Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2004)1CompLJ50(SC); (2003)184CTR(SC)450; [2003]263ITR707(SC); JT2003(Suppl2)SC205; 2003(8)SCALE287; (2004)10SCC1
Srikrishna, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. These appeals by special leave arise out of the judgment of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court allowing Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 5646/2000 and Civil Writ Petition No. 2802/2000. The High Court by its judgment impugned in these appeals quashed and set aside the circular No.789 dated 13.4.2000 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (hereinafter referred to as 'CBDT') by which certain instructions were given to the Chief Commissioners/Directors General of Income-tax with regard to the assessment of cases in which the Indo - Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Convention, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'DTAC') applied. The High Court accepted the contention before it that the said circular is ultra vires the provisions of Section 90 and Section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and also otherwise bad and illegal. 3. It would be necessary to recount some salient facts in order to appreciate the plethora...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
S.B. Sinha, C.J.1. The respondent herein filed an original application, which was marked as O.A. No. 2080 of 1999, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Tribunal'), questioning an order dated 01.02.1999 passed by the disciplinary authority as also the order dated 09.06.1999 passed by the appellate authority whereby and whereunder he had been dismissed from service.2. The fact of the matter is not much in dispute. The petitioner and five other employees had been jointly charge-sheeted on 25.07.1997. The charges leveled against each one of them were identical.They allegedly entered into the chamber of Additional Medical Superintendent of Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, who was also the Chairman of the Selection Committee when Members of the Committee had assembled to hold interview for selection for the post of 'Mechanic' and misbehaved with them.3. All of them were placed under suspension. A joint enquiry was held and each o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2445; 2002(5)ALT19(SC); 2002(2)BLJR1626; [2002(3)JCR34(SC)]; JT2002(Suppl1)SC494; 2002(2)KLT792(SC); 2002(4)SCALE662; (2002)5SCC548; [2002]3SCR1098
Dharmadhikari, J.These special leave petitions have been filed against the common judgment of the Division Bench of Kerala High Court dated 19.1.2001 which have arisen out of two suits seeking injunction and two other suits claiming decree of specific performance of the contract of sale of two cinema theaters viz., Sangam and Pushpa in Calicut. Calicut was part of erstwhile Malabar District in State of Madras and now forms part of new State Kerala.1. An uncommon question of legal and procedural difficulty has arisen giving rise to these special leave petitions for appeal against the order of Division Bench of Kerala High Court. The subordinate Judge of Calicut dismissed the suit filed for specific performance of the agreement of sale of Sangam and Pushpa theaters by judgment dated 1.4.1978. The appeals preferred under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the High Court of kerala were decided by common judgment with the appeals arising from the injunction matters. The judges con...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2308; 2002(4)ALD47(SC); 2002(2)ARBLR246(SC); (2002)4CompLJ186(SC); [2002(3)JCR104(SC)]; JT2002(Suppl1)SC466; 2002(4)SCALE655; (2002)5SCC510; [2002]38SCL943(SC); [2
Santosh Hegde, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is filed directly to this Court against the judgment and order of the 10th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore made in Misc. Appeal No. 6 of 2002 dated 18th April, 2002.3. The appeal before City Civil Judge was against an interim order made by the arbitral tribunal and that appeal was filed under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the 'Act'). The learned Civil Judge dismissed the said appeal.4. The principal question that arises for our consideration is whether a revision petition under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (the 'Code') lies to the High Court as against an order made by a civil court in an appeal preferred under Section 37 of the Act. If so, whether on the facts and circumstances of this case, such a remedy by way of revision is an alternate and efficacious remedy or not.5. Mr. K. Parasaran, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the right of second appeal is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2158; JT2002(Suppl1)SC398; 2002(2)KLT548(SC); (2002)3MLJ164(SC); 2002(4)SCALE627; (2002)5SCC685; [2002]3SCR1040
V.N. Khare, J.1. The foremost question that arises in this group of appeals is whether the Election Commission of India under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') has power to re-register or cancel the registration of a political party on the ground that it has called for hartal by force, intimidation or coercion and thereby violated the provisions of the Constitution of India.2. The aforesaid question has arisen out of the directions issued by the High Court of Kerala on the writ petitions filed for enforcement of decision in the case of Communist Party of India (Marxist) v. Bharat Kumar and Ors. : [1988]1SCR1057 wherein it was held that 'there is a distinction between 'bundh' and 'hartal'. A call for a bundh involves coercion of others into towing the lines of those who called for the bundh and that the act was unconstitutional, since it violated the rights and liberty of other citizens guaranteed under the Constitution'.3. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2250; 2002(2)ALT(Cri)76; 2002CriLJ2963; 2002(2)Crimes401(SC); JT2002(Suppl1)SC240; 2002(4)SCALE553; (2002)5SCC424; [2002]3SCR1066
Bisheshwar Prasad Singh, J.1. This appeal by special leave preferred by the State of Rajasthan is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur dated 26thApril, 1991 in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 371 of 1990.2. By the impugned judgment the High Court while convicting the respondent of the offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code reduced his sentence to the period already undergone. It appears that the respondent had undergone a sentence of about 2 1/2 years when the impugned judgment was passed. Earlier the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baran, had found the respondent guilty of the offences under Sections 376 and 457 IPC and had sentence him to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 IPC and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to six months simple imprisonment. He also sentenced him to 1 year rigorous imprisonment under Section 457 IPC and a fine of Rs.200/-, in default 3 months simple imprisonment.3. Sin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2256; 2002(4)ALD24(SC); JT2002(Suppl1)SC219; (2002)2PLR625; 2002(4)SCALE560; (2002)5SCC397; [2002]3SCR1078
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. Leave granted.2 .An eviction petition filed by the landlord-respondent urging the ground for eviction under Section 13(3)(a)(ii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter the Act, for short), was dismissed by the Rent Controller but allowed by the Appellate Authority. The decree has been maintained in civil revision preferred by the tenant in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. The tenant has filed this appeal by special leave.3. The finding of fact arrived at, and immune from challenge before this Court, is that the suit premises situated on the ground floor of the building owned by the landlord-respondent is in occupation of the tenant-appellant for non-residential purpose. The same is required by the landlord-respondent for the office of his son who is a chartered accountant residing with the landlord-respondent. On 31.8.2001 Shri S.P. Upadhyay, the learned counsel for the appellant placed forceful reliance on a Division Bench decision of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2290; 2002(4)ALD3(SC); 2002(4)ALLMR(SC)862; 2002(6)BomCR134; JT2002(Suppl1)SC522; 2003MPLJ285(SC); 2002(4)SCALE601; (2002)5SCC481; 2002(2)LC906(SC)
Raju, J.1. The above appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 15.7.1987 of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 204 of 1981, whereunder the judgment and decree dated 23.3.1981 passed by a learned Singh Judge in Suit No. 744 of 1969 came to be confirmed. The fourth plaintiff in the Suit, who was the first appellant in the appeal before the High Court, is the appellant in this appeal. The Suit came to be filed jointly by more than one agreement-holders praying for a declaration that the scheme and the flat purchase agreement entered into between parties are valid and subsisting and the plaintiffs are entitled to specific performance of the same; that defendants 1 to 7 are promoters within the meaning of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 and thereby they are trustees or occupy a fiduciary position qua the plaintiffs; that the defendants 1 to 8 and all other purchasers of flats are participants in the scheme; that defendants 1 to 8 and, in part...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2224; 2002(2)ALD(Cri)61; 2002(2)ALT(Cri)100; 2002CriLJ2940; 2002(2)Crimes427(SC); [2002(2)JCR145(SC)]; JT2002(Suppl1)SC440; 2002(4)SCALE625; (2002)9SCC166
S.N. Variava, J.1. By this Petition the applicant (who was Respondent No. 2 in Criminal Appeal No. 880 of 2001) seeks review of judgment and order dated 31st August, 2001. Parties are being referred to in their capacity in Criminal Appeal No. 880 of 2001.2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:The Petitioner is the informant and husband of one Shrimati Hem Lata Pandey. The said Hem Lata Pandey had appeared as an eye witness against the accused of Respondent No. 2 viz. one Shri Vinod Kumar, in a trial for murder of the wife of Vinod Kumar. Vinod Kumar was convicted by the trial court and sentenced to life imprisonment. Vinod Kumar was granted bail by the Appellate Court. The said Hem Lal Pandey, on coming to learn that Vinod Kumar had been granted bail, approached the Government for protection. She also filed a petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The petition was disposed of with a direction to the Home Secretary to consider the representation of the lady. In s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2102; 2002(3)ALD142(SC); 2002(4)ALT30(SC); [2002(94)FLR152]; [2002(2)JCR153(SC)]; JT2002(Suppl1)SC109; 2002LabIC1709; RLW2002(4)SC564; 2002(4)SCALE525; (2002)5SCC1
S.N. Variava, J.1. Leave granted.2. Heard parties.3. This Appeal is against an Order dated 26th February, 2001. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:The Respondent was appointed as a Driver in the Border Security Force in 1990. In 1992 he met with an accident which was found to be due to his negligence. He was punished with 28 days quarter guard and a sum of Rs. 2,405/- was recovered from him. He was then changed from the cadre of Driver to that of a Constable. Thereafter he was punished a second time for misconduct.4. On 3rd February, 1997 the Head Constable, who was incharge of assigning duties of the Constables working under him, directed the Respondent to go for Sentry Duty at Sector Headquarters, BSF, Silliguri. The Respondent did not report for Sentry duty. When the Head Constable learnt about this he went to the barrack and found the Respondent sleeping. The Head Constable woke up the Respondent. Some altercation took place and the Respondent gave a fist blow on the mouth of ...
Tag this Judgment!