Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC447; 2006(1)ALT7(SC); 2006(1)AWC26(SC); JT2005(9)SC280; (2005)12SCC564
Altamas Kabir, J.1. Applications for substitution in Civil Appeal Nos. 3010/03, 3152-80/03 and in 3343-3554/99 3343-3554/99 are allowed.2. All these appeals relate to the acquisition of 3512.33 acres of land comprised in five villages, namely, Hamidpur, Gumanpura, Khurmania, Kathanla and Wadala Bhitewad pursuant to several notifications dated 1st June, 1977, 22nd July, 1977, and 5th May, 1878, issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for extension of the Cantonment at Amritsar.The Collector passed his award in respect of the acquired lands on 28.3.1978 after classifying the lands in question into four categories namely:(i) Chahi;(ii) Nehri;(iii) Barani;(iv) Gair Mumkin.In respect of each of the categories, different rates of compensation per acre were computed in the manner following:(i) Chahi - Rs. 16,500/-(ii) Nehri - Rs. 16,500/-(iii) Barani - Rs. 12,000/-(iv) Gair Mumkin - Rs. 5,000/-3. Various references were thereafter made t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(1)ALD106(SC); 2006(1)AWC229(SC); JT2005(9)SC127; (2006)1SCC228
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The above appeal is directed against the final judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 7.10.2003 in Writ Appeal No. 1149 of 2002 thereby dismissing the same.2. The short facts which are relevant for the disposal of this appeal are as under:The appellant-C. Albert Morris is the tenant of the first respondent-K. Chandrasekaran(landlord) vide a lease deed for ten years culminating in the year 1966. The appellant is the dealer of the second respondent - The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. The said dealership is being carried on in the leased site belonging to the first respondent. The Government of Pondicherry granted No Objection Certificate under Rule 144(1) of the Petroleum Rules, 1976 for the installation of retail outlet of petrol and HSD. The said No Objection Certificate mentioned the details and description of the location of the said outlet. As already noticed, the appellant entered into a lease deed with the first respondent-la...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC6; 2005(1)ALD(Cri)825; 2005(2)ALD(Cri)961; 2005CriLJ4626; 2005(5)CTC703; 124(2005)DLT645(SC); JT2005(9)SC69; 2006(1)KarLJ211; 2006(I)OLR(SC)57; 2005(8)SCALE640; (2
G.P. Mathur, J.1. This petition has been filed by Jayendra Saraswathy Swamigal, Sankaracharya of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam under Section 406 Cr.P.C. seeking transfer of Sessions Case No. 197 of 2005 pending before the Principal Sessions Court, Chenglepet, to any other State, out side the State of Tamil Nadu. The respondents arrayed in the Transfer Petition are (1) State of Tamil Nadu, (2) Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, (3) Shri Prem Kumar, Superintendent of Police, Head of the Special Investigation Team (SIT), (4) Shri S.P. Sakthivel, Chief Investigating Officer, SIT, besides respondent Nos. 5 to 28, who are co-accused in the case. Except for respondent No. 5, P. Subramaniam @ Ravi Subramaniam, who has been granted pardon and has turned approver, the remaining co-accused, namely, respondent Nos. 6 to 28 are supporting the prayer for transfer of the case and some of them have filed affidavits in that regard.2. An FIR was lodged at 7.00 p.m. on 3.9.2004 at Police Station B-2, Vishn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC104; JT2005(10)SC288; (2006)1SCC257
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. An extent of 10.38 acres of land, which was government land and situated around four temples, namely, Keelakottai Sri. Vinayagar Temple, Muthampatti Sri Vinayagar Temple, Mottakottai Sri Vinayagar Temple and Mariamman and Bhagavathiamman Temples were set apart by the British Government for the purpose of the use of its income for the poojas and maintenance of the temples. The land was put in the possession of one Veerana Pandaram, who was the poojari. Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 herein, the descendents of Veerana Pandaram filed a petition before the Deputy Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments, Madurai, under Section 63 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 (hereinafter called the 'H.R & C.E. Act') praying that they may be declared as hereditary trustees cum poojaries of the Mariamman and Bhagavathiamman Temples. This application was made, when after an enquiry, a preliminary report was made by the Special Inspecto...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC4462; 2006(1)ALD(Cri)220; 2005CriLJ4640; [2006(1)JCR127(SC)]; JT2005(9)SC192; 2005(8)SCALE657; (2005)8SCC380
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. Leave granted.2. An order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madras at Madurai granting bail to the respondent herein is challenged before us. The respondent is one of the accused in a criminal case charged by the Inspector of Alangulam Police Station in Tirunelveli District. The charges are under Sections 147, 148, 120B, 341, 302, 207, 212 and 109 IPC read with Section 25(1) of the Arms Act. 3. The brief case of the prosecution is that one Aladi Aruna, an ex-Minister of the Government of Tamil Nadu, had gone for a morning walk along with one Ponraj on 31.12.2004. At about 7.15 a.m. while Aladi Aruna, Ponraj and one Socratics were walking through Pashupati Road, accused A3 accompanied by A2 and A4 intercepted Aladi Aruna and A3 attempted to shoot him with his country-made revolver but the revolver did not work whereupon A2 inflicted injuries on Aladi Aruna with Aruval (sickle) on the back of his head and when his friend Ponraj tried to save ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2005)13SCC475
1. We have heard counsel for the parties.2. It is apparent from our order dated 24th February, 2004 that the only question which remained to be considered was whether the department has charged interest from the year 1993 or from any later date. Counsel appearing for the appellant had then submitted that though the lottery was declared on 12.11.1993, the prize in the form of a Maruti Car was delivered to the appellant on 8.11.1994 and tax liability arose only thereafter. He was liable to pay tax only in the assessment year 1995-1996 on receipt basis. Counsel for the Revenue has produced before us instruction received from the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana. The letter dated 24.10.2005 clearly states that the interest under Section 234A, 234B and 234C was not charged from the year 1993 as the consideration received on account of lottery prize was assessed on receipt basis, and not on the declaration of the prize. Thus, there is no doubt that the interest has be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC110; (2006)2CALLT99(SC); [2006(108)FLR193]; (2006)2GLR1014; JT2005(9)SC54; (2006)ILLJ424SC; 2005(8)SCALE631; (2005)8SCC750; 2006(2)SLJ121(SC); 2006(1)LC12(SC)
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court confirming the order of the Single Judge and that of the Industrial Tribunal whereby the appellant was directed to reinstate the respondent. The brief facts of the case are that the services of the respondent was terminated by an order dated 15.8.1985. On 1.6.1992, i.e., nearly after 7 years the respondent sent a Demand Notice to the appellant and ultimately the dispute of termination of service of Respondent was referred to the Industrial Tribunal. The respondent filed a claim petition alleging therein that he was in service of the appellant for more than ten years at the wages of Rs. 10/- per day till he had been terminated by an order dated 5.7.1985. It is alleged that before the order of termination was issued, provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act were not complied with. An application was moved before the Labour Court for direction to the employer-appellan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2005)199CTR(SC)209; JT2005(10)SC203; 2005(9)SCALE235; (2005)12SCC714
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgement and order of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in I.T.A. 20 of 1999 dated March 14, 2002. By its aforesaid judgment and order dated 11th March, 2002 read with revised order dated 14th March, 2002, impugned herein, out of the two questions referred to the High Court for its opinion, it answered the first question in favour of the revenue, and directed that the second question, together with the question as to whether the claim of deduction of the amount could be claimed under Section 37 of the Act, be considered by the Tribunal. It accordingly, remitted the matter to the Tribunal for fresh disposal of the matter on the aforesaid two questions.2. The facts of the case may be briefly noticed :The S.T.N. (Respondent herein) is a company running a textile mill. We are concerned with the assessment year 1991-1992. The assessee claimed a deduction of a sum of Rs. 11,11,600/- which amount it had incurred for replacement of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC24; 101(2006)CLT291(SC); JT2005(9)SC89; 2006(1)KarLJ129; (2006)1MLJ111(SC); (2005)8SCC709
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. All these appeals involve questions connected with the scope and effect of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act as amended and adopted in the State of Karnataka. The brief facts leading to the appeals are as under.CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2024 OF 1999The State challenges the order of the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court in Civil Revision Petition No.3682 of 1995 by which the learned Judge dismissed the revision filed by the State challenging the order of the Civil Judge, being the land acquisition court, purporting to condone the delay in filing an application under Section 18(3)(b) of the Land Acquisition Act, as amended in Karnataka. The notice of the award under Section 12(2) of the Act was served on the claimant on 6.1.1984. Under Section 18(2) of the Act, the claimant had 90 days from the date of service of that notice, to seek a reference under that Section for enhancement of compensation. The respondent claimed that an application under Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2006)199CTR(SC)209
By The Court:This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in IT Appeal No. 20 of 1999, dated 14-3-2002. By its aforesaid judgment and order dated 11-3-2002 read with revised order dated 14-3-2002, impugned herein, out of the two questions referred to the High Court for its opinion, it answered the first question in favour of the revenue, and directed that the second question, together with the question as to whether the claim of deduction of the amount could be claimed under section 37 of the Act, be considered by the Tribunal. It accordingly, remitted the matter to the Tribunal for fresh disposal of the matter on the aforesaid two questions.2. The facts of the case may be briefly noticedThe S.T.N. (respondent herein) is a company running a textile Mill. We are concerned with the assessment year 1991-92. The assessee claimed a deduction of a sum of Rs. 11,11,600, which amount it had incurred for replacement of the elec...
Tag this Judgment!