Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2002(9)SC282; (2003)1SCC214
ORDER1. The primary question which arises for our considerationin these appeals is whether the probable estate duty payable onthe death of the life-tenant has to be taken into account and thevalue of the property will be diminished by that for charge ofwealth tax in the hands of the remainder man.2. The Revenue strongly relies upon a judgment of thisCourt in Bharat Hari Singhania and Ors. v. Commissioner ofWealth tax (Central) and Ors. : [1994]207ITR1(SC) whereinthis Court while considering the valuation of the estate for thepurpose of the Wealth Tax Act though arising under Rule 1-Dof the Rules therein held :'The contention of the learned counsel, inthis behalf, is rather involved if not obscure.The argument runs thus: Section 7(1) saysthat the value of an asset shall be the pricewhich such asset would fetch if sold in theopen market on the valuation date. In otherwords, the sub-section creates a fiction ofsale of such asset on the valuation date forthe purpose of determining its mark...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(1)AWC608(SC); JT2002(10)SC101
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. A brief background of the facts of this case would furnish the reason for the order that we propose to pass in disposing of the appeals.3. The appellant before us (hereinafter referred to as the society) had filed a suit in 1984 against Iqbailunnisa Begum and three others, being the widow and children of one Syed Hussain praying for specific performance of an agreement to sell certain properties to the society. The suit was decreed on 8.4.87 against defendants 1, 2 and 4 it was dismissed against the defendant No. 5 who was the power of attorney holder of defendant No. 1, Iqbailunnisa Begum, and no relief had been claimed against her. No decree was passed against the respondent No. 3 who had died. The appeal preferred by Iqbailunnisa Begum from the decree dated 8.4.87 was dismissed and the special leave petition filed by her against such dismissal was also dismissed by this Court.4. The second chapter started with the filing of suit in 1987 by Syed Ali Hussain t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2002]125TAXMAN653(SC)
ORDERBy the Court The primary question which arises for our consideration in these appeals is whether the probable estate duty payable on the death of the life-tenant has to be taken into account and the value of the property will be diminished by that for charge of wealth-tax in the hands of the remainder man.2. The revenue strongly relies upon a judgment of this court in Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT : [1994]207ITR1(SC) wherein this court while considering the valuation of the estate for the purpose of the Wealth Tax Act though arising under rule 1D of the Rules therein held:'The contention of the learned counsel, in this behalf, is rather involved if not obscure. The argument runs thus : Section 7(1) says that the value of an asset shall be the price which such asset would fetch if sold in the open market on the valuation date. In other words, the sub-section creates a fiction of sale of such asset on the valuation date for the purpose of' determining its market value. Once a fiction...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC296; JT2002(9)SC277; (2003)1SCC95
Srikrishna, J.1. Leave granted.2. This group of appeals impugns the common judgment of theDivision Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 8th May, 2001 in WA 1715/1998, WA 1716/1998, WA 1720/1998, CC 114/2001, CC115/2001 & C 116/2001, dismissing the Letters Patent Appeals filed by theState of Andhra Pradesh and quashing a G.O. Ms. No. 38 dated 16.1.2001(Annex P-4) issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh.3. The short facts for disposal of these appeals are as under:4. The Government of Andhra Pradesh had taken a policy decision toencourage the functioning of Newspaper Concerns and EducationalInstitutions, which were finding it difficult to find land within the State ataffordable prices. A large tract of 72 acres of vacant land in Survey No. 403corresponding to T.S. No. 2 of Shaikpet Village of Hyderabad District wasowned by the State Government. Out of this land, an extent of 43 acres hadbeen allotted to the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA) forthe purpose of develop...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC225; 2003(2)ALT40(SC); JT2002(9)SC235; (2003)1SCC34; 2003(1)LC61(SC); 2003(2)WLN658
S.B. Sinha, J. 1. Leave granted.2. One Ajay Kumar, said to be a brother of a property dealer, instituted a suit for permanent injunction against the First Respondent herein in respect of a House No. HM-14, phase II, Mohali. The said suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 14th December, 1991. Allegeldy, in relation to the said property, the First Respondent entered into an agreement to sell dated 23rd June, 1990 with the father of the appellant (since deceased). He expired on 5th January, 1991. The First Respondent herein thereafter filed a suit for possession against the aforementioned Ajay Kumar treating him as his tenant and the appellant as the sub-tenant. He also allegedly refused to honour the agreement to sell earlier executed by him in favour of father of the appellant. While deposing in the second suit, the appellant herein made the following statements in cross-examination:-'My first wife is Sarbjit Kaur and my second wife is Paramjit Kaur -- whenever I have been posted at Chandig...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC182; 2003(1)ALT(Cri)218; IV(2006)BC295(SC); [2002]112CompCas611(SC); 2003CriLJ411; RLW2003(2)SC194; (2003)1SCC1; 2003(1)LC36(SC); 2002(5)WLN789
Santosh Hegde, J.1. This appeal by special leave is preferred against the judgment of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam dated 17.11.1995 made in Criminal Appeal No. 438/93 whereby the appellant herein was found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (the Act). and was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 37,500/- and in default to undergo RI for a period of 3 months. The High Court had further directed that out of the fine, if realised, a sum of Rs. 34,500/- should be paid to the respondent herein by way of compensation. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the respondent herein on 1.11.1990 had advanced a cash sum of Rs. 26,500/- for expansion of the appellant's hospital and towards the repayment of the said amount, the appellant had issued a cheque for the said sum which when presented to the bank, was dishonoured with an endorsement 'Payment stopped by the drawer'. The respondent after issuing the required statutory...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC215; 2002(2)ALD(Cri)908; 2003CriLJ424; JT2002(9)SC366; (2003)1SCC534
Santosh Hegde, J.1. The High Court of judicature at Madras, by its judgment dated 11th June, 2001 dismissed the criminal appeal No. 467 of 1992 filed by the two appellants who have filed the above criminal appeals before us, whereby the High Court confirmed the judgment of the sessions judge, Chengalpattu made in S.C. No. 17 of 1992, convicting and sentencing the appellants herein for various offences charged against them. 2. The two appellants before us and three others were charged for various offences under Sections 330, 348 and 302 read with Sections 34 and 201 IPC for having committed the murder of one Vadivelu on 5.3.1985. The learned sessions judge while acquitting three of the accused, convicted the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years for an offence punishable under Section 330 IPC. He also convicted these appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 348 IPC and to undergo 7 years imprisonment for an offence punish...
Tag this Judgment!