Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2001]250ITR193(SC)
ORDER1. By order dated November 19, 1996, these special leave petitions have been directed to be placed before the three-judge Bench because it was felt that dissonant views have been expressed by different Benches of this court on the scope and effect of reopening of an assessment under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It has been pointed out before us that the matter has earlier been considered by a Bench of three judges in V. Jagan mohan Rao v. CIT and EPT : [1970]75ITR373(SC) and the observations in the said case came up for consideration before two judges' Benches of this court in ITO v. Mewalal DwcirKa Prasad : [1989]176ITR529(SC) and in CIT v. Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd. : [1992]198ITR297(SC) and that there is a difference in the views expressed in said later judgments.2. We have heard Shri Ranbir Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, and Shri Harish N. Salve, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the original asse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC1801; 1998(3)ALLMR(SC)136; 1998(1)BLJR755; [1998]92CompCas797(SC); 1998(1)CTC665; JT1998(2)SC620; (1998)IIIMLJ63(SC); 1998(II)OLR(SC)93; (1998)120PLR719; RLW1998(2
G.B. Pattanaik, J.1. These two appeals arise out of the order dated 16-6-1997 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') in Original Petition No. 292 of 1994. The hospital is the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 7708 of 1997 while the insurance company is the appellant in the other appeal. When the special leave applications out of which the two aforesaid appeals arise were listed for preliminary hearing, the Court had issued notice limited to the award of Rs 5 lakhs as compensation to the parents of the child even though the insurance company has raised the question of its liability to pay the compensation in question.2. A complaint petition was filed by minor Harjot Ahluwalia through his parents Mrs Harpreet Ahluwalia and Mr Kamaljit Singh Ahluwalia before the Commission alleging that the minor was being treated at a nursing home in Noida in December 1993. As there was no improvement in his health the said minor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC1975; 1998(2)SCALE647; (1998)4SCC229; [1998]2SCR441
ORDER1. This appeal arises out of the leave granted by the Kerala High Court by order dated January 12, 1984 in M.F.A.No. 338/1978. The short question that arises for decision of this Court is whether the land where systematic teak plantation has been made and the growth of teak plantation is not natural one, will be exempted from the purview of private forests under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. It appears that under Section 2 of the said Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the private forest means in relation to Malabar District referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, any land to which the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949 applied to the lands in question immediately before the appointed day. But certain lands have been excluded from the definition of Private Forests under the Kerala Act and Clause (c) of sub-section (2) (1) (F) is relevant for our consideration. Clause (c) contains th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2001)9SCC387
Sujata V. Manohar,; S.P. Kurdukar and; D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.1. On 13-4-1972, the Munsif's Court in the City of Kanpur passed the following order in an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act:“The application is allowed. Let the dispute between the parties be referred to the named Arbitrator Shri S.S. Dixit, Advocate who shall make, sign and file the award in the court within four months in accordance with law.”2. The award which has been given by the arbitrator on 19-11-1973 records that the order of the court referring the disputes to him for arbitration was received by him on 28-8-1973. The minutes of the arbitration proceedings are also filed. The minutes also show that the order of reference was received by the arbitrator on 28-8-1973. Thereafter on 4-9-1973, the arbitrator issued notice for filing the pleadings. The minutes show that the written statement was filed on 8-11-1973. The further hearings which took place thereafter are also mentioned in the minutes. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1998(9)SC42; 1998(3)SCALE439; (1998)9SCC612
ORDER1. The High Court in its order under appeal has relied on Gasket Radiators (P) Ltd. v. ESI Corpn., : (1985)ILLJ506SC wherein a concept of impost in the form of compulsory contribution has been given birth to and whether such birth should further multiply, is a question touching the interpretation of the Constitution. We, therefore, refer this matter to the Constitution Bench of five Hon'ble Judges in order to test the correctness or otherwise of the Gasket case, : (1985)ILLJ506SC .Court Masters....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000(6)SCALE517
ORDERIA No. 38 1. We have perused the report of the Committee constituted to monitor directions given by this Court in the matter of environmental impact on Taj Mahal due to the 'Concert Yanni'. The said report of the Committee contains the following conclusions and recommendations: '1. The Taj Mahal is one of the three receptor points in the Taj Trapezium which is declared as environmentally fragile (sensitive) area. The Yanni's Concert involved movement of a large number of visitors and vehicles, construction activities for roads and bridges besides use of heavy DG sets for generating electricity at the site. These activities had the ingredients and potential of causing pollution and environmental disruption. However, with the compliance of precautionary measures as per the directions of this Hon'ble Court and prevailing wind directions as well as temperature and humidity, the impacts were less pronounced. In future, for abundant caution as needed for protection of the Taj and its en...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC1737; [1998(79)FLR101]; JT1998(2)SC615; 1998(2)SCALE449; (1998)5SCC370; 1998(1)LC547(SC); (1998)2UPLBEC1134a
ORDERK. Venkataswami, J. 1. The common question of law that arises for consideration in all these appeals filed against a common judgment of the Madras High Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 1205 to 1210 of 1984 and 250 of 1985, is whether the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board is an institution established not for purposes of profit and consequently excluded from the purview of Section 32(v)(c) of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. 2. We have heard learned counsel on both sides and perused the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court carefully and we find that on the facts placed before the Division Bench, the conclusions reached thereon cannot be faulted The learned Judges, after elaborately considering the matter concerning the establishment of the appellant-Board and its functions, found as follows:- 'We have no manner of doubt that the respondent-Board has been established to serve the public interest by ensuring better amenities of life and raising the standard of living of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC835; 86(1998)CLT478(SC); (1998)5SCC372
ORDER1. These appeals by special leave raise a common question regarding the validity of the Orissa Entertainment Tax Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The question is whether in the absence of a machinery regarding assessment being provided either in the Act or in the Orissa Entertainment Tax Rules, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') a demand for payment of excess entertainment tax could be validly made under the provisions of the Act.2. Civil Appeals Nos. 312-315 of 1974 filed by Ravi Talkies relate to demand for excess entertainment tax for the period 1-9-1965 to 30-9-1968; Civil Appeal No. 316 of 1974 filed by Balasore Talkies (P) Ltd. relates to demand for the period from March 1961 to June 1962; and Civil Appeal No. 317 of 1974 filed by Shri Vithora Talkies relate to demand for the period from 14-11-1958 to 31-12-1959. The said demands have been quashed by the Orissa High Court by the impugned judgments.3. The Act was enacted to provide for the levy of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC1424; (1998)146CTR(SC)130; [1998]230ITR934(SC); JT1998(2)SC608; 1998(2)SCALE429; (1998)3SCC596; [1998]2SCR415
Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. The following question was referred to the High Court of Madras under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of Section 155(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are not applicable to the facts of the case and that the Developments rebate allowed for assessment years 1960-61 to 1965-66 cannot be withdrawn by the Income-tax Officer?'2. The assessee at the material time, was a Hindu undivided family of which one Srinivasa Iyer was the Karta and his son, the respondent, was a coparcener. The joint family carried on business. For the assessment years 1960-61 to 1965-66 development rebate was allowed to the joint Hindu family on new machinery and plant installed by joint Hindu family for the purpose its business. On 1.8.1967, there were a partial partition of the joint family and the plant and machinery which had been the subject matter of developm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1998(5)SC335; (1998)4SCC760
ORDERContempt Petition No. 524 of 19971. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that as she has already filed another contempt petition this petition does not survive. Hence, it is disposed of with no orders.IA No. 100 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. According to the learned counsel for 25 applicants, all of them have been found to be eligible squatters as per the Thareja Committee Report. If that is so, as per our order dated 4-2-1998 in Sodan Singh v. N.D.M.C. Mr. Chaturvedi who is entrusted with the task will consider the question of allotment of sites to eligible squatters as per Thareja Committee Report in the zones concerned and consequently the applicants' claim also will be considered by the said Committee for allotment of appropriate sites in accordance with the Report and the directions of this Court in the aforesaid judgment.3. IA is disposed of accordingly.IA No. 1284. In view of our order in Sodan Singh v. N.D.M.C., : [1998]1SCR629 , this IA does not s...
Tag this Judgment!