Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC1064; JT2000(2)SC151; (2000)3MLJ20(SC); RLW2000(2)SC202; 2000(1)SCALE583; (2000)3SCC47; [2000]1SCR893
S. Sabharwal, J.1. Respondents 1 to 4 are the legal heirs of the original plaintiff Suram Singh. The father of Suram Singh named Nand Lal was joint owner of the land in question along with one Bassia. In the year 1940, Bassia sold the land to Harnam Singh, Munshi Ram and Tilak Chand. In July 1941, Suram Singh brought a suit for pre-emption of this sale against Harnam Singh. Munshi and Tilak Chanel The said suit was decreed on 31st January, 1942, and directed payment of pre-emption amount on or before 1st April, 1942. The said amount was deposited by Suram Singh in Court as per the terms of the decree.2. The suit out of which the present appeal has arisen was filed by Suram Singh against successors in the interest of Harnam Singh, Munshi; and Tilak Chand inter alia seeking a decree of declaration that lie is owner in possession of the land In question and also seeking relief of permanent injunction to restrain defendants from causing an interference in the enjoyment of the suit. land by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000(2)ALD(Cri)110; 2001ALLMR(Cri)1899(SC); 2000CriLJ1459; [2000]1SCR915; 2000(1)LC623(SC)
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 656 of 1997. Sushil Sharma had filed the writ petition seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus in respect of two minor children Neil and Monica, aged 7 and 3 years respectively. It was alleged that the children are in illegal custody of Sarita Sharma, whom he had married on 23.12.1988. The High Court allowed the petition and directed Sarita to restore the custody of two children to Sushil Sharma. The passports of the two children were also ordered to be handed over to Sushil Sharma and it was also declared that it was open to Sushil Sharma to take the children to U.S.A. without any hindrance. Sarita has, therefore, filed this appeal.2. Sushil initiated proceedings for dissolution of his marriage in the District Court of Tarrant County, Taxes, U.S.A. in 1995. In the said proceedings interim orders were passed from time to time with respect to the care and custody of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC1023; 2000CriLJ1444; 2000(1)CTC694; 2000(68)ECC209; (2000)2GLR1532; JT2000(2)SC230; RLW2000(2)SC213; 2000(1)SCALE660; (2000)3SCC409; [2000]1SCR945
A.S. Anand, C.J.I. (K.T. Thomas, D.P. Wadhwa and S. Rajendra Babu, JJ. agreeing)1. I have had the advantage of going through the judgment of our learned brother Nanavati, J. and I agree that these petitions should be allowed. Long period has lapsed since the detenus in each of these cases were released and no material has been placed before us by the detaining authority to warrant further detention of the detenus at this distant point of time. The detenus, in my opinion, need not be directed to undergo 'the remaining period of detention' because the nexus between detention and object of detention would appear to have been snapped during this period of about ten years, during which period detenus were free. In fairness to the learned Attorney-General it must be stated that he fairly conceded this position. I find myself unable to fully subscribe to the view of brother Nanavati, J. relating to the treatment of the period during which a detenu is free as a result of an erroneous order of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC986; 2000(1)ALT(Cri)188; 2000(1)BLJR631; 2000CriLJ1471; JT2000(2)SC48; RLW2000(2)SC230; 2000(1)SCALE530; (2000)2SCC595; [2000]1SCR796; 2000(1)LC638(SC)
S.N. Phukan, J.1. By this common Judgment we propose to dispose of six writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution as the points involved in all the petitions are common.2. Writ petitions have been filed on behalf of 'life convicts' as their prayer for premature release was rejected by the Government of West Bengal. The common grievance is that though they are entitled for pre-mature release under relevant rules, their prayer was rejected by the Government on extraneous consideration.3. It is settled position of law that life sentence is nothing less than lifelong imprisonment and by earning remissions a life convict does not acquire a right to be released prematurely; but if the Government has framed any rule or made a scheme for early release of such convicts then those rules or schemes will have to be treated as guidelines for exercising its power under Article 161 of the Constitution and if according to the Government policy instructions in force at the relevant time ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2000]243ITR640(SC); 2000(5)SCALE266; (2001)9SCC331
D.P. Wadhwa and; N. Santosh Hegde, JJ.1. Application for exemption from filing one set of extra court fee refused. Deficiency of court fee may be met within four weeks.2. This batch of appeals relates to Assessment Years 1961-62 to 1971-72 and arises out of judgments of the Bombay High Court holding that the appellant assessee was under no obligation to restore the lands to their original condition upon the determination of the lease and was thus not entitled to any expenditure being allowed for that purpose in computing its income.3. The Government of Bombay on 23-4-1940 granted to the predecessor of the appellant, lease for a period of 30 years on terms and conditions set out therein. These were mining leases. Clause 3 in Part V. of the lease and clause 17 in Part VII are relevant for our purpose. These are:“Clause 3, Part V.—The lessee shall pay to the Government in respect of all parts of the surface of the said lands which shall from time to time be occupied or used by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)9SCC184
A.S. Anand, C.J.,; R.C. Lahoti and; Doraiswamy Raju, JJ.1. This appeal by special leave puts in issue the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench dated 30-11-1995. Brief facts requiring our consideration are:The father of the respondent was, at the relevant time, serving in the Indian Army holding the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. He was transferred from Headquarters 39, Mountain Division, Kashmir to serve at Military Hospital, Pulgaon in the month of October 1993. The father of the respondent, accordingly, joined his duties at Pulgaon on 2-11-1993. After the transfer of his father, the respondent took admission in XIth standard at Junior College at Pulgaon in January 1994. He appeared in the XIIth standard examination conducted by the Maharashtra Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Maharashtra in March 1995 and passed the examination securing 438 marks out of 600.2. Appellant 1 has framed rules governing admission t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)9SCC207
A.S. Anand, C.J.,; R.C. Lahoti and; Doraiswamy Raju, JJ.1. The controversy raised in the writ petition and the writ appeal revolves around the transfer of a candidate after admission to the postgraduate course in Medical College.2. For the session 1994-95, the 1st respondent, who belonged to the open merit category, applied for admission to the course in MD, Pathology. He was granted that admission in Kurnool Medical College but since he did not want to stay there, he declined the seat and instead, was accommodated by admission to postgraduate diploma in Clinical Pathology at Sri Venkateswara Medical College, Tirupati. The 2nd respondent, a Scheduled Caste candidate, had also applied for admission to postgraduate medical course and was admitted in MD, Pathology against the reserved quota. She joined the said course in Sri Venkateswara Medical College, Tirupati. She later on requested for a change of college from Tirupati to Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad, stating that there was a v...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC1056; JT2000(2)SC89; 2000(1)SCALE537; (2000)3SCC100; [2000]1SCR809; 2000(1)LC579(SC)
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. In these five appeals the parties are common; the Revenue is the appellant and the assessee is the respondent. C.A. Nos. 2600-03 of 1994, which relate to the assessment years 1967-68 to 1970-71, arise from the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Income-tax Reference No. 242 of 1976 dated December 12, 1988. Following that judgment the Division Bench disposed of Income Tax Reference No. 10 of 1987 which pertains to the assessment year 1974-75 on July 30, 1998 which is under challenge in Civil Appeal No. 3788 of 1999. The common substantial question of law, which arises in these appeals is question No. 2 noted below.2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to these appeals are as follows:The respondent-assessee is an Indian resident company. It is carrying on the business of exporting tea. In the aforementioned assessment years it claimed weighted deduction under Section 35-B of the Income-tax Act (for short...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2000]245ITR6(SC)
ORDER1. These appeals are by the Revenue against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and pertain to the assessment years 1981-82, 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85. In these appeals, the question which arises for consideration is as under :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in directing the Income-tax Officer to allow 7 1/2 per cent, of the net income of the trust after deducting from its total income, the remuneration paid to the trustees as expenditure for administering' the trust under Sections 57(i) and 19(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 2. In CIT v. Trustees of H.E.H. The Nizam's Miscellaneous Trust : [1986]160ITR253(AP) for the assessment years 1971-72 and 1972-73, the Andhra Pradesh High Court considered this question and stated as under (page 269) :In our opinion, 7 1/2 per cent, of the net receipts of the income of the trust after deducting from its total income the remuneration p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)9SCC68
S.P. BHARUCHA, J.1. The appellant challenges the correctness of an order of a Division Bench of the High Court at Madras dismissing a writ petition filed by it. The appellant manufactures biscuits, bread and cake. It uses as ingredients for the purpose wheat flour, milk powder, sugar and vanaspati. It was assessed to cess under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977 on the basis that it was a specified industry that fell under the scope of Entry 15 of Schedule I thereof. Entry 15, at the relevant time, read, “Processing of animal or vegetable products industry”. Since the appellant's appeal was not decided for about three years, it filed a writ petition. The writ petition directed the respondents to dispose of the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal was heard and dismissed, the Appellate Committee taking the view that wheat flour, sugar and hydrogenated vegetable oils were vegetable products and milk powder was an animal product, and these were further p...
Tag this Judgment!