Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)9SCC206
G.B. Pattanaik and; U.C. Banerjee, JJ.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner submits only on the question of sentence, since the conviction under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short “the Act”) made by the Special Judge has been upheld in appeal by the High Court.2. The allegation against the appellant which has been proved in the case in hand is that he had taken a bribe of Rs 50. The occurrence is of the year 1977 and 23 years have passed in the meantime. The Court below in exercise of its power under the proviso to Section 5 of the Act has reduced the sentence to six months, but the learned counsel says that in view of the decision of this Court in B.G. Goswami v. Delhi Admn.1 which has been reaffirmed and followed in Ramesh Kumar Gupta v. State of M.P.2 the sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone.3. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, more particular...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC1112; [2000]242ITR659(SC); JT2000(2)SC468; 2000(2)SCALE106; (2000)2SCC729; [2000]1SCR1185
ORDERSyed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. The judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in T.C. Nos. 1224 and 1225 of 1977 dated January 17, 1983 is subject-matter of challenge in these appeals,2. The appellant-assessee is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act. It was incorporated in the year 1965. Two companies M/s, Eimco Corporation Inc. (for short 'Eimco'), an American company, and M/s. K.C.P. Ltd. (for short 'KCF), an Indian Company, promoted the appellant company. The authorised capital of the appellant was Rs. 10,000,000 consisting of 1,000,000 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each. Each of them agreed to subscribe Rs. 4,70,000/- out of which each will have to pay initially a sum of Rs. 2.80.000/- towards its contribution. Towards its share Eirnco contributed technical know-how consisting of right and license to manufacture existing Eimco Sedimentation and filtration equipment, along with the supply of and/or the agreement to supply general tec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC946; 89(2000)CLT734(SC); JT2000(2)SC402; 2000(2)SCALE98; (2000)3SCC200; [2000]1SCR1192; [2000]118STC297(SC)
ORDERS.P. Bharucha, J.1. Before it was held to be unconstitutional on 28th April, 1993, Section 13-AA of the Orissa Sales Tax Act read thus:13-AA : Deduction of tax at source from the payment to works contractor -(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 13 or any other law or contract to the contrary, any person responsible for paying any sum to any contractor for carrying out any works contract in pursuance of a contract between the contractor and -(a) Central Government or any State Government, or(b) any local authority, or(c) any authority or Corporation established by or under a statute, or(d) any Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (I of 1956) including any State or Central Government undertaking, or(e) any Co-operative Society or any other Association registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, (21 of 1860) shall, at the time of credit of such sum to the account of the contractor or at the time of payment thereof in cash or by issue of a cheque ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC961; JT2000(2)SC443; (2000)3MLJ15(SC); RLW2000(1)SC160; 2000(2)SCALE110; (2000)3SCC5; [2000]1SCR1205; 2000(1)LC544(SC); (2000)2UPLBEC1815
Ruma Pal, J.1. These appeals relate to the extent of the State Government power to levy toll under Section 2 of the Indian Tolls Act, 1851. Section 2 of the Act reads as follows:2. Power to cause levy of tolls on roads and bridges within certain rates, and to appoint CollectOrs. Collector's responsibilities.- The State Government may cause such rates of toll as it thinks fit, to be levied upon any road or bridge which has been, or shall hereafter be, made or repaired at the expense of the Central or any State Government and may place the collection of such tolls under the management of such persons as may appear to it proper, and all persons employed in the management and collection of such tolls shall be liable to be same responsibilities as would belong to them if employed in the collection of the land-revenue. 2. The bridge, in question, is the Gai Ghat bridge which was constructed by the State Government on the river Sarju, District Bahraich in 1968-69 at a total cost of Rs. 39.97....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)9SCC127
K.T. Thomas and; M.B. Shah, JJ.1. This is a petition for transfer of a divorce petition filed by the respondent husband before the Family Court, Bangalore. The petitioner is the wife and she is residing at Udaipur and hence she prays that the divorce petition pending in the Bangalore Family Court be transferred to the Family Court at Udaipur.2. The respondent has appeared in person. He is not disputing the prayer of the petitioner that the case must be transferred to Udaipur as he also admits that the petitioner is a resident of Udaipur. All that he prays for is that a direction may be given to the Family Court of Udaipur to post the case on a day-to-day basis when he reaches Udaipur so that the petition can be disposed of. We feel that the said prayer is very reasonable considering the very far distance he has to cover for prosecuting the divorce petition.3. In the result we allow this petition and order transfer of MC No. 479 of 1988 from the Family Court, Bangalore to the Family Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)9SCC270
S.P. Bharucha and; Ruma Pal, JJ.1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. The first respondent was working as a cleaner-cum-driver with a private operator. As a result of nationalisation, the respondent lost his job. He filed an application before the Labour Court, which was dismissed. Thereagainst, he filed a writ petition upon which the order under challenge was passed. The Division Bench that heard the writ petition noted that the circular upon which the respondent had relied before the Labour Court did not apply to cleaners. The respondent's counsel directed the attention of the Division Bench to orders whereby it had directed the appellant Corporation to appoint displaced persons as cleaners though they had worked as drivers and had been found ineligible by the appellant Corporation for the post of cleaner. Learned counsel prayed for a similar direction, and the High Court said: “Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, to meet the ends of justice, we feel it ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000(II)OLR(SC)114; (2000)4SCC119
B.N. Kirpal and; Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, JJ.1. Special leave granted.2. These proceedings arise from a suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act which was filed by the respondent as per the judgment of the High Court. The respondent in his suit stated that he was using the garage owned by the appellant, his sister. The contention was that he had been dispossessed from the garage by his sister.3. The trial court ordered possession to be restored but on an application filed under Section 115-A of the Civil Procedure Code, the District Judge allowed the said application filed by the applicant (appellant herein). The order of the trial court was set aside. This order was sought to be challenged by a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the Calcutta High Court and the decision of the trial court had been restored.4. Without going into the question of law we are of the opinion that under Article 227 the High Court ought not to have exercised its discretio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000(1)ALD(Cri)729; 2000(1)ALT(Cri)279; 2000(2)ALT49(SC); 2000CriLJ1487; JT2000(2)SC426; RLW2000(1)SC165; 2000(2)SCALE88; (2000)3SCC269; [2000]1SCR1169
Umesh C. Banerjee, J.1. Leave granted.2. Exercise of jurisdiction under the inherent power as envisaged in Section 482 of the Code to have the complaint or the charge-sheet quashed is an exception rather a rule and the case for quashing at the initial stage must have to be treated as rarest of rare so as not to scuttle the prosecution. With the lodgment of First Information Report the ball is set to roll and thenceforth the law takes its own course and the investigation ensues in accordance with the provisions of law. The jurisdiction as such is rather limited and restricted and its undue expansion is neither practicable nor warranted. In the event, however, the court on perusal of the complaint comes to a conclusion that the allegations leveled in the complaint or charge-sheet on the face of it does not constitute or disclose any offence as alleged, there ought not to be any hesitation to rise upto the expectation of the people and deal with the situation as is required under the law....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)9SCC194
G.B. Pattanaik and; U.C. Banerjee, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. The order of the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court interfering with the selection made by the District Judge for appointment of hereditary trustees is the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal. It is not necessary for us to indicate the facts in detail. Suffice it to say that a wakf had been created by virtue of two wakf deeds dated 16-12-1900 and 6-4-1901 and a scheme was ultimately framed for the management of the said wakf by order dated 30-8-1978 in Original Suit No. 6 of 1970. Under the scheme the District Judge is required to appoint hereditary and non-hereditary trustees for a period of three years and so far as hereditary trustees are concerned, the District Judge is required to make appointment from three different branches of the founders.3. The selection in the present case was made by the learned District Judge for the period from 25-9-1998 to 24-9-2001 and in the present case we are concerned with t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 84(2000)DLT288(SC); 2000(2)SCALE137; (2000)3SCC58
1. On 4th February, 2000 when these matters were listed for preliminary disposal, we proposed to dismiss the same. However, at the request of Shri V.A. Mohta, the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners, we withheld passing that order for a period of a fortnight from that day as he submitted that his clients intended to settle the matter. However, no report has been made regarding the same. In the circumstances, we dismiss the Special Leave Petitions....
Tag this Judgment!