Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1315; 1999(1)ALD(Cri)688; 1999(1)ALT(Cri)271; 1999CriLJ2041; 1999(2)Crimes12(SC); JT1999(2)SC388; 1999(2)SCALE234; (1999)3SCC337; [1999]2SCR160
K.T. Thomas, J.1. Appellant has two passports, one issued by the authorities in India and the other by Pakistan authorities. When he was caught and searched at the New Delhi Railway Station a revolver studded with live cartridges was recovered from him. He was charged and tried for offences under Section 12 of the Passport Act, 1967 and under Section 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (for short 'the TADAA1). The Designated Court, before which he was tried, convicted him of the said offences and sentenced him to imprisonment for three months on the first count and for 5 years on the second count. This is his appeal under Section 19 of the TADAA.2. Facts are too simple for narration. On 13.3.1990, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sultanpuri (Delhi) had source information that two persons carrying lethal weapons were on the move towards New Delhi Railway Station. He immediately organised a raiding party and waited near the gate of the Railway Station. Around noon a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1225; [1999]237ITR174(SC); JT1999(2)SC338; 1999(2)SCALE257; (1999)3SCC632; [1999]2SCR177
V.N. Khare, J.1. Leave granted in the special leave petitions.2. In this group of civil appeals and special leave petitions the main question that arises for consideration is whether the business of hatchery run by the assessee conies within the meaning of the expression 'manufacture or produce articles or things' occurring in Section 32A(2) and Section 80J of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The further question to be decided is whether the assessee is an industrial undertaking'. The appeals excepting Civil Appeal No. 2596 of 1997 are directed against the judgments of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka High Courts whereby the two High Courts following the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sri Venkateswara Hatcheries (P) Ltd. : [1988]174ITR231(AP) rejected the applications-of the Revenue filed under Section 256(2) Act holding that the business of hatchery comes within the meaning of the expression 'an industrial undertaking producing articles or ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC1952; (2000)10SCC238
1. The High Court answered the questions quoted below in the negative and in favour of the Revenue in the light of its earlier decision in I.T.R. Nos. 7 and 8 of 1982, Commissioner of Income-tax, Trivandrum v. C. Tharian and Sons, Cashew Exporters, Valakom, Kottarakkara : [1987]166ITR607(Ker) .1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is en titled to weighted deduction under Clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 35B(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is justified in holding that services rendered by the Agent, Nut Meat Trading Company, is not in connection with the distribution of the goods and is not the above finding wrong and unreasonable and based on conjectures and surmises?3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that there are services rendered by the selling agent which come under Sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of Se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1452; 1999(2)ARBLR6(SC); 1999(2)CTC517; JT1999(2)SC400; 1999(2)SCALE269; (1999)3SCC536; 1999(1)LC704(SC)
ORDERS. Rajendra Babu, J.1. The District Judge, Jaipur City, appointed a sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes that had arisen between the parties to these appeals in relation to a transaction/by which the appellant had agreed to supply 3290 k.ms. of 'PANTHER Conductor' to the respondent. The appellant filed a detailed statement of claims and we may summarise the same as follows :-i) Outstanding bills 5,21,143.30ii) Steel price variation 13,23,661.93iii) Amount of Bank Guarantee 15,67,278.54 34,12,023.77LESSi) Raw Material - 11.38.800.48ii) Cash advance - 3,29,348.83 4,68,149.31 Rs. 19,68,149.31The respondents also made claims which are as follows :-i) Damages on account of risk purchase 28,65,555.17ii) Balance 20% cash advance 3,29,581.00iii) Interest @ 18% on Rs. 3,29,581.00 1,14,030.50iv) Interest charges @ 18% on 11,28,018 3,15,134,23v) Recovery on account of excess payment @ 144/- on 2652 km. 3,93,321.35 40,51,433.08The respondent further stated that the appellant would ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1999)153CTR(SC)105
V.N. Khare, J.Leave granted in the special leave petitions.2. In this group of civil appeals and special leave petitions the main question that arises for consideration is whether the business of hatchery run by the assessee comes within the meaning of the expression 'manufacture or produce articles or things' occurring in section 32A(2) and section 80J of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act). The further question to be decided is whether the assessee is an industrial undertaking'. The appeals excepting Civil Appeal No. 2596 of 1997 are directed against the judgments of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka High Courts whereby the two High Courts following the decision in the case of CIT v. Sri Venkateswara Hatcheries (P) Ltd : [1988]174ITR231(AP) rejected the applications of the revenue filed under section 256(2) of the Act holding that the business of hatchery comes within the meaning of the expression 'an industrial undertaking producing articles or things' and in one cas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2272; JT1999(2)SC393; 1999(2)KLT168(SC); 1999(2)SCALE254; (1999)3SCC482; [1999]2SCR169
K.T. Thomas, J.1. A Full Bench of the Kerala High Court has held that when a person has land in co-ownership with another, whatever be its extent, it would not disentitle him to claim the rights of a 'Kudikidappukaran' under the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act,). Having held so the Full Bench proceeded to consider whether appellant has such an entitlement. It was found that the land in his possession is not in co-ownership with others and hence the Full Bench repelled his claim to have Kudikidappukaran rights.2. The predecessor of respondent (late Geevargis Koshy) was the owner of a building which he rented out to the appellant in the year 1963 for conducting a tea-shop. As per a settlement in the family of the said Geevargis the said building and the land on which it is situate have been allotted to the share of first respondent. Two suits were filed in respect of this building, one by the appellant for a declaration that the building is his, and th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2412; [1999(82)FLR60]; JT1999(2)SC404; (1999)ILLJ1104SC; 1999(2)SCALE239; (1999)3SCC475; [1999]2SCR151; 1999(1)LC608(SC)
M. Jagannadha Rao, J.1. Contempt Petition No. 61 of 1999 has been filed by the Workmen of M/s Birla Textiles (Prop Texmaco Ltd., Calcutta) for punishing the four respondents who are incharge of the management of the Industry, on the ground of wilful disobedience of the directions of this Court dated 18.12.1998 in Interlocutory Application No. 202 in IA No. 22 in Writ Petition No. 4677 of 1985. Contempt Petition No. 72 of 1999 is a similar petition by the All India Textile Mazdoor Janta Union, Similar Contempt Petition No. 92 of 1999 is filed by two petitioners, namely, the Kapra Mazdoor Lal Jhanda Union and one Kanchan Singh. Interlocutory Application by Nawal Kishore Misra in Contempt Petition No. 532 of 1997 in Writ Petition No. 4677 of 1985 is taken on Board. Interlocutory Application Nos. 624-628, 160, 201-203 are filed by the Birla Textiles in IA 22 and 36 in Writ Petition No. 4677 of 1985 for extension of time for payment of the amounts ordered by this Court on 18.12,1998 in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2961; [1999(82)FLR80]; JT1999(2)SC385; 1999(2)SCALE265; (1999)3SCC453; (1999)2UPLBEC1032
ORDERS. Rajendra Babu, J.1. In this appeal, by special leave, the order made by a Full Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in a writ petition raising a question as to whether in the matter of determining the quota of (i) 15% by direct recruitment; (ii) 30% from out of the Judicial Magistrate; and (iii) 55% from out of the members of the Nyayik Sewa whether temporary vacancies in addition to permanent vacancies should also be taken note of is challenged.2. The High Court in the judgment under appeal took the view that the provision of the relevant rules requires that the direct recruits should not exceed 15% of the total permanent strength of the service. On that basis the matter was disposed of by directing not to appoint more than six persons amongst the candidates selected for direct recruitment inasmuch as there are only 313 permanent posts and, therefore, direct recruits could not get more than 47. The High Court in those cases was concerned with the interpretation o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2274; 89(2000)CLT1(SC); [1999(82)FLR87]; JT1999(2)SC397; (1999)IILLJ1217SC; 1999(2)SCALE251; (1999)3SCC435; [1999]2SCR190; 1999(1)LC650(SC)
S. Rajendra Babu, J.1. The State of Orissa issued a notification on August 31, 1976 grouping different posts in the municipalities within a cadre and as a result thereof the respondents were transferred from the posts of Octroi Inspector to Lower Division Clerk or Junior Assistant and Octroi superintendent as Senior Assistant. The stand of the appellants before the High Court and in this Court is that all the respondents had been initially appointed as Lower Division Clerk-cum-Assistant Octroi Superintendents and on several occasions they have been transferred to the general section and from the general section to the octroi section. There is no separate cadre of Octroi Superintendents or InspectOrs. When all the respondents and other Lower Division Clerks were holding the posts which were inter-changeable and within one cadre, transfer from one post to another cannot be really questioned. The stand of the respondents has been that under Section 81 of the Orissa Municipal Act [hereinaf...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2002)10SCC183
A.P. Mishra and; R.P. Sethi, JJ.1. The question raised in these appeals is squarely covered by the decision in State of Karnataka v. Subhash Rukmayya Guttedar1. In that case as in the present case the respondents are the contractors who are carrying on work for the benefit of the Karnataka Government. They were granted right to extract mines and minerals and remove them.2. The question is, whether such contractors were also liable to pay royalty in respect of quarrying such mines and minerals. This question is no longer res integra. The aforesaid decision covers this point and holds that such contractors are liable to pay the royalty. The High Court relied on the case of Subhash Rukmayya Guttedar v. State of Karnataka2 which itself has been overruled through the aforesaid judgment of this Court by setting aside the said judgment. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed. No order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!