Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2003)179CTR(SC)397; [2003]264ITR657(SC)
ORDER1. The assessee who is the appellant in this appeal has challenged the order of the High Court by which the High Court has purported to clarify its earlier order passed in the assessee's writ petition on 21st May, 1993 [reported as Vijay Kumar Bhati v. CIT and Anr. Before considering the language of the order dt. 21st May, 1993, and the interpretation put thereon by the impugned decision, the background in which the order dt. 21st May, 1993, was passed is necessary. 2. The appellant had opened a Foreign Currency Non-Resident Account (FCNR)/SDR account in the Indian Overseas Bank, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi, and had deposited in the same year a total amount of US $ 1,35,405. In September, 1985, the ITO sought to provisionally attach this account under the provisions of Section 281B of the IT Act, 1961, and called upon the appellant to file his return. The appellant filed a 'nil' return which was not accepted by the ITO. The assessment order was passed on 10th Sept., 1985, assessing th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2002(146)ELT488(SC); 2003(10)SCALE485; (2003)9SCC298
ORDER1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 18th January, 2000 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at Madras in Appeal No. E/801/1999. 2. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment and order confirmed duty demand except on the four matters which were required to be re-adjudicated on invocation of larger period. The Tribunal also confirmed penalty imposed under Rule 173Q and for the imposition of mandatory penalty under Section 11AC, matter was remanded to Commissioner for de novo consideration. However, that order was limited to the extent only for quantification of the penalty amount. The Tribunal also directed that for non-imposition of penalty in respect of stock transfers from Bangalore Factory to Hosur Factory whether the applicant was entitled to Motivate credit was required to be taken into consideration while fixing the penalty under Section 11AC in the light of judgment rendered in the case of Engineers Combin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2003)179CTR(SC)1; [2002]258ITR770(SC); JT2002(10)SC41; (2003)7SCC224
Ruma Pal, J.1. All these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.2. The assessees who are in appeal before us are companies who have been subjected to imposition of tax on 30% of their book profits in accordance with Section 115J(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (referred to as the 'Act').3. Section 115J is in Chapter XII-B of the Act which is entitled 'Special Provisions Relating to Certain Companies'. It was inserted by the Finance Act, 1987 with effect from the Assessment Year 1988-89 and remained in operation till the Assessment Year 1990-91. The relevant extract of Section 115J reads as follows:'115J. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, where in the case of an assessee being a company other than a company engaged in the business of generation or distribution of electricity, the total income, as computed under this Act in respect of any previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 1988 but be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003ACJ1; AIR2003SC607; 2003(1)ALT35(SC); 2003(1)AWC719(SC); 2003(1)BLJR448; [2003]113CompCas520(SC); 101(2002)DLT181(SC); 2003(66)DRJ161; (2003)2GLR105; (2003)2GLR81; [200
Patnaik, C.J. 1. Leave granted in SLP (SIC) Nos. 12040, 12369 and 13159of 2002. 2. The question that arises in this batch of appeals is whether the insurer is liable to pay compensation to the dependants of the deceased passenger, while the deceasedpassenger was travelling in a goods vehicle and that vehicle met with an accident, on account of which the passenger died or suffered bodily injury. Originally, when the bunch of appeals was being heard, a Bench of this court by order dated 27th March, 2001, came to the conclusion that all the appeals fall in three categories - category (i) being those cases which are covered by the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939; category (ii) are the cases which are covered by theMotor Vehicles Act, 1988, prior to the amendment of 1994; category (iii) are those cases which fall after the amendment of 1994. When the matters were finally heard, a Bench delivered judgment in respect of cases under category (i) and (iii) above on 17th August, 2001. But...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2002(10)SC105; 2003(4)MhLj126; (2003)1SCC433
Brijesh Kumar, J.1. An advertisement was published in the Times of India dated 5.10.1999: it read as follows:'Accommodation available for two rooms self-contained apartment with sea-view, telephone optional, ideal for executives, couples, reasonable terms'.2. The appellant before us, namely, Feroze N. Dotivalaq approached the respondent namely, Wadhwanis in response to the above noted advertisement and he was given the accommodation on payment of certain amount as compensation for the same. The moot question that falls for consideration in this appeal is about the nature of occupation of the premises as to whether the appellant is a 'licensee' or a 'paying guest' in the light of the relevant provisions under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'). 3. According to the appellant, in the year 1975 after the death of the mother of the respondent No. 1, he wanted the appellant to give in writing that he was occupying the premises as a paying ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC541; 2003(1)ALD(Cri)197; 2003(1)ALT(Cri)351; 2003CriLJ820; [2003(1)JCR244(SC)]; JT2002(10)SC1; (2003)2SCC76
Rajendra Babu, J.1. An application under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code was laid by the respondent in the Designated Court at Bombay. The appellant had been conducting the cases as the Chief Public Prosecutor before the Designated Judge in what is popularly known as 'Bombay Blast Cases'. The respondent urged in his petition that the appellant before the us being a public prosecutor had an onerous duty and had to act in a fair manner and at one stage of the proceedings both orally and in writing had submitted to the court that the material on record was sufficient to frame charges against various offence arising under Chapter VI of the Indian Penal Code like waging war against the State, etc., after adverting to the decisions of this Court. However, at a later stage of the proceedings in the same case, the appellant urged the Designated Court to drop the charges under Sections 121 and 121A IPC against all the 157 accused as there was no material. Thus he made statements whic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(1)ALLMR(SC)746; 2003(1)AWC441(SC); 2003(1)CTC304; JT2002(10)SC89; (2003)1MLJ192(SC); (2003)1SCC421
Raju, J.1. These two appeals involve common and identical questions of law and are dealt with together. In C.A.No. 3515 of 1997, the challenge is to the judgment dated 21.1.97 of the Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench, made in Civil Rule No. 12 of 1997, whereunder the High Court, applying the earlier decision rendered in Civil Rule 10 of 1997, directed, while setting aside the order dated 18.9.96 of the Land Acquisition Collector, the said Collector to consider the petitions filed by the respondent-landowners under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act') on merits and in accordance with law, holding them to be within the period of limitation stipulated therefore. The appeal in C.A. No. 3516/1997 is against the above noticed earlier decision in Civil Rule 10 of 1997 dated 21.1.97.2. So far as C.A. No. 3515 of 1997 is concerned, relying upon the Reference Court's Award dated 19.9.94 in case Nos. Misc. L.A.29/92 and 30/92, the respondents soug...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC698; 2003(2)ALD(Cri)132; 2003CriLJ862; JT2002(10)SC179; RLW2003(2)SC255; (2002)10SCC14; 2003(1)LC336(SC)
B.P. Singh, J.1. The appellant Mohan Lal was put up for trial before the Court of Special Judge S.C./S.T. (P.A.CC.), Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Case No. of 1997 charged of the offences under Section 376 IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The learned Special Judge by his judgment and order dated 6th February, 1998 found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/-. in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment for one year. The appellant was, however, acquired of the charge under Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/St (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.2. S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 123 of 1998 preferred by the appellant against his conviction and sentence was dismissed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur by judgment and order dated 13th August, 1999. This appeal has been preferred by special leave.3. The case of the prosecution is that prosecu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC511; (2003)2GLR234; (2003)2GLR258; JT2002(10)SC55; (2003)2SCC111; 2003(1)LC80(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted in special petitions.2. This batch of appeals arising out of common Judgment and Order of the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad in SCA Nos. 10108/94, 4427/92, 4733/92, 4847/92, 3537/95, 8882/99, 8888/99, 6461/96 and 6519/98 involving the question as regard to interpretation of Sections 20 and 21 of the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as the 'Said Act'), were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. The basic of the matter is not in dispute.4. The State of Gujarat in exercise of its power conferred upon it under Section 20 of the said Act reserved certain areas of which the respondents herein amongst others are the owners. 5. On or about 3.3.1986 a development plan was finally published in terms of the provisions of the said At, and the period of 10 years therefrom lapsed on 2.3.1996. A revised Development plan however came into being on 20th February, 1996....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(1)ALT(Cri)266; [2003(1)JCR150(SC)]; JT2002(10)SC37; (2002)10SCC24
B.N. Agrawal, J.1. The two appellants, namely, Samikannu and Krishnan, along with accused Nos. 3 - Koonan @ Manikandan and 5 -- Ayyakkannu were convicted by the trial court under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The appellants were further convicted under Sections 148 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and two years respectively for the aforesaid offences. The sentences were, however, directed to run concurrently. The other six accused persons, namely, Senthilkumar (A-2), Manickam (A-4), Thangavelu (A-6), Palanimuthu (A-8), Thangavelu (A-9) and Naladi (A-10) were convicted under Section 302/149 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Accused No. 2 was further convicted under Section 323 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Accused No. 11 was ac...
Tag this Judgment!