Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2001]250ITR663(SC)
ORDER1. We have read the judgment and order under appeal and heard learned counsel. There is no merit in the appeal. The civil appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2001)10SCC165
B.N. Kirpal and; Ruma Pal, JJ.1. It appears from all the decisions so far that if as a result of reclassification or readjustment, there are no additional posts which are created and it is a case of upgradation, then the principle of reservation will not be applicable. It is on this basis that this Court on 19-11-1998 had held that reservation for SC and ST is not applicable in the upgradation of existing posts and Civil Appeal No. 1481 of 1996 and the connected matters were decided against the Union of India. The effect of this is that where the total number of posts remained unaltered, though in different scales of pay, as a result of regrouping and the effect of which may be that some of the employees who were in the scale of pay of Rs 550-700 will go into the higher scales, it would be a case of upgradation of posts and not a case of additional vacancy or post being created to which the reservation principle would apply. It is only if in addition to the total number of existing pos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2001)10SCC194
S. Rajendra Babu and; S.N. Variava, JJ.1. Disputes having arisen between the appellants and the respondent, a reference was made to arbitration under Section 7 of the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Before the Tribunal, it was contended that having availed of arbitration under clause 29 of the contract it was not open to invoke Section 7 of the Act. This contention was rejected. A revision petition was filed under Section 19 of the Act in the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The High Court upheld the view of the Arbitral Tribunal. Hence this appeal by special leave. In this appeal the limited question raised for consideration is as to the scope of clause 29(2) of the contract between the parties under which the respondent executed certain works and effect of Section 7 of the Act upon the same.2. The contention put forth before us is that in terms of clause 29 of the contract the respondent had invoked the jurisdiction of the Supe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2001)166CTR(SC)213
ORDERThe assessee has been served but has not chosen to put in an appearance.2. The question before the High Court at the behest of the revenue read thus'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that for purposes of computation of the intrinsic value of unquoted shares under rule 11 of the Wealth Tax Rules, the amount of advance tax paid by the company and shown on the asset aside of the balance sheet should not be deducted from the tax payable in determining whether the provision for tax was in excess over the tax payable with reference to the book profits in accordance with the law applicable thereto within the meaning of clause (ii)(e) of the Explanation to the said rule ?'The High Court answered the question in favour of the assessee relying upon the decision in L.G. Balakrishnan & Ors. v. CWT . That decision is no longer good law. The question is now governed by the decision of this court in Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT ....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2001]248ITR575(SC)
ORDER1. The assessee has been served but has not chosen to put in an appearance.2. The question before the High Court at the behest of the Revenue read thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that for purposes of computation of the intrinsic value of unquoted shares under Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, the amount of advance tax paid by the company and shown on the assets side of the balance-sheet should not be deducted from the tax payable in determining whether the provision for tax was in excess over the tax payable with reference to the book profits in accordance with the law applicable thereto within the meaning of Clause (ii)(e) of the Explanation to the said rule ?'3. The High Court answered the question in favour of the assessee relying upon the decision in L.G. Balakrishnan v. CWT : [1988]173ITR266(Mad) . That decision is no longer good law, The question is now governed by the decision of this...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC1028; JT2001(2)SC175; (2001)ILLJ743SC; 2001(1)SCALE540; (2001)4SCC101; [2001]1SCR742
Pattanaik,J.1. South Malabar Gramin Bank and the Union of India, have filed two civil appeals against the judgment of the Kerala High Court dated 25.11.1998. The Division Bench of Kerala High Court by the impugned judgment, dismissed the appeals filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge and held that the Central Government having accepted the NIT Award as well as the report of the Equation Committee and having given effect to the 5th Bipartite Settlement between the employees of the sponsor bank and the management, the employees and officers of the Regional Rural Banks ipso facto would be entitled to the revision of their wages, as and when the wages of the sponsor bank employees get revised, pursuant to Bipartite Settlement and, therefore the subsequent Bipartite Settlements, namely the 6th and 7th Bipartite Settlements should be given effect to revise the pay structure of the officers and employees of the Regional Rural Banks also. In these appeals, apart from the respon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC1535; [2001(90)FLR500]; JT2001(2)SC362; 2001(1)SCALE532; (2001)3SCC125; [2001]1SCR770; (2001)1UPLBEC805
Pattanaik, J. 1. This petition under Article 32 by the Direct Recruits to Delhi Higher Judicial Service, assails the inclusion of the respondents 5 to 8 in the Gradation List drawn up by the High Court of Delhi by order dated 22.8.2000 pursuant to the directions given by this Court in Writ Petition No. 490/87. These respondents have been continuously working in Delhi Higher Judicial Service w.e.f. 18th of January, 1986 but had been posted as Chief Metropolitan Magistrates on account of the Government decision of up-gradation of the said post of Chief Metropolitan Magistrates. The petitioners on the other hand are directly recruited officers to Delhi Higher Judicial Service in the year 1988 pursuant to the selection made in accordance with the Recruitment Rules. The bone of contention of the petitioners is that the respondents, who were continuing as Chief Metropolitan Magistrates, must be held to be juniors to the petitioners inasmuch as their decision was subject to challenge in appea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(7)SCALE206; (2001)10SCC721
V.N. Khare and; K.G. Balakrishnan, JJ.1. Leave granted in SLP (C) No. 22251 of 1997.2. In this group of appeals, the questions that arise for decision are these:(1) Whether the State Government is competent to fix State-advised price for purchase of sugarcane by an occupier of a factory over and above the minimum price fixed under clause 3 and additional price under clause 5-A of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 framed under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.(2) Whether the State or statutory authority under its regularity power conferred by the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953, Rules and Orders framed thereunder has an obligation to ensure proper price of the sugarcane supplied by the sugarcane-grower to an occupier of a factory and thus the authority is required to arrange a meeting of sugarcane-growers/societies and occupier of the factory for reaching an agreed price of the sugarcane.(3) Whether the agreed sugarcane price as contemplated under sub-c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2002)10SCC221
S.S.M. Quadri and; S.N. Phukan, JJ.1. This appeal, by special leave, is from the order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore dismissing Writ Appeal No. 727 of 1989 in limine on 19-4-1989.2. The appellant filed Writ Petition No. 15487 of 1987 seeking direction to Bangalore Development Authority, the respondents herein, to reconvey to him an extent of 6 acres 21 guntas 42 sq yards situated in Surveys Nos. 26/1, 30, 32/4, 32/5, 32/6, 32/7, 32/8, 32/9, 32/10, 32/11, 32/12, 32/17 and 33/11 of Jakkasandra village, Kormangala Bangalore South taluk pursuant to resolutions of the City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore dated 26-6-1969 and 19-4-1972. The learned Single Judge referred to two judgments of learned Single Judges of the same High Court in B.N. Sathyanarayana Rao v. State of Karnataka1 and B. Venkataswamy Reddy v. State of Karnataka2 and without going into the merit of the claim of the appellant, dismissed the writ petition on 3-4-1989. On appeal, the Divisio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2001)165CTR(SC)681; [2001]247ITR785(SC)
S. B. Bharucha, J.One S.K. Adityan founded a daily newspaper called the 'Dina Thanthi' in 1942. On 1-3-1954 he created a Trust called the 'Thanthi Trust'. The property that he settled upon Trust was the business of the said newspaper as a going concern. The objects of the Trust were to establish the said newspaper as an organ of educated public opinion for the Tamil reading public and to disseminate news and to ventilate opinion upon all matters of public interest through it. On 9-7-1957 Adityan executed a supplementary deed of Trust that declared that the Trust was irrevocable. On 28-7-1961 Adityan executed another supplementary deed of Trust. Thereby he directed that the surplus income of the Trust, after defraying all expenses, should be devoted to the following purposes :establishing and running a school or college for the teaching of journalism;establishing and/or running or helping to run schools, colleges or other educational institutions for teaching arts and science;establishi...
Tag this Judgment!