Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2002)175CTR(SC)298; [2002]255ITR272(SC); (2002)10SCC407
ORDER1. The question that arises in these transferred cases reads thus :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the capital gain arising on the sale of agricultural land situated in the municipal limits of Pathankot is not taxable under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?'2. It is not in dispute that the question must now be answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue in the light of the judgment of this court in Singhai Rakesh Kumar v. Union of India [2001] 247 ITR 150 ; : (2001)164CTR(SC)483 .3. The references are allowed accordingly and the transferred cases disposed of.4. No order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2002(4)AWC3043(SC)
ORDERV.N. Khare and Shivaraj V. Patil, JJ.1. In this group of appeals, the question that arises for consideration is whether the appellant herein can charge enhanced tariff with retrospective effect.2. The appellant herein is the licensee under the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. On 28.1.1986, the erstwhile U. P. State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board'), in exercise of power conferred by Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, issued a notification revising the electricity tariff. The said notification listed a number of industries which were to be treated as continuous process industries. It is not disputed that the respondent-industries were not named therein. As a result, the respondent-industries were billed for electricity consumption as if they were not continuous process industries. On 9.4.1986, the Board issued a circular providing therein that all the industries which are exempted from observing peak-hour restrictions shall be billed at the rate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2002(94)FLR454]; (2002)IIILLJ265SC; (2002)10SCC291
S. Rajendra Babu and; S.N. Variava, JJ.1. The short question that arises for consideration in this case is the applicability of Motors Transport Workers Act to the workmen who are respondents before us.The Government set up a separate Department known as Government Transport Service which had to maintain vehicles and provide transport with the help of its staff. The material placed before the High Court in the shape of the Government Resolutions/Department Circulars, the affidavits filed thereto indicated that the vehicles of the Government Transport Service are given out against payment, that regular bills are raised in respect of charges which are even described hire charges. In certain cases when such vehicles are given for the use of V.V.I.Ps., V.I.Ps. and State Guests such charges are paid by the concerned department of the State Government. In other cases where charges are not borne by the State Government the charges are paid by the person using the vehicle. In these circumstanc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC1668; JT2001(4)SC152; 2001(2)SCALE523; (2001)4SCC455; 2001(2)LC858(SC)
ORDER1. In these cases the main challenge is to the constitutional validity of Chapter - VIIIA which was inserted in 1986 in the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 which, inter alia, provided for the acquisition of certain properties on payment of hundred times the monthly rent for the premises. By the said amendment, Section 1A was also inserted in that Act and it contains a declaration that the Act is for giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing the principles specified in Clause (b) of Article 39 of the Constitution of India. In view of Article 31C of the Constitution, the contention of the State was that the validity of any part of the statute on the ground that it violated Article 14 or 19 of the Constitution, was not permissible.2. The case was heard by a Bench of Three Judges. At that time on behalf of the appellants a contention was sought to be raised, inter alia, to the effect that Article 31C did not survive because of the events subsequent t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC1670; 1(2001)CPJ20a(SC); JT2001(4)SC155; 2001(2)SCALE558; (2001)4SCC359
S. N. Variava, J.1. This Appeal is against an Order dated 24th December, 1998 passed by the Monopolies & Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission). 2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows: 3. Sometime in September/October 1994 the 2nd Respondent issued an Advertisement inviting applications from prospective entrepreneurs for allotment of industrial plots of 1, 1/2, 1/4 acre at Rs. 750 per Sq. meters in the Electronic Hardware Technology Part, Sector 34, Gurgaon. The 1st Respondent applied on a prescribed form for allotment of a 1/2 acre plot. Along with his Application he paid a sum of Rs. 1,57,500/-. 4. On 8th November, 1994 the Plot Allotment Committee called the 1st Respondent for personal discussion and evaluation of his project report. The 1st Respondent attended the personal discussion and discussed the viability of his project with the concerned authorities. Thereafter the Appellants asked the 1st Respondent to submit his project repor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC1991; 2001(49)BLJR1357; JT2001(4)SC372; 2001(2)SCALE619; (2001)4SCC210; [2001]2SCR560
S. N. Variava, J.1. Leave granted. 2. In these Appeals the only question urged before us is whether low tension industrial users are entitled to exemption from payment of minimum guarantee charges as per the Industrial Policy framed by the Government of Bihar in 1995. In the Appeal arising from SLP 17210 of 2000 other questions are also raised. However they are not pressed before us. 3. The relevant portions of the Industrial Policy read as follows: '9.4 PRIORITY TO INDUSTRIAL CONNECTIONWith a view to facilitating timely start up of an industrial project, over-riding time bound priority would be given to L.T./H.T. Industrial connection. 9.5 POWER TARIFFPower tariff would be reviewed and simplified to provide power at tariff comparable with neighbouring states to industrial units. 9.6 POWER INCENTIVE - exemption from payment of minimum guarantee charge for new industrial units having connected load upto 500 KVA - exemption from Electricity Duty for 5 years on captive power generatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC1455; [2001(89)FLR834]; JT2001(4)SC1; 2001(2)SCALE548; (2001)4SCC31; [2001]2SCR567; 2001(2)SCT342(SC); 2001(1)LC770(SC); (2001)3UPLBEC2016
Pattanaik, J. 1. This petition under Article 32 is by the retired Chief Justice of High Court of Kerala. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been illegally denied of certain monetary benefit when he served as a Member of the National Human Rights Commission. It is the case of the petitioner that after retiring as the Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court on 11th June, 1991, he was appointed as Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal on 5.12.1991. On his retirement from the Tribunal he was appointed as a Member of the National Human Rights Commission on 14.9.94 and continued there till he attained the age of 70 years. While he was continuing as a Member of the National Human Rights Commission he was not granted full salary, which he was entitled to under the relevant Rules, and on the other hand deductions were made under the Proviso to Rule 3 of the Rules. The contention of the petitioner is that the said Proviso will have no application. The further grievance of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC1666; [2001(89)FLR488]; JT2001(4)SC129; 2001LabIC1400; (2001)ILLJ1695SC; 2001(2)SCALE565; (2001)4SCC52; 2001(2)SCT369(SC); (2001)2UPLBEC1174
S.N.Variava, J.1. This Appeal is against the Order dated 24th June. 1998. Briefly stated the facts are as follows: On 4th of February, 1952, the 1st Respondent joined the services of M/s. Brooke Bond Lipton India Limited (which is now amalgamated with the Appellant) as a Salesman. In the application submitted by him the 1st Respondent showed his date of birth as 12th of June, 1927 and his age to be 25 years. The Manager of M/s. Brooke Bond Lipton India Ltd. issued a certificate dated 19th February, 1952 certifying that he had examined the Matriculation Certificate and that the date of birth was 12th of June, 1927. The Manager also certified that the age of the 1st Respondent at that time was 24 years 8 months. 2. The 1st Respondent has worked with M/s. Brooke Bond Lipton India Ltd. till his retirement. His service record at all times, showed the date of birth as 12th of June, 1927. The Provident Fund Booklet showed his date of birth as 12th of June, 1927. The Annual Reports, published ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2002(94)FLR455]; (2001)IILLJ231SC; 2003(5)SCALE62
ORDER1. The Dalmia Dadri Cement Limited came to be closed on March 18, 1980 when the services of its employees including respondent No. 2 Bhim Sain Prabhakar were terminated. However, services of 95 employees were retained. Thereafter, under the Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd. (Acquisition and Transfer of undertaking) Act, 1981 the undertaking of the Dalmia Dadri Cement Limited stqpd vested in the Government of India and its management was handed over to Cement Corporation of India who is the appellant before us.2. Respondent No. 2 was appointed afresh with effect from December 31, 1981 pursuant to the letter of appointment dated December 18, 1981, offering him fitment in Grade IV in the year 1985-86 and that arrears would be paid only from January 1, 1984. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming that he is entitled to be fitted in Grade V with effect from January 1, 1982 with three service weightage increments placi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2003)11SCC679; (2003)11SCC743; [2002]126STC541(SC)
ORDER1. We have heard learned counsel and find no good reason to differ from the view of the High Court in regard to the first question which reads thus :'(1) Whether coal and coal-ash (cinder) are to be treated as the same commodity or as different commodities for the purpose of taxation under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 ?'2. In so far as the second question is concerned, we take a different view. The second question reads thus :'(2) Whether coal-ash is a product of the petitioner's industrial unit and whether the sale of 'coal-ash' by the petitioner is eligible for exemption under G.O. Ms. No, 606, dated April 9, 1981?'3. The High Court was of the view that the main production activity of the appellant was the manufacture of paper and paper boards, that coal-ash was only the left-over residue after burning coal as fuel in the manufacture of paper and paper boards, and that, therefore, the appellant was not entitled to the exemption on the sale of coal-ash under G.O...
Tag this Judgment!