Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998VAD(SC)189; AIR1998SC2419; [1998]233ITR53(SC); JT1998(4)SC648; 1998(4)SCALE130; (1998)5SCC730; [1998]3SCR697
ORDERMrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. The assessee M/s. R.B. Shreeram Religious and Charitable Trust, the appellant before us, is a registered public trust. For the assessment year 1966-67 the assessee disclosed in its income-tax return, a deficit of Rs. 32,126. The Income-tax Officer, however, added to the income of the assessee voluntary contributions received by the assessed-trust amounting to a sum of Rs. 4,55,000 for the relevant year. The Income Tax Officer held that the voluntary contributions amounting to Rs. 4,55,000 received by the assessee during the relevant year were not applicable solely for charitable and religious purpose; and were also not actually applied as such. In appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that out of the sum of Rs. 4,55,000, a sum of Rs. 4,00,000 could not be treated as income derived from voluntary contributions. Both the revenue as well as the assessee filed appeals from the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner before the Income-tax ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC2526; 1998(62)ECC266; 1998(101)ELT529(SC); JT1998(5)SC16; 1998(4)SCALE141; (1998)6SCC79; [1998]3SCR708
ORDERS.C. Agrawal, J.1. This appeal, by special leave, has been filed by Revenue against the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated May 14, 1987 whereby the High Court, while allowing Civil Writ No. 6142 of 1986 filed by the respondents, has set aside the order dated April 6, 1984 passed by the Collector of Customs (Preventive), Bombay (hereinafter referred to as 'the Collector') as well as the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') dated November 26, 1985. By the said order of the Collector dated April 6, 1984, which was affirmed in appeal by the Tribunal, goods valued at Rs. 59,53,560 c.i.f. (Rs. 1,78,60,680 at the Indian market rate) were confiscated under clauses (d) and (f) of Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The gunny bags, white cloth wrappings, wooden cases and the cartons which were used for keeping the seized goods were also confiscated under Section 118(1) of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC2504; JT1998(4)SC601a; 1998(4)SCALE73; (1998)6SCC1; [1998]3SCR643
ORDERS.B. Majmudar, J.1. Leave granted in all these special leave petitions.2. I.A. filed in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 164 of 1996 for bringing on record legal representatives of respondent No. 37 Mahipal is granted. The title of the Civil Appeal concerned shall be corrected accordingly.3. By consent of learned senior advocates appearing for the contesting parties, the appeals were finally heard and are being disposed of by this judgment. These appeals arise out of a common judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on 24th August 1995. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants who were petitioners before the High Court who challenged the notification issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh on 5th January 1991 Under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and also the notification Under Section 6 of the Act whereby the writ petitioners' lands situated at village...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998VAD(SC)261; AIR1998SC2371; 1998(62)ECC2; 1998(101)ELT549(SC); (1999)1GLR687; JT1998(4)SC565; 1998(4)SCALE105; (1998)6SCC443; [1998]3SCR611
ORDERNanavati, J.1. The appellant in both these appeals is Northern Plastics Limited. Civil Appeal No. 4196 of 1989 is filed against the order of remand dated 14.8.89 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control ) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'CEGAT') in Customs Appeal No. 2092/89-C. Civil Appeal No. 3325 of 1990 is filed against the order dated 20.4.90 passed by the CEGAT in Customs Appeal No. 2720/89-C, which appeal was against the order of the Collector passed after the remand.2. In January 1989 the appellant imported 59 jumbo rolls of Photographic Colour Films (Unexposed) Positive. On or about 11.1.89 it produced before the Deputy Collector of Customs, Kandla Port the documents required for clearance of the said goods wherein the goods were described as 'Cinematographic Colour Films (Unexposed) Positive' falling under Customs Tariff Heading 3702.41 and the Central Excise Tariff Item 3702.20 and entitled to exemption of customs duty under Notification No. 52...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998(4)SCALE636
ORDER1. Issue notice. Mr. Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General appears for the Union of India. Notice to issue to two alleged contemnors returnable after two weeks. The alleged contemnors to remain present in Court on the next date....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998VAD(SC)323; AIR1998SC2556; 1998(61)ECC448; 1998(101)ELT561(SC); JT1998(5)SC77; 1998(4)SCALE99; (1998)5SCC621; [1998]3SCR631
ORDERS.C. Agrawal, J.1. M/s. Bakelite Hylam Limited, the appellant in these appeals, [hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant], manufactures laminated boards and sheets. The laminated sheets are paper based, cotton fabric based and glass fabric based. For manufacturing paper based laminated sheet paper is passed through or immersed in a resin bath (phenol formaldehyde resin) and as a result the paper is impregnated with resin. This paper is then dried. The paper which is impregnated with resin is known as 'Prepeg-P'. Layers of 'Prepeg-P' are then stacked and the sheets so stacked are then pressed together in a hydraulic press applying pressure and heat to make a laminated sheet. The process of manufacturing cotton fabric and glass fabric based laminated sheets is similar. In case of cotton fabric based laminated sheets cotton fabric is impregnated with resin and dried. Such fabric which is so impregnated is known as 'Prepeg-F'. It is also described as 'Prepeg-C'. In glass fabric base...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC2456; 1998(3)BLJR1608; [1998]94CompCas64(SC); (1998)3CompLJ385(SC); 2000(69)ECC247; 1999(113)ELT761(SC); JT1998(4)SC631; 1998LabIC2735; (1998)IILLJ604SC; 1998(4)SC
ORDERNanavati, J.1. Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. A short but an interesting question of law arises for consideration in these appeals. The question is : who is to be deemed 'occupier' of a factory of a government company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act? If the government company is to be treated like any other company then according to Clause (ii) of the first provision to Section 2(n) of the Factories Act, 1948 any one of the directors of that company is deemed to be the occupier; but, if its factory is considered as a factory owned or controlled by the Government as provided by Clause (iii) of the proviso the person appointed to manage the affairs of the factory by the Government is to be deemed the occupier.3. The appellant, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, is a government company as defined by Section 617 of the Companies Act. It is almost wholly owned and controlled by the Government. It is, inter alia, engaged in the supply and distribution o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998VAD(SC)213; AIR1998SC2410; JT1998(4)SC555; 1998(4)SCALE53; (1998)6SCC39; [1998]3SCR574
ORDERMisra, J.1. The short question raised in this appeal is, 'whether in the allotment of flats to its members by the Cooperative Housing Society (hereinafter referred to as 'the society') the criteria is seniority irrespective of default in the payment of dues or whether it is payment- cum seniority?' The appellant is a registered Housing Cooperative Society, registered in the Office of Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Delhi, under the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). It was constituted for the purpose of allotment of flats to its members. At the relevant time 460 members were in roll. This Society applied for allotment of lead to the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'DDA') for the purpose of construction of flats for its members. This Society was allotted only 5 acres of land in Patparganj which was not sufficient for the constr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998VAD(SC)197; AIR1998SC2401; 1998(2)CTC253; JT1998(4)SC579; RLW1999(1)SC33; 1998(4)SCALE62; (1998)6SCC314; [1998]3SCR555
ORDERDr. A.S. Anand, J.1. An answer to the question whether Smt. Janak Dulari wife of Manraj Singh had any pre-existing right in the suit land whether after the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) she became the full or absolute owner of that land, would determine the fate of this appeal by special leave.2. The following table shows the relationship to between the parties: SUBRANSINGH Hakim Singh Dashrath Singh Hukum Singh Dhurandhur Singh Manraj Khedu Dilraj Rabiraj Pancham Singh Singh Singh Singh Singh =Janak =Kalawati Dulari Narbadia Osersingh Samsner Manpher Ragnubir singh and Ors. Singh (Defendant No. l)=Appellants Gulab Singh Jokhai Sheojorsingh (Pltiff.l) Singh (Pltff.3) (Pltff.2) (Respondents)3. Manraj Singh son of Dhurandhar singh and grandson of Hakimsingh son of the common ancestor of the parties Subransingh. executed a will (Ex.D-5) on 23.7.1946. He died on 27.8.1946. Manpher Singh son of Dashrath Singh son of the common ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998VAD(SC)149; AIR1998SC2395; 1998(2)ALD(Cri)330; 1998(4)ALLMR(SC)393; 1998(2)ALT(Cri)159; 1998(3)BLJR1569; 1998CriLJ3605; 1998(3)Crimes24(SC); JT1998(4)SC593; 1998(4)SCAL
ORDERNanavati, J.1. Both these appeals arise out of the judgment and order passed by the Patna High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 1982. Lakhiya Devi, mother of deceased Chander and the informant in this case, has filed Criminal Appeal No. 109 of 1989, as the High Court partly allowed the appeal filed by the accused and set aside the conviction of the accused other than accused Budhai Under Section 326 read with Section 149 IPC and that of Budhai Under Section 325 read with 149 IPC and also because the High Court discharged the notice issued by it whereby the accused were called upon to answer why their conviction should not be altered to one Under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and why the sentence imposed upon them should not be enhanced. Criminal Appeal No. 407 of 1989 has been filed by the accused as the conviction by the trial court Under Section 201 IPC and the sentence imposed for that offence have been confirmed.2. The prosecution case was that during the night betwe...
Tag this Judgment!