAA to promote her as Private Secretary on the basis of her seniority. The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the appointment of respondent No. 9 and directed NAA to consider Nilu Sharma for appointment as Private Secretary by applying the criteria of seniority-cum-suitability. NAA has, therefore, filed this appeal. 4. Prior to 1990, there was no post of 'Private Secretary' in the organisation of NAA. In May, 1990, it created four fresh posts of Private Secretary, one each for the offices at Bombay, Calcutta, Delhi and Madras, in the pay-scale of Rs. 2,000-3,500/-. On July 5, 1990, it issued a Memorandum informing all concerned t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998VIAD(SC)478; AIR1999SC44; JT1998(7)SC216; 1998LabIC3554; 1998(5)SCALE621; (1999)1SCC280; [1998]Supp2SCR343; (1999)1UPLBEC12
M. Srinivasan, J.1. The first appellant was appointed as an Overseer (re-designated as Junior Engineer) on adhoc basis in Public Works Department (for short P.W.D), State of U.P. on 17.7.1970 and was approved by the Public Service Commission, U.P. (for short the Commission) on 30.6.1973. The second appellant was directly appointed as overseer substantively in the said department through the Commission on the same day. Both the appellants were holders of Diploma in Civil Engineering. In May, 1978 they passed an examination known as Associate Member of Institution of Engineer (India), Section A and B, equivalent to B.E. Degree. On 30.5.1979 the appellants were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineers on adhoc basis. The said promotions were made within the quota of posts reserved for the promotees according to the relevant Service Rules by the Departmental Promotion Committee consisting of Secretary, P.W.D., Chief Engineer, P.W.D. and Chief Engineer Irrigation Department. The appointm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998VIIIAD(SC)253; AIR1998SC842; JT1998(7)SC450; 1998(6)SCALE15; (1999)1SCC114; 1999(1)LC83(SC)
ORDERNanavati, J.1. The appellant is questioning in this appeal the correctness of the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 1858 of 1992.2. One Dina Bisan was the Kotwar of Village Bhandare. He died in 1953. Respondent Sharad who was his nephew and the only heir was appointed as a Kotwar in his place. As Sharad was a minor at that time the appellant was appointed as a 'Gumasta'/ Deputy of Sharad. Sharad became major in 1959. He made an application on 18.4.1959 for deleting name of the appellant as 'Gumasta Kotwar' as that arrangement was no longer necessary. No order was passed on it till 1964. Therefore, he again applied to the Naib Tehsildar to delete name of the appellant. By the time, the appellant had also, along with other persons, applied for re-grant of the land as rights of Kotwars came to be abolished in 1962 by the M.P. Land Revenue Amendment Act, 1962 and he was the de facto holder on the appointed date i.e. 31.5.1962 and as such entitled to regrant of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2880; JT1998(7)SC423; 1998(6)SCALE10; (1999)1SCC56; 1999(1)LC277(SC)
ORDERNanavati, J.1. An application filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 for declaring the sale dt. 17. 2. 76 executed by the father of respondent No. 3 - Balwant Rao in favour of appellant Vishwanath as null and void was dismissed by the Agricultural Land Tribunal, Latur. The Tribunal held that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were protected tenants of the land and, therefore, father of respondent No. 3 right to had no sell it without following the procedure prescribed by Section 48 of the Hyderabad Agricultural Lands and Tenancy Act and Rule 31 A of the Rules made under that Act.2. Appeal filed against the order of the Tribunal was dismissed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Latur. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal allowed the revision petition and held that the sale made by Balwant Rao's father in favour of Vishwanath was hit by Section 48 of the Act and was, therefore, void. The appellant feeling aggrieved by the said order approached the High Court with a writ petition under Article 227 o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2001)9SCC383
S.Saghir Ahmed and; D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.1. The dispute in this appeal by special leave relates to an area of 19.36 acres of land which was not excluded by the authorities under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act while determining the ceiling and surplus area of the appellant.2. Exemption for this area was claimed by the appellant on the ground that he had applied for the conversion of this land into non-agricultural land on 17-4-1973, but the permission for conversion was granted by the Assistant Commissioner, Sedam, by his order dated 24-7-1974.3. The Land Tribunal, Sedam, as also the High Court went by the date of the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Sedam, and came to the conclusion that since the permission for conversion was granted after 17-3-1974, it would be of no benefit to the appellant. In recording this finding, the Tribunal as also the High Court, both, overlooked the provision of Section 95(5) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act which provides as under:“95. (5) Where the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998VIIAD(SC)530; AIR1999SC212; JT1998(7)SC201; 1998(5)SCALE602; (1998)7SCC388; 1999(1)LC275(SC)
ORDER1. The claim made by the appellant-Corporation before the Assistant Commissioner of Payments, Bombay, under Section 19 of the Sick Textile Undertakings (Nationalisation) Act, 1974 (hereinafter called the 'Act') was partly rejected. The appeal filed against the rejected portion of the claim to the Appellate Authority (Joint Judge, Akola) and the further revision to the Bombay High Court were dismissed. Thereafter, these appeals are preferred by special leave. 2. By this Court's Order dated 6.8.98 it was made clear that unless the copies of agreements entered into between the erstwhile textile undertaking and the State Bank of India and also the Central Bank of India are produced, the claim of the appellant under the category of 'Bills discount' cannot be considered and disposed of. 3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant frankly stated before us that those agreements are not available at this distance of time. Therefore, he confined rightly his arguments only to the c...
Tag this Judgment!