Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2002)175CTR(SC)297; [2002]255ITR423(SC)
ORDER1. The High Court has answered against the Revenue, the following question :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the interest on securities, subsidies received from the Government and dividend business income of the assesse entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?' 2. The very question was considered by this court in CIT v. Karnataka State Co-operative Apex Bank : [2001]251ITR194(SC) and the conclusion was reiterated in Mehsana District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. ITO : [2001]251ITR522(SC) . 3. It is now contended on behalf of the Revenue that the decision of this court in United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. CIT : [1957]32ITR688(SC) was not considered. 4. We do not think that it is open to the Revenue to urge, through different counsel, the same thing again and again. We are satisfied that the answer to the question has been correctly given in the decisions afor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC2982; [2002(92)FLR19]; JT2001(9)SC275; 2001LabIC3993; 2001(7)SCALE507; (2002)1SCC145; 2002(1)SLJ333(SC); (2002)1UPLBEC390
Raju, J. 1. The appellant, who joined the Bihar Statistical Service in a Class II gazetted post on 22.8.1968, was promoted to Class-I post in July, 1992 and again in July, 1994 he was given the Senior Selection Grade. His name was said to have been recommended on 15.11.1994 for appointment by selection to the I.A.S. by his Parent Department. But since no meeting of the State Committee for short-listing of candidates took place for the years 1994-95 and 1995-96 for officers of the said category, the proposal by his Parent Department did not materialize. On 12.12.1996, it appears that the name of the appellant was again recommended by his Parent Department for being considered for appointment by selection to the post of I.A.S. The State Scrutiny Committee, whose task is to short-list the names of such candidates received from various Departments of the Government other than the State Civil Service for further consideration by the Selection Committee as per the Regulations, seems to have ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC55; 2002(1)ALT1(SC); 2001(3)ARBLR503(SC); (2002)1CompLJ1(SC); JT2001(9)SC301; 2001(7)SCALE590; (2001)8SCC710
Balakrishnan, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant constructed a hotel resort by name 'Timber Trail Heights' at Bansaar in Himachal Pradesh. This place is at a high altitude of 5000 feet from sea level and in order to ensure a quick access for the visiting tourists to this resort, the appellant wanted to have a passenger ropeway system and for that purpose, the appellant entered into a contract with the respondent, by name, Usha Breco Limited. The respondent completed the work relating to ropeway system and handed over the same to the appellant on 27.4.1988. Initially, the ropeway system was being operated and absorbed those workers as its own employees. According to the appellant, right from the beginning, the ropeway system was not functioning well and it did not meet the specification required by the appellant. The appellant had been making a request to the respondent to rectify the defects but the latter failed to rectify the same. The appellant also alleged that the respondent did ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001IXAD(SC)214; AIR2002SC105; JT2001(9)SC371; 2001(7)SCALE622; (2001)9SCC692
ORDER1. This appeal brings under challenge the validity of the order of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in H.R.R.P.No. 1256 of 1995 on February 22, 1999 allowing the revision filed by the respondent (respondents 1 to 3 are avatars of the same company and are referred to as, 'the respondent') and dismissing the eviction petition filed by the appellant.2. The appellant is the landlord of premises being (sic)ber No. 12/1, Primrose Road, Bangalore (for short, 'the premises') of which the respondent is tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 1800/-. The appellant filed eviction petition seeking eviction of the respondent on two grounds but only one ground under Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') survives -- he reasonably and bona fide requires accommodation for his personal occupation, both for residence as well as for professional requirements. The respondent contested the petition denying the personal requirement of the appellant and taking the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC2900; [2001(91)FLR1217]; JT2001(9)SC266; 2001(7)SCALE511; (2002)1SCC113; (2002)1UPLBEC388
Raju, J.1. This appeal by the State of Punjab has been filed against the Order dated 24.1.94 for a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana confirming the order of a learned Single Judge of the said High Court, allowing CWP No. 13347 of 1989 filed by the first respondent herein and as a consequence thereof, directing the appellant-State to appoint him as the assistant Advocate General, Punjab.2. The indisputable and relevant facts, necessary to be noticed for an appreciation of claims of the parties, are that the State of Punjab by a Notification issued in August, 1987 invited applications from amongst practising advocates of Punjab and Haryana High Court and Law Officers of Government of Punjab for a post of Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, in the scale of Rs.2000-2300; that from amongst the applicants, who responded, a select panel of three candidates was made by the Committee, which interviewed them in which one M.L. Agnihotri was arrayed as No. 1, one Baldev Singh ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC2972; 2001CriLJ4772; 2002(79)ECC148; 2002(140)ELT327(SC); JT2001(9)SC357; 2001(7)SCALE532; (2002)1SCC15
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. Leave granted.2. The question that falls for determination in this case is whether the special court which ceased to be a special court under the Essential Commodities (Special Provisions) Act, 1981, but continued as such under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 has the power to remand an accused who is implicated for an offence under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955?3. The factual backdrop of the case leading to the present proceeding may be stated thus:4. The three accused who are respondents herein were alleged to have committed offences under the Tamil Nadu Essential Trade Articles (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1984 read with section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short 'the EC Act') in the year 2000. In that connection crime Nos. 3 and 14 of 2000 were registered against the said accused. They were arrested and remanded to jail. Two of the accused persons were produced before the area magistrate who remanded them...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001IXAD(SC)294; AIR2002SC53; 2002(1)ALD79(SC); 2002(1)AWC113(SC); [2001(91)FLR1215]; JT2001(9)SC309; 2002LabIC111; (2001)IILLJ1644SC; (2002)1MLJ80(SC); 2001(7)SCALE497; (2
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. Leave granted.2. Judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court is challenged in these appeals. The first appellants is a public limited company and appellants 2-5 are Directors thereof.T he appellants challenged the order passed under Section 34 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for shout, 'the Act'] whereby the first respondent gave sanction for prosecuting the appellants for alleged violation of the provisions contained in the Act. By judgment dated 26.3.1998 the learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the order and the judgment of the learned Single Judge was subsequently confirmed by the Division Bench.3. Relevant facts for the purpose of these appeals are thus. Services of three workmen, who were the employees of the first appellant-company were terminated by the appellant company and those workmen and the appellant-company was directed to reinstate them with continuity of service and full back-wages. The appellant-company challenge...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC132; I(2002)BC176(SC); JT2001(9)SC505; 2001(8)SCALE158; (2002)10SCC697; [2001]34SCL843(SC); 2002(1)LC252(SC)
Kirpal, J. 1. This is an appeal against the decision of the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transaction in Securities) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Special Court'). According the decree the Special Court found that a sum of Rs. 60,64,71,275.12p, was payable by the appellant to the respondent who was also held entitled to interest at the rate of 20 per cent per annum from 25th November, 1991, till the payment of the decretal amount. Costs were also awarded in favour of the respondent. We are informed that the decretal amount including the costs have been paid to the respondent by 1995. 2. The respondent had filed a suit against the appellant basing dues on three transactions which had taken place between them ON 23.8.1991 the appellant purchased Government of India securities 2008-A of face value of Rs. 10 crores at the rate of Rs. 101.50 and on 26.8.1991 it purchased similar securities of the face value of Rs. 7 crores at the rate of Rs. 101.50 and a similar ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001IXAD(SC)53; AIR2001SC2953; [2002(93)FLR785]; 2001LabIC4000; (2001)IILLJ1552SC; 2001(7)SCALE513; (2002)1SCC193; 2002(1)LC401(SC)
Shivaraj V. Patil, J. 1. Leave granted.2. The question whether the 'delay' in completion of disciplinary proceedings directly attributable to the conduct of a workman under Section 10A(1)(b) of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 also covers delay occasioned on account of such workman succeeding in getting stay of disciplinary proceedings at the hands of competent judicial authority pending trial of a criminal case in a bona fide effort to protect him from the prejudice that may be caused by simultaneous proceedings' has come up for consideration and decision in this appeal.3. In brief, the facts giving rise to this appeal are:The appellants are employees of the respondent company. They resigned from the membership of the Mumbai Shramik Sangh Union, which till then had been the only trade union in the respondent-company and accepted membership of Shramik Utkarsha Sabha. One Mr. Sayeed Admed, an employee of respondent and Vice-President of Mumbai Shramik Sangh made a false...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC2967; 2002(1)ALLMR(SC)311; 2002(1)ALT49(SC); 2001(7)SCALE526; (2001)9SCC658
D.P. Mohaptra, J.1. Is the execution petition filed by the appellant barred by limitation is the question that arises for determination in this appeal. The High Court having answered the question in the affirmative the decree-holder has filed this appeal assailing the order of the High Court.2. The factual backdrop of the case relevant for appreciating the points raised may be shortly stated thus:3. The predecessor in interest of the decree-holder filed the suit against the judgment-debtor, O.S.No. 35/1965, for specific performance of the contract of sale dated 7.2.1964. The suit property was described as 13 grounds and 491 sq. ft. on measurement and demarcation. The suit was decreed on 23rd July, 1966. The said decree reads as follows:'(1) The defendant do measure and demarcate the boundaries for 13 grounds and 491 sq. ft. in the property described hereunder or before 23.9.1966. (2) That the plaintiff do deposit into court on or before 23.9.1996 the balance of the sale price for 13 gr...
Tag this Judgment!