Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2190; JT1999(4)SC409; 1999(4)SCALE48; (1999)6SCC68; 1999(2)LC1127(SC)
ORDERSujata V. Manohar, J.1. M/s. Caltex (India) Ltd., the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., entered into two agreements both dated 30th of November, 1975 with respondent No. 5 as the sole proprietor carrying on business in the name and style of M/s. National Oil Trading Co., granting respondent No. 5 dealership in Kerosene at two places of business - Bagnan and Kolaghat. These agreements were replaced by two agreements both dated 6th of July, 1984 entered into by the appellant with respondent No. 5 as the sole proprietor carrying on business under the firm name and style of M/s. National Oil Trading Co. granting him dealership in kerosene at Bagnan and Kolaghat. The material parts of Clauses 14 and 17 of these agreements are as follows:14. The dealer shall not sell, assign, mortgage or part with or otherwise transfer his interest in the dealership or the right, interest or benefit conferred on him by this agreement to any person. In th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1965; JT1999(4)SC29; 1999(4)SCALE17; (1999)5SCC675; [1999]3SCR798; 1999(2)LC1231(SC)
ORDERSujata V. Manohar, J.1. Respondent No. 1, Rajasthan Judicial Service Officers Association filed a writ petition in the Rajasthan High Court praying that the State of Rajasthan may be directed to provide to the Judicial Officers of the State of Rajasthan a dress allowance of Rs. 10,665 initially and thereafter a kit maintenance allowance of Rs. 400 per month renewable from time to time with all consequential benefits with effect from 1.1.1993. The State Government had, by a notification dated 18.9.1992, provided a dress allowance of Rs. 1500 once in every three years, to the Members of the Rajasthan Judicial Service and the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service with effect from 1.1.1993. Not being satisfied with this allowance, the said writ petition was filed by the respondents. There was also another factor which led to the filing of the writ petition. In a similar writ petition filed in the Delhi High Court (C.W.P. No. 840 of 1992) by the Delhi Judicial Services Association, the Del...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2309; JT1999(4)SC428; (1999)123PLR32; 1999(4)SCALE22; (1999)5SCC77; [1999]3SCR777; 1999(2)LC1161(SC)
ORDERR.C. Lahoti, J. 1. This common judgment shall govern the disposal of Civil Appeals Nos. 1928 and 1929 of 1993 between the same parties and touching the same property.2. The property in suit consists of a plot of Nazul Land known as 6, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi wherein lease hold rights were vested by the President of India in favour of M/s. Shiv Ram, Mahashaya Krishna and K. Narendra (the appellant herein) in terms of a perpetual lease commencing from 29th May, 1956. The relevant and material terms of the lease are extracted and re-produced hereunder:II (5) The Lessee will not without the previous consent in writing of the Lessor or of such officer or body as the Lessor may authorise in this behalf make any alterations in or additions to the buildings erected on the said demised premises so as to effect any of the architectural or structural features thereof or erect or suffer to be erected on any part of the said demised premises any buildings other than and except the buildings er...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2118; 1999(47)BLJR1568; [1999(82)FLR993]; JT1999(4)SC82; 1999(4)SCALE13; (1999)5SCC683; 1999(2)LC1181(SC)
Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and order of the Full Bench of the Patna High Court dated 18.12.1991.2. A private college then known as Mahila Mahavidalaya, Madhubani, was established on 1.8.1971. On 1.9.1971 the appellant was appointed as a Lecturer in the Department of Hindi on a temporary basis for a period of six months by the Secretary of the Governing Body of the College. Pursuant to her appointment the appellant joined the college on 1.9.1971. In June, 1977 the Governing Body of the said College advertised for the post of a lady Principal. Pursuant to the advertisement the appellant applied for the post of Principal. She was interviewed along with three other candidates and was found suitable. On 11.7.1977 the appellant was appointed as a Principal of the said college on a temporary basis.3. By a notification dated 6.10.1982 the Bihar Intermediate Education Board granted recognition to the said college for teaching upto intermediate level. The notificat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
The Text below is only a summarized version of the order pronouncedFollowing the decision in the case of CIT v. Step well Industries Ltd., , it was held that the deduction u s 35-B of Income Tax Act could not be claimed in respect of commission paid in India for the sales made outside India. Appeal was allowed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000(1)BLJR37
ORDER1. As the petition for making clarification in the directions contained in Rajdeo Sharma v. State of Bihar : 1998CriLJ4596 is being heard today the time limit mentioned there is kept in abeyance for a period of three months from today for the purpose of considering the feasibility for issuing the clarifications sought for.2. The Chief Secretary of the State of Bihar is directed to file an affidavit with reference to the dates as to how steps have been taken for complying with the directions contained in the last paragraph of the judgment in Rajdeo Sharma v. State of Bihar : 1998CriLJ4596 . If not complied with so far he would show cause why Contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him. The affidavit should reach this Court on or before 19-7-1999. This order shall be communicated immediately.3. Judgment reserved in Cr.M.P. No. 2326 of 1999....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)10SCC352
S.P. Bharucha,; M. Srinivasan and; R.C. Lahoti, JJ.1. The special leave petition is not before us. Learned counsel wants us to pass an order on his oral application. We decline to do so. The application is rejected. Having regard to the fact that the application is made and strenuously pressed orally, the SLP shall now be placed on board in the ordinary course.2. Learned counsel states that the party will suffer. That does not mean that discipline can be violated in this fashion. Learned counsel insists that we “appreciate”. It is because of our appreciation of the discipline of the court that this order is passed. Learned counsel apologises. The apology is accepted but the order is not changed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2000]100CompCas826(SC); 1999(3)CTC447; JT1999(10)SC248; 2004(5)SCALE821; (1999)5SCC734
ORDERSujata.V. Manohar, J.1. Objection is over-ruled in view of the directions given by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India.2. This is an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for the appointment of an arbitrator. The application is made under the 'Appointment of Arbitrators by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India Scheme, 1996', framed pursuant to Section 11.3. In the present case, under Sections 11(5) and (6), the Chief Justice or any person designated by him to take necessary measures is required to appoint an arbitrator as provided therein. It is not disputed by either side that the requirements of these sub-sections are complied with in the present case. It is, however, contended by learned Counsel for the respondent that since the respondent Company has been declared as a sick industrial company under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, and a scheme for the said Company has also been framed under the said Act, an arbitrat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2300; [1999(82)FLR1012]; JT1999(4)SC486; 1999(3)SCALE683; (1999)4SCC756
ORDERM. Jagannadha Rao, J.1. This Interlocutory Application is, filed for recalling the order dated 22.1.1997 passed in Review Petition No. 2094 of 1995 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 19257 of 1995, in view of orders dated 3.3.1997 passed in Review Petition (Civil) No. 2096 of 1995 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 16646 of 1995.2. This Special leave petition (Civil) No. 19257 of 1995 (by Kamlakar & Others) and Special leave Petition (civil) No. 16646 of 1995 (by Chandra prakash Madhavrao Dadwa & others) were filed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay in O.A. No. 625 of 1990 dated 7.3.1995. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 16646 of 1995 was dismissed on 1.9.1995 but later Review Petition 2096 of 1995 was filed therein. Notice was issued on 3.3.1997 and the review petition was allowed and the said case in special leave petition (civil) No. 16646 of 1995 was, after leave being granted, also allowed on 25.9.1998 (Chandra Prakash Madhav Rao Dadwa an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)162CTR(SC)177; [2000]243ITR5(SC)
1. Delay condoned.2. Special leave granted.3. On an application filed by the appellant, the Tribunal had referred the following question of law to the High Court :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee-company was entitled to export markets development allowance under Section 35B(l)(b) in respect of expenditure incurred for foreign indenting business even though the services in this connection were rendered in India ?4. The High Court following its earlier decision in CIT v. Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd, : [1991]188ITR713(Bom) (Bom), answered the question of law in favour of the respondent.5. Dr. Gauri Shankar, learned senior counsel for the Revenue, brings to our attention that the issue now stands concluded with the judgment of this court in CIT v. Stepwell Industries Ltd. : [1997]228ITR171(SC) . It was held in the said decision that weighted deduction under Section 35B could not be allowed on com...
Tag this Judgment!