Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2865; JT1998(9)SC505; (1999)1SCC197
ORDER1. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner is right when he contends relying upon a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v Union of India, reported in : 1997(89)ELT247(SC) that as per Rule 330(b) the payment of duty under protest can be said to have taken place only when a letter of protest was delivered to the proper officer and that date is found by the Assistant Collector to be 15-9-1981. He therefore submits that the demand for refund from 1-9-1981 to 14-9-1981 would get time-barred as the application for refund was filed on 17-3-1982. The duty paid for the disputed period amounts to Rs. 37,000/- and odd. As the amount involved is too small even though we agree with learned senior counsel for the petitioner that on the question of law he is on a stronger footing in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are not inclined to interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.2. The Special Leave Petition is acco...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1784; JT1999(9)SC381; (1999)1SCC194
ORDER1. Special leave granted.2. The respondent was a legal adviser with the appellant-Corporation. He retired from service on 30-6-1991. While the respondent was in service a draft superannuate benefit scheme for the employees of the appellants was approved by the Executive Committee with some modifications and subject to the approval of the appropriate authorities including Commissioner of Income-tax on 29-4-1990. The draft scheme was circulated under the title 'Self-Contributory Post-Retirement and Death in Service Benefit Scheme, 1990.' Thereafter, on account of representations received from certain associations of employees the draft scheme underwent further modifications. The scheme was submitted to the Government for approval on 14-6-1990. Thereafter, there was some further modifications to the scheme and the modified scheme was again submitted to the Government for approval on 15-11-1990. There were several subsequent modifications to the draft scheme. Ultimately on 18-9-1991 t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2324; (1999)1SCC187
K. Venkataswami and; A.P. Misra, JJ.1. We do not think that at this stage, we should interfere. The petitioner can move the High Court for appropriate relief. We have no doubt that having regard to the circumstances, the High Court will expeditiously dispose of the interim applications. The special leave petition is dismissed.IPs (C) Nos. 517-522 of 19982. These transfer petitions are filed under Article 139-A of the Constitution of India to transfer the writ applications filed in different High Courts by operators of stage carriages and others challenging Section 64-UC of the Insurance Act, 1938, and also the enhancement of motor tariff insurance premium ranging between 182.75% to 244% of the existing tariff to be paid by the transport operators and also the exercise of powers of the Central Government under Section 35 of the General Insurance Corporation Act. It is stated by the learned Attorney General that in the judgment in Jt. Council of Bus Syndicate v. Union of India1 the quest...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1999)1SCC260
A.S. Anand and; D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.1. Even without adverting to the scope of sub-section (9-A) of Section 85 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964 we find, on the petitioner's own showing, that the applications were filed by Petitioner 1 under Section 85(9-A) on 12-11-1992 and by Petitioner 2 on 10-10-1992. The proviso to Section 85(9-A) which was inserted w.e.f. 30-5-1989 reads:“Provided that the Taluk Land Board shall not reopen any such case after the expiry of three years from the date of coming into force of the Kerala Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1989.”2. By virtue of this proviso, the applications filed in October and November 1992 were barred by time. The Taluk Land Board could not have entertained, much less considered, those applications. The High Court, therefore, rightly set aside the order of the Board, even though for different reasons. We do not find any merit in this special leave petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.SLP (C) No. 5573 of 19903. Agai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC144; 1998(2)ALT(Cri)244; 1999CriLJ27; JT1998(5)SC243; 1998(4)SCALE350; (1998)6SCC378; [1998]3SCR944
1. Taking note a news item reading 'SC orders removal of homoeo council chief, in the Chandigarh Newsline published by the Indian Express Group, Chandigarh on 30.4.1998, this Court on May 1, 1998, being of the view that not only the heading of the news item was absolutely incorrect and misleading but even the contents were misleading and the news item had been published while the matter was pending in this Court, issued notice to the Reporter-Mr. K.B. Kapur as well as the Editor of the Indian Express, Chandigarh to show cause why proceedings for committing contempt of court be not initiated against them. In response to the notice, both the respondents are present in in Court along with their learned counsel Mr. Jaitely. At the request of the Court, the learned Solicitor General is also present to assist the Court.2. The contemnors have filed their reply affidavits admitting their mistake and serious lapse, and have tendered unconditional apology to this Court. It has also been brought ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998VAD(SC)588; AIR1998SC2676; 1998(2)ALD(Cri)322; 1998(4)ALLMR(SC)389; 1998(2)ALT(Cri)316; [1998]94CompCas75(SC); 1998CriLJ4027; JT1998(5)SC233; (1998)IILLJ794SC; 1999(1)M
ORDERMrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. The respondents were, at the material time, directors of a company M/s. Indo Japan Steel Ltd. The company has a factory and head office at Calcutta. Under the provisions of Section 40 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, the 'principal employer' is required to pay, in respect of every employee, whether directly employed by him or by or through an immediate employer, both the employer's contribution and the employee's contribution. Under sub-section (2) of Section 40 the principal employer, in the case of an employee directly employed by him, is entitled to recover from the employee the employee's contribution by deduction from his wages. Under sub-section (4) any sum deducted by the principal employer from wages under this Act shall be deemed to have been entrusted to him by the employee for the purpose of paying the contribution in respect of which it was deducted. The complainant who is the appellant before us inspected the head office of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1935; (1999)1SCC158
ORDER1. An application has been filed for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased-Gulabi Devi, petitioner No. 2. The said application shows that Gulabi Devi died on February 7, 1997 when the matter was pending in the High Court. Since Gulabi Devi died when the matter was pending before the High Court, the application for bringing on record her legal representatives is not maintainable in this Court. The names of petitioners Nos. 2(a) to 2(p) in the Special Leave Petition are directed to be deleted from the array of parties. The failure to bring on record the legal representatives of Gulabi Devi is of no consequence since Gulabi Devi had been impleaded as the legal representative of Hari Ram, one of the plaintiffs, and the estate of Hari Ram is represented by petitioners Nos. 1 and 3, the other legal representatives of Hari Ram.2. Special leave granted.3. The parties are the descendants of a common ancestor. The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition wherein the trial Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1999)1SCC298
ORDER 1. Presumption regarding service of notice on Respondent 3 is drawn. 2. Special leave granted. 3. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Kerala dated 14-10-1997 in AS No. 157 of 1995 whereby the High Court has remanded the matter to the trial court for recording further evidence. The matter arises out of a suit filed by Respondents 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as “the plaintiffs”) for setting aside two sale deeds executed by their mother (Respondent 3) in favour of the appellants in respect of 15 cents of land. The said sale deeds were executed by Respondent 3 in pursuance of an agreement for sale dated 1-9-1979 executed by Mannullil Kurien, the father of the plaintiffs and the husband of Respondent 3. Mannullil Kurien passed away on 12-1-1980 and, thereafter, Respondent 3 in her capacity as a guardian of the minor plaintiffs executed the two sale deeds dated 14-7-1980 and 18-7-1990. The suit of the plaintiffs to assail...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC2722; JT1998(6)SC1; 1998LabIC3021; (1998)IILLJ748SC; 1998(4)SCALE659; (1998)7SCC569; [1998]3SCR933; 1999(1)SLJ180(SC)
S. Sagir Ahmed, J.1. The original respondent, Dinanath Shantaram Karekar, who died during the pendency of the proceedings before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay and has since been replaced by the present respondents, was appointed as unskilled labour in the Naval Armament Depot, Bombay. He was subsequently promoted to the post of Gun Repair Labourer, Grade-I. On 25th October, 1973, he was declared quasi-permanent on that post with effect from 1.8.1966. He was, however, removed from service by Order dated 19th August, 1985 after regular departmental enquiry. This order was upheld in the Departmental appeal. The order of removal as also the appellate order were challenged by him before the Tribunal on the grounds, inter alia, that neither the charge sheet nor the show-cause notice were ever served upon him and, therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated. The Tribunal has found that the charge sheet which was issued to him by registered post was returned with the postal en...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2366; JT1998(9)SC437; (1999)1SCC198
ORDER1. The respondent-Company has a scheme whereunder it pays to its employees what is called an 'incentive bonus'. The appellants took the stand that the incentive bonus fell within the definition of 'salary' or 'wage' contained in Section 2(j) of the West Bengal State Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1979, and, therefore it wasliable to the levy of tax under that statute, which the respondent-Company was bound to deduct and pay on behalf of its employees. This contention was the subject-matter of applications before the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal. In its order under appeal, the Tribunal found that it was common ground that the incentive bonus was linked to production. It was paid at a certain rate for production in excess of a specified minimum quantity. It was payable only when production exceeded that quantity. If in a particular month the production did not exceed the specified minimum quantity, there was no payment. If, on the other hand, there was in...
Tag this Judgment!