Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1999(63)ECC8; 1999(105)ELT4(SC); JT1998(8)SC544; 1998(6)SCALE551; (1999)2SCC198; [1998]Supp3SCR541
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. These appeals by special leave questions the correctness of the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa dismissing writ petitions filed by the appellants. Until the Assessment year 1990-91, the respondents accepted the position that the sales made by the appellants were sales in the course of export and, therefore, exempt from the levy of sales tax. For the Assessment Years 1990-91 and 1991-92 the respondents found that these sales were intra-State sales subject to the levy of tax under the Orissa Sales Tax Act The writ petitions filed by the appellants there against were dismissed.2. The appellants are an export oriented unit set up pursuant to the resolution of the Government of India dated 31st Dec. 1980. That resolution decided to give 100% export oriented units certain concessions to enable them to meet the rigours of foreign demands in terms of pricing, quality, precision, etc. According to the resolution, '(a) 100% export oriented u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1999)151CTR(SC)94
Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J. At all material times, the respondent who is the assessee was a shareholder in Kasthuri Estates (P) Ltd., Madras. During the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1963-64, the assessee held 70 shares in Kasthuri Estates (P) Ltd. The face value of each share was Rs. 1,000. During the said accounting period, the said company passed a resolution to reduce its capital. The procedure prescribed under the Companies Act, 1956 for the reduction of share capital was undergone. An appropriate order was obtained from the court. The reduction was given effect to on and from 26-5-1962. As a result, the face value of the shares in the company was reduced from Rs. 1,000 each to Rs. 2 10 each. As a result of this reduction, there was a pro-rata distribution of some properties of the company and payment of money to the shareholders including the assessee.2. In the income-tax proceedings connected with the property/amounts so received by the assessee on reduction o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC408; [1999]236ITR327(SC); 1998(6)SCALE546; (1999)1SCC510; [1998]Supp3SCR532
Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. At all material times, the respondent who is the assessee was a shareholder in M/s. Kasthuri Estates (Pvt.) Ltd., Madras. During the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1963-64, the assessee held 70 shares in M/s. Kasthuri Estates (Pvt.) Ltd. The face value of each share was Rs. 1,000. During the said accounting period, the said company passed a resolution to reduce its capital. The procedure prescribed under the Companies Act for the reduction of share capital was undergone. An appropriate order was obtained from the court. The reduction was given effect on and from 26.5.1962. As a result, the face value of the shares in the company was reduced from Rs. 1,000 each to Rs. 210 each. As a result, of this reduction, there was a pro-rata distribution of some properties of the company and payment of money to the shareholders, including the assessee.2. In the income-tax proceedings connected with the property/amounts so received by the assesses on reduct...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC684; 1999(1)ALD(Cri)194; 1999(1)ALT(Cri)167; 1999CriLJ826; JT1998(8)SC598; 1998(6)SCALE574; (1999)1SCC417; [1998]Supp3SCR551
K.T. Thomas, J.1. Leave granted.2. Smt. Rajammal, a thirty two year old lady is kept under detention dubbing her as a 'bootlegger', as per the detention order passed under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982) (hereinafter referred to as the TN Act). The aforesaid order was passed by the Government of Tamil Nadu on 18.12.1997 and she continues to be in detention. A representation forwarded by her on 13.1.1998, was rejected by the Government of Tamil Nadu. She filed a habeas corpus petition before the High Court of Madras in which the detention order was challenged mainly on three grounds. First is that there was delay in considering the representation submitted on her behalf. Second is that her family members were not informed about the place of detention nor even about the detention. The third is that report of the Adviso...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC401; 1999(1)ALLMR(SC)249; [1999(81)FLR358]; JT1998(8)SC487; (1999)ILLJ352SC; 1998(6)SCALE537; (1999)1SCC626; [1998]Supp3SCR517
S. Saghir Ahmad, J.1. The legal battle which started on a larger plane between the parties to this appeal, in 1984, has now narrowed down to only one question, namely, the question relating to the representation of an employee in the disciplinary proceedings through another employee who, though not an employee of the appellant-corporation was, nevertheless, a member of the Trade Union.2. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., which is the appellant before us, was incorporated in 1976.3. On 4.12.1985, the appellant submitted Draft Standing Orders to the Certifying Officer for certification under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (for short, 'the Act') which were intended to be applicable to the Marketing Division, Western Region, including its Head Office at Bombay. On receipt of the Draft Standing Orders, the Certifying Officer issued notices to various employees' Unions and after following the statutory procedure and after giving the parties an opportunity of hearing, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1998(9)SC280; (2000)10SCC545
ORDER1. This Court disposed of Criminal Appeal No. 972 of 1998 by order dated 21-9-1998 allowing the appeal and remanding the case for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The petitioner in the present petition prays that on remand the appeal has to be heard by a Bench different from the one which disposed of the criminal appeal in the High Court on the earlier occasion. We do not accept all the reasons given in support of the petition. Independent of that, we are of the view, on the facts of this case, it would be appropriate that Criminal Appeal No. 445 of 1988 on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Madras is heard and disposed of by a Bench other than the one which disposed of the same appeal before remand. We order accordingly. We further request the High Court to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of this order. The liberty given in the order of this Court dated 21-9-1998 to the appellants at the en...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC413; 1999(1)ALLMR(SC)645; [1999(81)FLR932]; JT1998(8)SC552; (1999)ILLJ416SC; 1998(6)SCALE519; (1999)2SCC143; [1998]Supp3SCR488
ORDERS.B. Majmudar, J.1. The appellant company, on grant of leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, has brought in challenge the judgment and order of the learned single Judge of the High Court allowed Writ Petition filed by respondent No. 1 Union under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and quashed the decision of the Presiding Officer, First Labour Court, Thane. By the said decision, the First Labour Court, Thane, took the view on an application moved by the appellant company that respondent No. 1 Union had gone on an illegal strike from 30th March, 1983 pursuant to the strike notice dated 14th March, 1983. In the impugned judgment, learned single Judge of the High Court took the contrary view and held that the appellant had failed to establish that the strike in question was illegal.2. In order to appreciate the grievances of the appellant against the decision of the High Court, it will be necessary to have a glance at the background facts.Introductory ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDERI.A. No. 201. The requirement of filing an affidavit in support of this application is dispensed with.2. Issue notice. Notice shall also issue to Secretary, Sericulture Department, Government of Jammu and Kashmir. Till further orders from this Court and subject to objections, if any, to be filed by the State, the Secretary, Department of Forests, Government of Jammu and Kashmir is directed to send a detailed status report indicating steps taken by the State Government so far to identify rare trees species in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.3. There shall be a complete ban against the felling of rare species trees throughout the State of Jammu arid Kashmir.4. Copy of this Order shall be communicated to the Secretary, Forests Department as also to the Additional Chief Secretary, Incharge of the Forests Department, Government of Jammu and Kashmir.I.A. No. 215. Learned Amicus Curiae submits that this application may be permitted to be withdrawn to enable him to file a comprehensive app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1998(9)SC161; (1999)9SCC151
ORDERA.S. Anand, C.J.I.I.A 295/951. We are rather distressed that many States have either not implemented various directions issued by this Court from time to time including the directions issued on 12th December, 1996 and 15th January, 1998 or have committed breach of those directions with the result that the efforts made by this Court to prevent large scale of deforestation and for protection and conservation of forests and environment are not bearing the fruit that we expected them to bear.2. The Central Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section 3 of Section 3 of the Environment Protection Act 1987 constituted an Authority for Arunachal Pradesh known as Arunachal Pradesh Forest Protection Authority. The powers and jurisdiction of the Authority was notified on 17th September, 1998. Mr. Kriti N. Rawal, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India states that according to his instructions, this Committee has been functioning quite satisfact...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1999(1)Crimes8(SC); 1999(1)SCALE139
ORDER1. Notices on this petition shall be issued to all the High Courts returnable by 26.2.1999. The High Courts shall be required to furnish a list of all pending Criminal/district wise in different courts specifying the offences to which they relate and if they are pending for more than five years as on 31.12.98, the reason for not being disposed of speedily. The High Courts will also indicate whether the existing courts are sufficient for speedy disposal of the pending cases including trials and, if not, what are the requirements for the additional courts.2. The affidavit filed by State of U.P. is highly unsatisfactory and does not give details as were required by this Court. Apart from the fact that the details of pending cases beyond five years have not been given, they have also not specified the offences for which the cases mentioned in the schedule appended to the affidavit are pending. We, therefore, direct the State of U.P. to file a better affidavit by 26.2.1999.3. On a peru...
Tag this Judgment!