Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2534; (1999)155CTR(SC)206; [1999]238ITR1044(SC); JT1999(5)SC104; 1999(4)SCALE275; (1999)6SCC349; [1999]3SCR1186
ORDERS.S.M. Quadri, J. 1. Leave is granted in S.L.P.(C) No. 1608/80.2. The common question posed in these cases relates to interpretation of the term 'individual' in Section 64(1)(i) & (ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (as it stood prior to April 1, 1976). The conflict of judicial opinion of various High Courts with regard to connotation of that term gave rise to these cases, which needs to be resolved by this Court.3. For appreciating the question involved in these cases, it will suffice to refer to the facts in Civil Appeal No. 4234 of 1983 which pertains to the assessment year 1973-74. The respondent was a partner in the partnership firm, M/s. Rockman Cycle Industries, Ludhiana in his capacity as Karta of the Hindu Undivided Family. Two minor children of the respondent, a daughter, Miss Neeru, and a son, Pankaj, were admitted to the benefits of the partnership. Similarly, they were also partners in another partnership firm, M/s. Munjal Gases, Ludhiana. The income arising in the hands...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2544; JT1999(5)SC127; (1999)123PLR297; 1999(4)SCALE286; (1999)6SCC104; [1999]3SCR1213
ORDERD.P. Wadhwa, J. 1. Leave granted.2. This is plaintiffs appeal against the judgment dated March 3, 1998 of the Karnataka High Court dismissing his appeal. Earlier plaintiffs suit had been dismissed by the Trial Court against respondent, who was arraigned as 1st defendant. The suit had been partly decreed against the 2nd defendant.3. Respondent - the 1st defendant - is the owner of the property in Malleswaram, Bangalore, which consisted of ground floor and two upper floOrs. 1st defendant entered into an agreement to sell dated December 26, 1991 respecting his said property with the 2nd defendant. Name of the 2nd defendant is R. Sridhar. 1st defendant further authorised in writing (Exh.P-1) R. Sridhar to enter into any sale agreement of this property with anyone. This writing is as under:Mr. R. Sridhar, s/o Sri Rama Raju, residing at No. 17/2, 7th Temple Road, Malleswarama, Bangalore, has got every right to enter into any Sale Agreement on my property bearing No. 25, 4th Temple Road,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2526; (1999)155CTR(SC)193; [1999]238ITR1027(SC); JT1999(5)SC134; 1999(4)SCALE290; (1999)6SCC259; [1999]3SCR1146
ORDERM.B. Shah, J. 1. These appeals by special leave are filed against the judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Madras dated 13.1.1988 in Writ Petition Nos. 992 and 993 of 1981, 162&6036 of 1983, 904-905, 994, 995, 5430, 6162 and 9283 of 1984, by the High Court of Karnataka dated 9.11.1993 in Writ Petition Nos. 12312 to 12317 of 1987 and dated 25.11.1992 in W.P. No. 23708 of 1992, and by the High court of Gujarat dated 29.6.1993 in Income Tax Application Nos. 164 and 165 of 1993.2. By a common judgment and order passed in various writ petitions filed before the Madras High Court M.V. Valliappan and Ors. v. Income-Tax Officer and Ors. : [1988]170ITR238(Mad) , the High Court struck down the provisions of Section 171(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and that it suffers from the vice of legislative incompetence. In the High Court, number of writ petitions were filed involving questions relating to the validity, scope and int...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2522a; [1999]3SCR1163
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4253/1984 AND CIVIL APPEAL NO.4423/1984 :The Pullangode Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the company) is the appellant in Civil Appeal No.4423 of 1984. It owned 3687.48 acres of land, on 2148.28 acres of which rubber trees were planted. The said land fell within the Malabar District of the State of Madras prior to the coming into force of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956; thereafter it fell within the State of Kerala. The said land was governed by the Madras Preservation of Private Forest Act, 1949, immediately before the appointed day, 10th May, 1971, under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act).The said Act was enacted to provide for the vesting of private forests in the State Government and the assignment thereof to agriculturists and agricultural labourers for cultivation. Section 2 of the said Act defined private forest to mean, in relation to the Malabar District aforementione...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2523; JT1999(5)SC154; 1999(3)KLT334(SC); 1999(4)SCALE303; (1999)6SCC92
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. Civil Appeal No. 4253/ 1984 and Civil Appeal No. 4423/1984:The Pullangode Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') is the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 4423 of 1984. It owned 3687.48 acres of land, on 2148.28 acres of which rubber trees were planted. The said land fell within the Malabar District of the State of Madras prior to the coming into force of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956; thereafter it fell within the State of Kerala. The said land was governed by the Madras Preservation of Private Forest Act, 1949, immediately before the appointed day, 10th May, 1971, under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act').2. The said Act was enacted to provide for the vesting of private forests in the State Government and the assignment thereof to agriculturists and agricultural labourers for cultivation. Section 2 of the said Act defined 'private forest* to mean, in relation to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2590; JT1999(5)SC145; 1999(4)SCALE262; (1999)6SCC130; 1999(2)LC1348(SC)
ORDERM. Jagannadha Rao, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant - association - which consists of defence personnel - against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.A. No. 1251/97 dated 2.3.98 whereby the judgment of the leaned Single Judge in W.P. No. 6468/97 dated 29.7.97 was affirmed. In this appeal, the appellant - association is aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge as affirmed by the division Bench to the extent that the court enabled 5th respondent (Andhra Pradesh Bhoodan Board) to act as receiver in regard to the properties which are the subject matter of the writ petition.3. For the purpose of understanding the dispute in this appeal, it is necessary to refer briefly to the various proceedings taken out by the parties earlier namely, O.S. 238/89, pending before the IInd Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, judgment dated 3.12.92 of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Hyderabad i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)2GLR1302; 1999(4)SCALE474
ORDER1. Learned counsel for the States of Jammu & Kashmir, Bihar, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal and Nagaland apply for two week's time to file their affidavits.2. There is no explanation of their failure to file their affidavits since the last order of 4.1.99. Nevertheless, as a special indulgence they are given two week's time for filing the affidavit. The State of Uttar Pradesh has neither complied with the order of 4-1-99 nor any one cared to appear on its behalf before the Court. Therefore, Chief Secretary of the State of Uttar Pradesh is directed to be present in Court on 9-8-1999.3. List the matter on 9-8-99 Copies of the affidavits shall be furnished to the Amicus Curiae....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2468; JT1999(5)SC42; 1999(5)SCALE155a; (1999)6SCC464; [1999]3SCR1066; (1999)3UPLBEC1818
ORDERTaken on board.The learned Counsel for the appellant seeks leave to withdraw the appeals and states that Mr. S.V. Deshpande who appears for the other side has no objection to the withdrawal. The appeals will, therefore, stand disposed of as withdrawn with no order as to costs, Sd...CJINew Delhi, Sd February 6, 1997 ...J.3. Mahapalika also cancelled the building plans. This action of the Mahapalika was subject matter of criticism by the appellant as to how a duly sanctioned plan could be revoked without any notice to the appellant. We may, at this stage, itself reproduce the relevant portion of the resolution dated August 6, 1996 of the Mahapalika for withdrawal of its appeals which is as under:The Lucknow Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad has declared the agreement dated 4.11.1993 executed between the Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow and M.I. Builders, Karamat Market Lucknow in respect of construction of underground Palika Bazar and Multistoreyal parking on Jhandewala Park Aminaba...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1999)9SCC443
S.B. Majmudar,; V.N. Khare and; R.P. Sethi, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. We have heard learned Senior Counsel, Mr Salve in support of the appeal and learned Attorney General for Respondents 6 and 11. Rest have remained served.3. The grievance made by the appellant who was at the relevant time working as the Vice-Chancellor of H.P. Agricultural University, is to the effect that the Division Bench of the High Court while deciding a writ petition, without issuing notice to the appellant and giving any opportunity to him to have his say, has passed certain strong strictures and made observations and recommendations to the Chancellor of the University which have resulted in setting up an enquiry and passing of suspension order by the Chancellor of the University. It is this order of the High Court and the consequential orders of setting up an enquiry and the suspension of the appellant as Vice-Chancellor that have been brought in challenge in this appeal.4. It is an admitted position that in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)10SCC405
Sujata V. Manohar and; R.P. Sethi, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. Respondents 1 to 5 are the heirs of the two original plaintiffs. Respondent 6 is the original defendant in Suit No. 144 of 1971. The suit was filed by the original plaintiffs for possession which has been decreed on 11-10-1971. The first appeal as well as the second appeal were also dismissed. The judgment and decree in second appeal is dated 13-6-1982. The original decree-holders who are now represented by Respondents 1 to 5 applied for execution of the decree against the judgment-debtor, that is to say, the present Respondent 6, under Order 21 Rule 35 by an application dated 24-5-1978. In execution proceedings, the panchnama dated 6-3-1983 shows that execution was obstructed by the present appellant who declined to hand over the possession of the property to the bailiff on the ground that she was legally entitled to be in possession of the said property. The appellant was not a party to the suit proceedings.3. In view of the o...
Tag this Judgment!