Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2001)170CTR(SC)68; [2001]251ITR323(SC)
Ashok Bhan, J.Aggrieved by the judgment/order of the High Court, the assessee-appellant has come up in appeal. By the impugned judgment, the High Court in a reference made under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act) by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal') has answered the following question of law in the negative :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that the assessee's activity of curing coffee amounts to manufacturing and the assessee is entitled to relief under section 32A of the Income Tax Act?'i.e., against the assessee and in favour of the revenue.2. The High Court opined that the assessee is not entitled to the investment allowance under section 32A of the Act in respect of the machinery used for curing coffee and its sale.3. The relevant facts giving rise to the above question of law are :The assessment years in ques...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2431; JT2001(10)SC234; 2002LabIC2329; (2002)10SCC338; 2002(3)SCT656(SC)
ORDER1. These appeals are directed against an order made by the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in three original applications. In those cases the question raised is whether the applicants belong to the cadre of Staff Officers or Under-Secretaries and in order to arrive at a conclusion, one way or the other, necessarily the relevant rules relating to the constitution of the cadre and their designation made in the respective orders from time to time had to be looked into. However, the matter was decided by a Single Member of the Tribunal who was an Administrative Member. A Constitution Bench of this Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India : [1997]228ITR725(SC) quoted with approval the decision of this Court in Mahabal Ram (Dr) v. Indian Council of Agricultural Research : (1991)IILLJ112SC as follows: '... There is no doubt that what has been said in Sampath Kumar case would require safeguarding the interest of litigants in the matter of disposal of their disputes in a judiciou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001VIIAD(SC)254; AIR2001SC3431; JT2001(7)SC460; 2001(6)SCALE92; (2001)8SCC104
V.N. Khare, J.1. A large tract of land in village Kungrat, Tehsil and District Una was shamilat land. The proprietors of village Kungrat reserved certain area in Shamilat land for grazing purposes and other such common purposes. Subsequently, the village was partitioned and divided in to 14 sub-divisions called Majras. The land measuring 451 Kanals 19 marlas which was shamilat land and used for grazing purposes fell in Majra Dughe. The said pasture land was used by the village community for grazing their cattle's. Subsequently, under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulations) Act,1961 (hereinafter called the 'Punjab Act'), the said land came to be vested in the Gram Panchayat. However, the village community f Majra Dughe continued to exercise their right of grazing and other such right over the said pasture land. Thereafter, the State of Himachal Pradesh Village Common Lands Vesting and Utilization Act, 1974' (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act). Under Section 3 of the Act, all rig...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001VIIAD(SC)365; [2001(90)FLR1167]; JT2001(7)SC252; 2002LabIC546; (2001)IILLJ1149SC; 2001(6)SCALE106; (2001)9SCC557
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellant Bongaigaon Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. is a Government of India company engaged in the industrial activity of refinery and petrochemicals. On 15th January, 1977, the Central Government took a policy decision, in the interest of rehabilitating by giving employment to persons who were displaced from their lands consequent upon acquisition for establishment of the project, that at least one person in the displaced family shall be given employment in any public sector undertaking. Ahmed Ali Sarkar, the father of the respondent, was such a displaced person. He appears to have a large family. His two sons, namely, Kazimuddin Ahmed and Karamat Ali were given employment by the appellant respectively in the years 1981 and 1982. In the year 1986, the appellant company require some grade-IV staff for which purpose a notification was sent to the employment exchange. Therein it was mentioned that on 17 unreserved posts preference will be given to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2537; 2002(1)AWC375(SC); JT2001(10)SC339; 2002LabIC2473; 2002(4)SCT608(SC); 2002(1)LC458(SC)
1. This is an unfortunate case wherein the appellant has been put to the necessity of approaching this Court for a second time. The appellant had applied for the post of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector. The appellant was allowed to take necessary test before the Public Service Commission. However, his candidature was cancelled on three grounds :(i) that he did not possess diploma in Automobile engineering/mechanical engineering;(ii) that he did not possess heavy vehicles' licence; and(iii) that he did not have the requisite experience subsequent to the acquisition of necessary qualification from a recognisedreputed workshop.2. This Court on earlier occasion having examined the matter stated that on these three aspects, the appellant satisfies the qualification required by the Rules in an appeal arising out of an order made by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench (for short 'the Tribunal') on the previous occasion, by which it had refused to interfere with the action...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2001(9)SC42; 2001(8)SCALE341; (2002)9SCC369
A.S. Anand, C.J.,; R.C. Lahoti and; Ashok Bhan, JJ.1. This order will dispose of four appeals — Criminal Appeal No. 707 of 1992 filed on behalf of seven appellants, Criminal Appeals Nos. 708-09 of 1992 filed on behalf of five appellants, Criminal Appeal No. 435 of 1993 filed by one appellant and Criminal Appeal No. 800 of 1999 filed by the complainant (Appellant 6 in Criminal Appeal No. 707 of 1992) against acquittal of Bhagwat, Respondent 2. All these appeals are by special leave.2. Shorn of all the details, we may only notice that as a result of some dispute over possession of land which originally belonged to one Deochand (absconding accused), an occurrence took place on 22-7-1983. According to the appellants they were given possession of the land measuring 4 kanals by Deochand after executing a registered sale deed whereas the case of the complainant party is that they were already in possession of the land and the appellants came to forcibly dispossess them. The appellants i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001VIIAD(SC)530; AIR2001SC2881; 2001(4)ALLMR(SC)536; JT2001(7)SC593; 2001(6)SCALE261; (2001)8SCC110
ORDER1. Leave is granted.2. The appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in O.P. No. 2249 of 1994 dated May 20, 1998. 3. The appellant is the tenant of respondent No. 1 in respect of premises, Ward No. 28, Changanacherry (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit premises'). The first respondent filed eviction petition (R.C.P. No. 11 of 1983) against the appellant in the court of the Rent Controller, Kottayam, on three grounds: (i) bona-fide requirement for personal occupation - under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease & Rent Control), 1965 (Act 2 of 1965) (for short 'the Act'); (ii) bona-fide requirement for personal occupation after reconstruction - under Section 11(8) of the Act; and (iii) under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Act stating that he intends to demolish and reconstruct the portion for his more beneficial use. The appellant denied bona fide requirement of the first respondent and contested the eviction petition on all the three counts.4...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC2884; JT2001(7)SC339; 2001(6)SCALE103; (2001)9SCC465; 2002(1)SCT230(SC)
Raju, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner before the High Court against the order of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner filed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dismissing their writ petition on the basis of an earlier Division Bench Judgment of the said High Court reported in Srinivas Desai vs . State of Karnataka : ILR1993KAR2523 .2. The very appellant filed Writ Petition No. 8719 of 1991 in the High Court for the issue of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant affiliation to the College of Education in Teachers Training (B.Ed) to be established by the appellant from the academic year 1991-92 onwards etc. The learned Single Judge in the High Court by his Order dated 29.8.91 directed the respondents to consider the application filed by the appellant for starting B.Ed college for the academic year 191-92 and if not possible for the academic year 1992-93 after considering all aspects and kee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC3418; JT2001(7)SC385; 2001(6)SCALE66; (2001)7SCC640; 2002(1)SCT232(SC)
Rajendra Babu, J.1. The petitioner before us was admitted into Goa Medical College under the 15% all-India quota. She passed out of the College in 1998 and completed the internship successfully, namely, rural posting in Goa and the remaining nine months in a hospital in Delhi recognised by the Medical Council of India and, thereafter she was granted permanent registration under the Goa Medical Council and was also awarded a degree of having passed M.B.B.S. by the Goa University. She applied for admission to post-graduate course in March 2000. However, she was denied admission on the ground that she did not fulfil the condition relating to residence in State of Goa for a period of 10 years in terms of the Goa (Rules for Admission for Postgraduate Degree Course of the Goa University at Goa Medical College) Rules, 1998 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules']. Rule III of the Rules reads as under :'Rule III : Eligibility, Preference and Order of Merit.(1) Eligibility: Candidates applying ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC3361; 2001(49)BLJR2108; 93(2001)DLT262(SC); JT2001(7)SC257; 2001(6)SCALE50; (2001)9SCC71; 2001(2)LC1582(SC)
Rajendra Babu, J.1. The petitioner is a Junior Advocate [Non-Advocate-on-Record] of this Court and he has been a member of the Supreme Court bar Association with effect from 12.11.1984. On August 8, 1995, applications were invited in the prescribed format for allotment of chambers by the Registry of this Court and the petitioner applied for the same. He was informed on 28.2.1999 by the Registry of this Court asking him to furnish the proof of appearances to enable them to finalise his application for allotment of chambers. The petitioner had filed an affidavit of Shri K.K. Gupta, Advocate-on-Record to the following effect:'1. That as per my records Mr. Aeltemesh Rein, Advocate has been getting his cases filed in the Supreme Court through me for the last several years and many a times his appearance in those cases could not be given by me as I am too old and often remain ill. The accompanying list of his cases filed by him are the cases most of which have been filed by & through me in t...
Tag this Judgment!