Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC215; 1999CriLJ267; 1998(4)Crimes101(SC); JT1998(8)SC43; RLW1999(2)SC201; 1998(6)SCALE178
ORDERM.K. Mukherjee, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated December 10, 1996 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 281 DB/94 whereby it upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 120B/302 I.P.C. facts relevant for disposal of the appeal are as under : 2. In the morning of June 28, 1992 one Harvinder Singh (since dead), who was a resident of village Sidhupur, within the jurisdiction of Lohian Police Station, found Vijay Pal, a doctor attached to Veterinary Hospital of Giddar Pindi, lying dead near his filed with multiple bleeding injuries on his person. He then rushed to the police station and lodged a report. On receipt thereof S.H.O. Amrik Singh (P.W. 10) took up investigation and went to the spot. He held inquest upon the dead body of Dr. Vijay Pal and sent it for post-mortem examination to the local hospital. Dr. V.K. Khullar (P.W. 1) held the examination and found twenty seven incised injuries on the person of the decease...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1488; JT1998(8)SC120; 1998(6)SCALE227; (1999)1SCC273; [1998]Supp3SCR30; 1999(1)LC496(SC)
ORDER1. The appellant is the landlord. He has claimed that in a partition effected in the year 1956 in the joint family of which he was a member, an area E admeasuring 1 acre 19 gunthas out of Revision Survey No. 8 of village Kudnoor in Gadhinglaj Taluka came to his share. This land is agricultural land of which the original respondent was a tenant at the material time.2. On coming into force of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, the appellant filed an application Under Section 31(1) read with Section 29 of the said Act for possession on the ground that he bonafide required the land for personal cultivation. Although the appellant was a minor at the time of the application, he chose to exercise his rights Under Section 31(1). This application was ultimately dismissed by the Mamlatdar on 29.05.1957 on the ground that Under Section 31-B, mere is a prohibition against termination of tenancy if such termination would result in contravention of the provisions of Bombay Preve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998VIIIAD(SC)371; AIR1998SC235; 1999(1)BLJR10; [1999]235ITR131(SC); JT1998(8)SC49; (1999)IIMLJ15(SC); 1998(6)SCALE184; (1999)1SCC10; [1998]Supp3SCR5; [1999]112STC185(SC)
Nanavati, J.1. A short question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether investment made by Steel City Beverages Limited, (respondent No. 1 herein and hereafter referred to as 'the Company'), in bottles and crates can be said to be investment in 'Plant' so as to amount to 'Fixed Capital Investment' under the Bihar Sales Tax Supplementary (Deferment of Tax) Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Deferment Rules').2. The Company is engaged in the business of manufacturing soft-drinks and beverages. It is a registered dealer under the Bihar Finance Act, 1981. It filed a writ petition being Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1118 of 1992, through its Director-respondent No. 2, in Patna High Court for a direction to the State Government and its officers, appellants herein, to accord permission Under Rule 42(7) of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1983 and exempt it from using Form No. XXVIII-B. While the petition was pending before the High Court, it made an application under t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC578; 1999(1)ALT22(SC); (1998)2GLR543; JT1998(8)SC55; (1999)ILLJ343SC; (1999)IIMLJ12(SC); 1998(6)SCALE190; (1998)8SCC245; [1998]Supp3SCR13; 1999(2)SLJ75(SC); 1999(1
Nanavati, J.1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No. 6671 of 1997. The High Court upheld the order of the Gujarat Secondary Education Tribunal whereby the order of dismissal of respondent No. 1 passed by the appellant was set aside, but modified the substituted order of stoppage of one increment with future effect by directing stoppage of two increments with future effect.2. Respondent No. 1 was earlier working as a teacher in Pallavi Vidyalaya. He was declared a surplus teacher on closure of that institution in 1988. Under direction of the Director of Education he was absorbed on 25.11.1988 as a teacher in Durga Vidyalaya run by appellant No. 1. While joining this new School, respondent No. 1 did not produce his service book nor was it forwarded by Pallavi Vidyalaya to Durga Vidyalaya. He was, however, paid his salary in the revised pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600 as per the last pay certificate submitted by hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC555; JT1998(5)SC125; 1998(6)SCALE248; (1999)1SCC292; [1998]Supp3SCR36; 1999(1)LC493(SC)
ORDER1. The application to bring on record Respondent No. 2 also as legal representative of deceased Respondent No. 1 is allowed.2. The Ist respondent was the widow of one Ramshetti who died some time in July, 1954. The 2nd respondent is her daughter. Ramshetti and his brother Veerappa, during their life time constituted a joint family which owned, inter alia, agricultural land. The present appellants are the widow, sons and daughters of Veerappa.3. On a partition of the joint family property which was ordered in proceedings arising pursuant to regular Suit No. 88/78 for partition and possession, the 1st respondent as widow of Ramshetti has been given a share in the agricultural lands belonging to the joint family. The appellants contended that under the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act as applied in the erstwhile State of Hyderabad where the lands were situated, the 1st respondent being the widow of deceased Ramshetti, was not entitled to a share in the joint family agricultural la...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998(6)SCALE221a
ORDERThomas, J.1. Leave granted.2. A building situate at Mahboob Gunj, Hyderabad belonged to one Babu Lal. He leased it out to the appellant in 1970 wherein appellant has been running a business by name M/s. Royal Agro Industries. Lathe and machinery have been installed therein for the purpose of the business. Babu Lal died leaving behind him the present respondents as his legal heirs who are his widow and children. In the year 1988 respondent/ landlords launched a litigation against the appellant for evicting him from the leased premises. Though the respondents failed in the Rent Control court as well as in the Appellate Authority they succeeded in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, where in a revision the concurrent findings were reversed and an order of eviction was granted in favour of the landlords. Hence, appellant has filed this appeal by special leave.3. Three distinct grounds have been set up by the respondents in their petition filed under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Buil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC283; JT1998(8)SC157; (1999)123PLR437; 1998(6)SCALE221; (1999)1SCC133; [1998]Supp3SCR20
K.T. Thomas, J.1. Leave granted.2. A building situate at Mahboob Gunj, Hyderabad belonged to one Babu Lal. He leased it out to the appellant in 1970 wherein appellant has been running a business by name M/s Royal Agro Industries. Lathe and machinery have been installed therein for the purpose of the business. Babu Lal died leaving behind him the present respondents as his legal heirs who are his widow and children. In the year 1988 respondents/landlords launched a litigation against the appellant for evicting him from the leased premises. Though the respondents failed in the Rent Control court as well as in the Appellate Authority they succeeded in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, where in a revision the concurrent findings were reversed and an order of eviction was granted in favour of the landlords. Hence, appellant has filed this appeal by special leave.3. Three distinct grounds have been set up by the respondents in their petition filed under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Build...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1998)150CTR(SC)513
Mrs. Sujata v. Manohar, J.. A public interest Writ Petition No. 2350 of 1996 was filed in the Bombay High Court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bar Association through its Secretary challenging the validity of a letter dated 5-11-1996 Purporting to modify the powers of the President of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding posting and transfer of Members of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The petitioners contended that they were interested in fair and impartial administration of the income-tax law and in upholding the independent working of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Rule of Law and independence of the income-tax judiciary. By an interim order, the High Court restrained the Under Secretary, Ministry of Law, Government of India and the Union of India who were respondents 1 and 2 therein from interfering with the powers of the President of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to assign work to any Member, to constitute Benches and to require a Member to sit on any ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1998(8)SC114; 1998(6)SCALE246; (1999)1SCC638; [1998]Supp3SCR1; 1999(1)LC367(SC)
ORDER1. By an earlier judgment & order of this Court dated 1l.03.1969 in Civil Appeal No .306 of 1966 between the original appellant and the original respondents in the same proceedings, this Court gave the following directions:'The order passed by the High Court is set aside and the proceeding stands remanded to the Tahsildar with the direction that he do determine whether Dadarao continued to remain a protected tenant till the date on which he claimed to exercise his right to purchase the land and whether Nivrutti acquired the rights of a protected tenant and if so, whether he was entitled to exercise the right of purchase the land, and if both Dadarao and Nivrutti were entitled to purchase the land or any part thereof the extent to which each of them was entitled and to what extent. The Tribunal will decide the question with the least practical delay and dispose of the rights and obligations of the parties according to law. No order as to costs.'2. These directions were given becaus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC452; 1999(1)ALD(Cri)12; (1999)1CompLJ193(SC); 1999CriLJ441; [1999]235ITR175(SC); JT1998(7)SC638; 1998(6)SCALE154; (1999)1SCC16; [1998]Supp2SCR707
Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. A public interest Writ Petition No. 2350 of 1996 was filed in the Bombay High Court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Bar Association through its Secretary challenging the validity of a letter dated 5.11.1996 purporting to modify the powers of the President of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding posting and transfer of Members of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The petitioners contended that they were interested in fair and impartial administration of the income-tax law and in upholding the independent working of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, the Rule of Law and independence of the income-tax judiciary. By an interim order, the High Court restrained the Under Secretary, Ministry of Law, Government of India and the Union of India who were respondents 1 and 2 therein from interfering with the powers of the President of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to assign work to any Member, to constitute Benches and to require a Member to sit on any Benc...
Tag this Judgment!