Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000(2)SCALE280
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The appellants are arrayed as accused in a complaint filed by the second respondent on the basis of which an FIR was drawn up for the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellants moved the High Court of Madras for quashing the FIR, but in vain. Against the order, passed by the High Court they have come up with these appeals by special leave.3. When the special leave petitions were pending the investigating agency proceeded with the investigation and completed it and laid a chargesheet against the appellants for the said offence under Section 420 I.P.C.4. Sh. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel for the appellants contended that the entire transaction is nothing but a commercial one for which there was no criminal overtone at all and at the most it would have been only a money claim which second respondent could have made against the appellants. Before we could go into the merits of the said contention learned senior counsel made an offer at the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2000(7)SC378; (2001)9SCC300
ORDERS. Rajendra Babu and S.N. Phukan, JJ.1. In this appeal the grievance made by the Appellant is that the High Court has not examined the matter in the way in which it should have been done. It is submitted that the question raised is whether a sale is of inter state or intra-state nature though dependent on facts, the inference to be drawn is one of law and, therefore, the High Court ought to have considered the matter placed before it and not merely, dispose it of by stating that the question was concluded by finding of facts by the Tribunal and so does not call for interference.2. The order made by the High Court is cryptic and does not deal with the conclusion of facts arising in the case (and?) legal inferences thereto in deciding the case one way or the other/Therefore, we set aside the order passed by the High Court and remit the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed accordingly. There will be no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2000(7)SC432; [2001]121STC611(SC)
ORDERS. Rajendra Babu, J.1. The question raised before us in these appeals is one relating to the interpretation of Notification which exempts from tax payable under the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') on sales of all books and periodicals with effect from 1st April, 1964. Prior to this Notification sales of the following books were exempted from tax under the Act:Government of India publications. Books, stationery etc. supplied by the Stationery Department of the State Government to other departments of the Government.Books published by the Universities.Scriptures of the Foreign Bible Society, Quran, Books on Religion, Puranic and Vedic Literature with or without Commentaries, and books on theosophy sold by dealers dealing exclusively in such books; and Explanation : A person shall be deemed to be dealing exclusively in books mentioned in this item if he deals only in those books and does not deal in books of any other kind.2. By Notification da...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC1132; 2000(4)ALT21(SC); JT2000(2)SC508; RLW2000(1)SC141; 2000(2)SCALE172; (2000)3SCC306; [2000]2SCR24
M.B. Shah, J.C. A. No. 3214 of 1989.1. In this appeal, a Matador (Mini Lorry) carrying 44 bags of cement was intercepted and seized by the Bajpe Police, Dakshina Kartnada on 22-8-1983. Proceedings under Section 6A of the Act were initiated before the Deputy Commissioner. During the pendency of the proceedings, the respondent applied for interim release of vehicle and the same was granted by order dated 1-9-1983 on his furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs. one lakh. That, order was challenged by the respondent before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore In W.P. No. 166G8 of 1983 on the ground that imposition of such condition was illegal and onerous. The learned Single Judge after considering second proviso to Section 6A(1) held that the words 'market price' occurring in the section relate only to 'the essential commodity sought to be carried'. According to the learned Judge 'the proviso gives a concession to the owner to avert confiscation by paying fine not exceeding the market price...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000(1)CTC742; JT2000(2)SC538; (2000)IIMLJ108(SC); 2000(2)SCALE146; (2000)3SCC282; [2000]2SCR13
A.P. Mishra, J.1. This appeal is directed against the eviction of the appellant on account of default of payment of rent under Section 10(2)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.2. The appellant took the disputed shop situated at 71, Usman Road, T. Nagar, Madras on rent in the year 1972 from the erstwhile owner who sold this property to the present respondents in the year 1977. The rent then paid by the appellant was at the rate of Rs. 275/-p.m. Thereafter, it was raised to Rs. 343.75 p.m. from 1.4.1979. Next enhanced to Rs. 500Y - p.m. w.e.f. 1.9.1985. In the year 1988 the appellant desired to change his business from spare parts of two-wheelers to sale of tyres, then the rent was again increased to Rs. 750/- p.m. The appellant desired that for selling of tyres he needs to install air-conditioner and compressor with water connection for checking of tubes and fitment of tyres. This also requires additional electricity load, a water tap and a separate lavato...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC1226; (2000)159CTR(SC)148; [2000]243ITR143(SC); JT2000(2)SC493; (2000)IILLJ603SC; RLW2000(1)SC146; 2000(2)SCALE161; (2000)3SCC335; [2000]2SCR33
M.B. Shah, J.1. Leave granted in special leave petitions.Civil Appeal No. 1843 of 1989 & C. A. No. 1853-1856 of 2000 @ SLP (C) No. 15477-80 of 1988:2. The Appellants, in C. A. No. 1843 of 1989, are all employees of the 509 Army Base Workshop, Agra, working in different offices and governed by the Rules framed by the Government. Apart from their salary and other perquisites they are getting compensatory allowance in the form of City Compensatory Allowance (hereinafter referred to as 'CCA'), Dearness Allowance (hereinafter referred to as 'DA') and House Rent Allowance (hereinafter referred to as 'HRA'. Appellants filed Civil Misc. Petition No. 470/98 in the Allahabad High Court challenging the inclusion of DA, HRA & CCA paid to them in their income for the purpose of Income-tax. Various other petitions raising similar contentions were filed by the Central Government employees, employees of Central Government undertakings, bank employees, State Government employees and general insurance e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2000(7)SC551; (2000)9SCC179
ORDERS.S. Mohammed Quadri, J.1. These appeals, by Special Leave, are directed against the common order of the Bombay High Court in Civil Revision Application Nos. 1043/94 and 515/96, dated 31st July, 1998.2. The Appellant was a member of the Armed Forces of the Union of India. He filed an application under Section 13A1 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act') seeking eviction of the Respondent tenant from flat No.3, 'Shamrock', TPC IV, Santacruz, Bombay (for short, 'flat in question'). His plea before the Competent Authority was that he was the owner of the flat in question by virtue of the sale deed executed by his father in his favour on 10th May, 1985 and had also produced the requisite certificate from the concerned authority; he, therefore, prayed that the Respondent be evicted and he be put in possession of the said flat. The Respondent contested the petition, inter alia, on the ground that the Appellant is not the landlord and t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2002)10SCC593
S. Rajendra Babu and; S.N. Phukan, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of an order made by the High Court in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging a notice issued to the respondents to bring to tax a commodity known as dementhol oil sold by the respondents. The High Court proceeded to hold that the question whether dementhol oil falls within the category of oils of all kinds as mentioned in Entry 64 of the notification dated 15-11-1971 is covered by the decision in Essential Oil & Chemicals v. CST1 and decided the case in favour of the respondents. Now in this appeal that order is challenged. In the decision in Essential Oil & Chemicals case1 the entry that fell for consideration reads as follows:“64. Oils of all kinds other than (i) edible oils manufactured on ghannies by human or animal power, and (ii) perfumed hair oils.”2. The U.P. Government with effect from 1-3-1979 issued a notification to the effect that dementhol oil was taxable at the poi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC481; (2000)9SCC202
1. This appeal arises out of an order made by the High Court on a petition filed before it under Article 226 of the Constitution wherein the respondents sought for the benefit of octroi incentive resulting in reimbursement of the amount of the octroi paid by them, for a period of 5 years commencing from 15-8-1983 till 14-8-1988 as provided in para 9 of the 1979 Scheme and sought for a direction to pay the amount in certain sums towards the octroi paid by them during that period. The High Court on examination of the Scheme allowed the writ petition and directed the appellant to work out the benefit of octroi incentive to be granted to the petitioners in the light of the interpretation placed by it of Clause 9.2.2. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the Scheme makes it very clear that when a new unit becomes eligible for incentive, it would be from the date when the first item is brought into local authority's jurisdiction. Earlier in the present case, the industry was locat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC1122; 2000(3)ALT19(SC); 2000(1)CTC687; JT2000(2)SC522; RLW2000(1)SC135; 2000(2)SCALE155; (2000)3SCC723; [2000]2SCR1; 2000(1)LC632(SC)
A.P. Misra, J.1. The question raised in this appeal is the interpretation of Section 10(2)(ii)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960. The question is whether in terms of the rent agreement between the appellant (tenant) and the respondent (landlord), if the tenant uses the shop for a different purpose than the one specified therein will he be liable for eviction?2. The short facts are, a rent agreement was entered into between respondent No. 1 and one Mr. T. S. Arulrayar (the grandfather of the appellant) under which the disputed shop was rented out. The relevant portion of the rent agreement which requires our consideration is reproduced below:.shall be used by the tenant only for carrying on his own business dealing in radios, cycles, fans, clocks and steel furniture and for non-residential purposes and the tenant shall not carry on any other business than the above said business.(Emphasis supplied)On 12th April, 1979 a legal notice was sent by the landlady...
Tag this Judgment!