Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2001]247ITR207(SC); JT2000(10)SC322
ORDER1. The Division Bench of the High Court at Madras passed the order that is under challenge. The order noted that the application of the respondent before us under Section 80-O of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in regard to the two agreements that had been entered into by it on January, 3, 1979, and February 20, 1979, with a party in the United States of America were not approved for the assessment year 1981-82 on the ground that they had been produced only on September 30, 1982, The Division Bench said, 'there is no provision under the Income-tax Act for the condonation of delay in the production. However, we feel that justice should be rendered. Therefore, we direct that the delay in the production of the agreement be condoned and the matter be taken up on merits. . . .'.2. Learned counsel for the appellant-Revenue assails the order on the ground that there being no provision under the Act for the condonation of delay in such production, the High Court could not have ordered condonati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC2556; 2000(70)ECC657; 2000(120)ELT11(SC); JT2000(8)SC120; 2000(5)SCALE239; (2000)6SCC626
ORDERSantosh Hegde, J.1. Leave granted in SLP (C) No. 5361/2000.2. The appellant in Civil Appeal No. _____of 2000 (arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 5361/2000) had filed a petition before the Designated Authority (Anti-Dumping) Ministry of Commerce (for shor the 'Authority') alleging that M/s. Haldor Topsoe A/S (to be referred to as 'the respondent') was indulging in 'dumping' in India of six types of catalysts, particulars of which were enumerated in the said petition. Based on this petition, the Authority had initiated proceedings against the respondent under Section 9A of the Customs Tariff (Amendment) Act; 1995 (for short 'the Tariff Act').3. The Authority, on 6th of September, 1996, issued a public notice of the anti dumping investigation to be conducted against the respondent for the export to India of the above-referred six catalysts from Denmark. The Authority also heard the parties concerned including the respondent and on 7.5.1997 published a preliminary finding holding that the e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC3344; 2000(3)BLJR2102; (2000)4GLR815; JT2000(8)SC325; (2001)1MLJ29(SC); 2000(II)OLR(SC)514; 2000(5)SCALE313; (2000)6SCC721; 2000(2)LC1212(SC)
ORDER1. The appellant engaged respondent, an advocate, to file a suit against one Siddaramma Shetty for recovery of Rs. 60,175/- on the basis of a pronote in the Court of Civil Judge, Shimoga. The suit was numbered as O.S. No. 237/1986. During the pendency of the suit, property situate in Nehru Road belonging to defendant Siddaramma Shetty was got attached by a Court order. The suit was compromised on 16.1.1987. It appears that the attachment of the property continued even after judgment. Prior to the filing of O.S. No. 237/1986, the respondent as a lawyer, had also filed a suit on behalf of Siddaramma Shetty before the Civil Judge. That suit was a partition suit and was numbered as O.S. No. 119/1986. The property involved in the partition suit was the same property which became subject matter of attachment in O.S. No. 237/1986. In the partition suit (O.S. No. 119/1986), admittedly, the appellant was not a party. In that suit Siddaramma Shetty had obtained an injunction against the def...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : II(2000)ACC353; 2000ACJ1597; [2001]104CompCas11(SC); JT2000(8)SC419; (2000)3MLJ179(SC); 2000(5)SCALE361; (2000)7SCC50; [2000]Supp1SCR642; 2000(2)LC1140(SC)
ORDER1. The present appeal by Insurance Company is directed against the order dated 27th March, 1989 by the High Court dismissing in-liming the appeal filed by the appellant against the order of the Tribunal holding the Insurance Company liable under the policy. The question raised in this appeal is, whether the Insurance Company is liable on a policy taken at a time, which is after the time of the accident though admittedly it being of the same date. According to the appellant the policy was taken on 23rd February, 1987 at 4.45 p.m. for which reliance is placed on the covering note. On the other hand according to the respondent-owner the insurance was taken at 10.00 a.m. in the morning and not in the evening. It is not in dispute that the accident had taken place at 11.30 a.m. The question which was considered and decided by the Tribunal was that when the policy is of the same date of accident, notwithstanding the same being issued at 4.30 p.m., i.e. after the accident, it would still...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC2411; JT2000(8)SC29; 2000(5)SCALE216; (2000)6SCC579; [2000]Supp1SCR592; [2000]119STC533(SC)
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. The question arising for decision in these appeals is whether the transactions involved in manufacture and supply of ships by the appellant to its customers are a 'sale' as defined in Clause (n) of Section 2 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter 'the Act', for short) as held by the High Court or 'works contract' as defined in Clause (t) of Section 2 of the Act and hence not exigible to sales-tax as contended by the assessee-appellant.2. M/s. Hindustan Shipyard Limited, the appellant before us, is a public sector undertaking. It is engaged in the activity of building ships for different ship owners under the orders placed by them and as evidenced by the contracts entered into between them.3. The facts in brief. Between the assessment years 1974-75 and 1983-84 (both years inclusive) there were 18 ships involved and formed subject matter of different assessments. The Assessing Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) held all the transactions in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2000(10)SC266; 2000(5)SCALE318
ORDER1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka dismissing the L.P.A. filed by the employer against the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 2. The respondent was an employee under the Indian Telephone Industries in Category-H in the pay-scale of Rs. 835- 1490. On 1-4-1987 he was promoted as an Officer in Grade-I. His scale of pay in the promoted grade having alleged to have been fixed at a sum by which his basic pay in Category-H was being reduced, the respondent approached the High Court. The learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench came to the conclusion that there has been a reduction in the basic salary of the respondent while fixing his salary in the promoted grade and, therefore, issued the necessary direction which is the subject- matter of this appeal. 3. On behalf of the employer-Indian Telephone Industries, it is contended before us that a settlement had been arrived at between the workmen and the managemen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2000(87)FLR211]; JT2000(10)SC182; (2001)9SCC382
ORDER1. In a reference made to the Tribunal a finding was recorded that the Telecom Department is not an industry and on that basis, reference was held to be incompetent and remained unanswered. That award has been challenged in this appeal.2. This Court in General Manager, Telecom v. A. Srinivas Rao and Ors. : (1997)8SCC767 held that the said department is an industry. In that view of the matter the award made by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law after due notices to all the parties.3. Shri Rajiv Nanda, learned Counsel contends that in view of the earlier decisions of this Court, we should not upset the award made by the Tribunal. But we must make it clear that the question as to whether the respondent is an industry or not, being a live issue in pending matters, which point needed to be considered by the courts or the Tribunal at one stage or the o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2000(87)FLR290]; JT2000(10)SC317; (2000)IILLJ1130SC; (2001)9SCC389
ORDER1. Shri Aruneshwar Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellants attacked the order under appeal by raising the question whether the respondent is a workman working in an industry and whether he should approach the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act.2. We do not think that such an issue should be examined. The learned Counsel relied upon the decision of this Court in R.N.A. Britto v. Chief Executive Officer and Ors. : (1997)IILLJ856SC . The question whether a government servant should also be a workman will have to be examined on the facts of each case. As such a question has not been raised specifically before the High Court, we refuse to go into it. No other point is urged.3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we think it is appropriate to modify the award made by the Labour Court to the extent of reducing it to back wages awarded by 50% . It is submitted by Shri Aruneshwar Gupta, learned Counsel, that the post of Octroi Nakedar has be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2000(87)FLR488]; JT2000(10)SC461; (2000)IILLJ1370SC; (2001)10SCC211
ORDER1. Challenging the award made by the Industrial Tribunal holding that the dismissal of the respondent-workman as illegal and directing his reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages and all other attending benefits, a writ petition was preferred. In the writ petition, learned Single Judge who disposed of the matter, noticed that the Tribunal had upheld the validity of the enquiry ending with the termination of the service of respondent No. 2. However, on merits, the High Court reached the conclusion that the charges/allegations made against the concerned workman are not proved. The High Court without examining the contentions regarding the correctness of the conclusion reached by the Tribunal: firstly, as to the scope of interference when the validity of the domestic enquiry had been upheld and secondly, on merits of the matter, decided the writ petition. The High Court noticed that the order made under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, had not b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)162CTR(SC)398
ORDERBy the CourtThe Division Bench of the High Court at Madras passed the order that is under challenge. The order noted that the application of the respondent before us under section 80-O of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in regard to the two agreements that had been entered into by it on 3-1-1979, and 20-2-1979, with a party in the United States of America were not approved for the assessment year 1981-82 on the ground that they had been produced only on 30-9-1982. The Division Bench said. 'There is no provision under the Income Tax Act for the condonation or delay in the production. However, we feel that justice should be rendered. Therefore, we direct that the delay in the production of the agreement be condoned and the matter be taken up on merits ..........2. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue assails the order on the ground that there being no provision under the Act for the condonation of delay in such production, the High Court could not have ordered condonation and conside...
Tag this Judgment!