Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC3560; JT2000(7)SC148; 2000(4)SCALE70; (2000)4SCC65
ORDERS.N. Variava, J.1. This Appeal is against the Judgment dated 5th March, 1997 passed by the High Court of Kerala.2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:The present Appellants are the legal heirs of one Mr. Ouseph Joseph (since deceased). The said Ouseph Joseph had a family consisting of himself, his wife and four major sons. The said Ouseph Joseph had made a declaration under the Keral.a Land Reforms Act claiming exemption from the ceiling limits on the ground that his lands fell in a rubber plantation and were, therefore, exempted from the ceiling limits. The total exemption claimed on the basis of it being rubber plantation was an area of approximately 95.24 acres. He had also claimed exemption for approximately 3.05 acres as land ancillary to the cultivation of the rubber plantation. This was the land on which there were structures like rubber nursery, quarters of Superintendents, smoke house, Office building, rolling shed etc.3. The total area held by the said Ouseph Joseph...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC2222; [2000]244ITR713(SC); JT2000(5)SC321; 2000(4)SCALE141; (2000)5SCC311
ORDERR.C. Lahoti, J.1. Flat No. 201, 2nd Floor, New Jaldarshan, Perry Cross Road, Bandra (West), Bombay was owned by one Hemant Chawla (hereinafter the 'Transferor', for short). On 1.5.1994 the transferor entered into an agreement to sell the said flat for a consideration of Rs. 45,50,000/- in favour of the six appellants herein (hereinafter referred to as the 'Transferees', for short). An amount of Rs. 4,55,0007- was paid by the transferees to the transferor on 1.5.1994. i.e. the date of the execution of the agreement. The balance consideration of Rs. 41 lakhs was to be paid on completion of sale within 30 days from the receipt of 'no objection certificate' from the Appropriate Authority. On 6.5.1994 the transferor and the transferees jointly filed a statement in Form 37-1 under Section 269UC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the 'Act', for short). A copy of the agreement was annexed with Form 37-1 as statutorily required and as per the perform a the names of the six transferee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001(1)ALD(Cri)125; 2000(7)SCALE167; (2000)9SCC444
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. When we heard Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu on 18-4-2000, he frankly conceded that the offence Under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be charged against the respondent on the facts of this case. However, learned senior counsel addressed detailed arguments regarding sustainability of the other offences included in the charge framed against the respondent, and seriously attacked the reasons of the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in the impugned order. Shri Sushil Kumar, learned senior counsel who argued for the respondent defended the order. We are told that the impugned order was passed by the High Court when the trial court has reached almost the final stage of prosecution evidence, as only a few more witnesses remained to be examined. When we expressed to Shri Sushil Kumar that it was not proper for the Single Judge to have expressed final opinion on the merits of the legal interpretations rega...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000ACJ1037; JT2000(7)SC575; (2000)9SCC218
ORDER1. Two pillion riders, namely, Om Prakash and Kewa Ram died as a result of an accident with the tractor bearing No. RJN - 2114 on April 15, 1990. The case of the Appellant is that the aforesaid tractor was not insured with the Appellant at the time of accident. It is alleged that after the accident took place, owner of the tractor with the connivance of certain officers of the Appellant fraudulently got issued a back dated cover note. Subsequently when the said fraud came to the notice of the officials of the Appellant, the Appellant cancelled the said insurance cover note and informed the Regional Transport Officer also. The heirs of the deceased as well as the injured filed claim petitions before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal claiming compensation. In the said claim petitions the Appellant along with owner of the tractor were impleaded as Respondents. The Appellant filed a written statement wherein it denied its liability for payment of compensation to the claimants. The Ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)160CTR(SC)307
Flat No.201, 2nd Floor, New Jaldarshan, Perry Cross Road, Bandra (West), Bombay was owned by one Hemant Chawla (hereinafter the Transferor, for short). On 1.5.1994 the transferor entered into an agreement to sell the said flat for a consideration of Rs.45,50,000/- in favour of the six appellants herein (hereinafter referred to as the Transferees, for short). An amount of Rs.4,55,000/- was paid by the transferees to the transferor on 1.5.1994, i.e. the date of the execution of the agreement. The balance consideration of Rs.41 lakhs was to be paid on completion of sale within 30 days from the receipt of no objection certificate from the Appropriate Authority. On 6.5.1994 the transferor and the transferees jointly filed a statement in Form 37-I under Section 269 UC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act, for short). A copy of the agreement was annexed with Form 37-I as statutorily required and as per the proforma the names of the six transferees were mentioned in column No.4 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC3654; [2001]107CompCas157(SC); 2000(4)CTC170; (2001)166CTR(SC)86; [2001]247ITR165(SC); JT2000(5)SC307; 2000(4)SCALE125; (2000)5SCC694; [2000]120STC610(SC)
ORDERR.C. Lahoti, J.1. On 12.4.1972 Dena Bank (hereinafter 'the Bank' for short), who is appellant before us, filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 19,27,142.29 paise with future interest and costs against a partnership firm namely, M/s. Bhikhabhai Prabhudas Parekh & Co. and its partners. The suit was based inter alia on a mortgage by deposit of title deeds made by the partnership firm and its partners on 24.4.1969. The suit sought for enforcement of the mortgage security. During the pendency of the suit some of the defendants expired and their legal representatives were brought on record. Three tenants in the mortgage property were also joined as parties to the suit so as to eliminate the possibility of their causing any hindrance in the enforcement of the charge created by the equitable mortgage of the property in favour of the Bank. During the pendency of the suit the State of Karnataka tried to attach and sell the mortgaged properties for recovery of sales tax arrears due and p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC1816; JT2000(5)SC181; 2000(4)SCALE209; (2000)5SCC152; (2000)2UPLBEC1661
S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J.1. Leave granted.2. What is “motive”; what is “foundation”; what is the difference between the two; these are questions which are said to be still as baffling as they were when Krishna Iyer, J. in Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab1, observed as under: (SCC p. 889, para 160)“Again, could it be that if you summarily pack off a probationer, the order is judicially unscrutable and immune? If you conscientiously seek to satisfy yourself about allegations by some sort of inquiry you get caught in the coils of law, however, harmlessly the order may be phrased. And so, this sphinx-complex has had to give way in later cases. In some cases the rule of guidance has been stated to be ‘the substance of the matter’ and the ‘foundation’ of the order. When does ‘motive’ trespass into ‘foundation’? When do we lift the veil of ‘form’ to touch the ‘substance’? When the court says so. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2000(8)SC74; (2000)8SCC542
ORDERS. Saghir Ahmad, J.1. The plaintiffs are in appeal before us. They brought a suit for possession in respect of certain parcels of agricultural land and for recovery of mesne profits. Their case is that one Madhorao had effected a mortgage of the suit lands in their favour and he brought a suit for redemption which was decreed and on his filing execution petition the same was resisted by the appellants on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The executing court however overruled the objections raised by the appellants and in execution of the aforesaid decree delivered possession of the suit lands to Madhorao on 15.7.1949. On appeal filed by the appellants the Addl. District Judge, Garoth, reversed that order of the executing court and held that the application for execution was barred by time. When the matter was carried further by Madhorao the order passed by Addl. Distt. Judge was upheld.2. The appellants filed an application for restitution on 12.5.1953. That application...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000(9)SCC403; 2001SCC(Cri)408
S.P. Bharucha and; Shivaraj V. Patil, JJ.1. This is a transfer petition in respect of a motor accident claim.2. The case of the petitioner is that he resides in Delhi, most of the evidence is in Delhi and the amended provision of the statute now permits a claim to be filed where the claimant resides. There is no opposition to the transfer petition except that the insurance company has also referred to the same amended provision. We think that, in the circumstances, it is just and proper that the transfer petition be allowed.3. The transfer petition is allowed accordingly. Claim Petition No. 399 of 1994 pending before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muzaffarnagar shall stand transferred to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, New Delhi.4. No order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001(4)SCALE228; (2002)10SCC649
The Text below is only a summarized version of the order pronouncedApplication filed by State related to felling of trees and extraction of certain number of sal trees. Supreme Court directed that this exercise to be undertaken by State under supervision of scientist of entomology division of forest research institute at Dehradun. ...
Tag this Judgment!