Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC1038; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)803; (2005)3CALLT71(SC); 2005(2)CTC708; 2005(2)ESC173; [2004(102)FLR642]; JT2005(2)SC137; (2005)3MLJ1(SC); (2005)3SCC1; 2005(2)SLJ347(SC); 20
G.P. Mathur, J.1. These appeals, by special leave, have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 5.11.1996 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Madras Bench) by which O.A. No. 199/1996 and O.A No. 214/1996 were allowed and selection made of migrant Scheduled Caste candidates against the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes on the post of Selection Grade Teachers in the selection held in the year 1995 in the Union territory of Pondicherry was declared as illegal and invalid, and a further direction was issued to review the selection process with regard to the reserved quota by excluding the migrant Scheduled Caste candidates who had migrated after the relevant notification had been issued in the year 1964.2. The Directorate of Education, Government of Pondicherry, issued an advertisement for making recruitment of 350 General Central Service Group 'C' posts of Secondary Grade Teachers (for short 'SGT') wherein 56 posts were reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates (for short ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2026; 2005(2)ESC129; JT2005(2)SC165; (2005)5SCC420
G.P. Mathur, J.1. Professor Yashpal, an eminent Scientist and former Chairman of University Grants Commission, has filed Writ Petition No.19 of 2004 under Article 32 of the Constitution by way of public interest litigation for declaring certain provisions of The Chhattisgarh Niji Kshetra Vishwavidyalaya (Sthapana Aur Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 2002 as ultra vires and for quashing of the notifications issued by State of Chhattisgarh in the purported exercise of power conferred by Section 5 of the said Adhiniyam for establishing various universities.. The other petitioner who has joined in the petition, is a resident of Chhattisgarh and is concerned with the quality of education in his State. The respondent no.1 to the petition is the State of Chhattisgarh, respondent no.2 is the University Grants Commission and respondent nos.3 to 94 are the private universities which have been established by the State of Chhattisgarh under the aforesaid Adhiniyam.2. The Chhattisgarh Legislature enacted the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2005]143TAXMAN369(SC)
N. Santosh Hegde J.The appellant, a co-operative sugar mill, filed its return of income for the assessment year 1992-93 declaring a loss of Rs. 6,95,63,045.72. While computing the said loss the appellant declared in its return a sum of Rs. 1,48,38,263.88 as interest which had accrued for the relevant assessment year which was payable to the creditors and had been debited in the profit and loss account, hence, sought for its deduction. A return claiming similar losses was also filed for the assessment year 1993-94. The assessing officer processed the returns filed by the appellant under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and disallowed the deduction of Rs. 1,48,38,263.88 claimed by the appellant on account of interest payable to the creditors. He also imposed a penal additional tax of Rs. 11,62,502 under section 143(1A) of the Act. Being aggrieved by the said order of assessment the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC986; 2005(4)BomCR823; (SCSuppl)2005(2)CHN96; 117(2005)DLT354(SC); I(2005)DMC345SC; [2005(2)JCR21(SC)]; JT2005(2)SC233; 2005(3)KarLJ1; 2005(1)KLT904(SC); (2005)2MLJ
R.C. Lahoti, C.J.1. Unusual fact situation posing issues for resolution is an opportunity for innovation. Law, as administered by Courts, transforms into justice. 'The definition of justice mentioned in Justinian's Corpus Juris Civilis (adopted from the Roman jurist Ulpian) states 'Justice is constant and perpetual will to render to everyone that to which he is entitled.' Similarly, Cicero described justice as 'the disposition of the human mind to render everyone his due'.' Justice Markandey Katju, Law in the Scientific Era --The Theory of Dynamic Positivism, p.73 The law does not remain static. It does not operate in a vacuum. As social norms and values change, laws too have to be re-interpreted, and recast. Law is really a dynamic instrument fashioned by society for the purposes of achieving harmonious adjustment, human relations by elimination of social tensions and conflicts. Lord Denning once said: 'Law does not standstill; it moves continuously. Once this is recognized, then the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2005)194CTR(SC)1; [2005]273ITR212(SC); JT2005(2)SC386; (2005)2SCC728
N. Santosh Hegde, J.1. The appellant, a cooperative sugar Mill, filed its return of income for the assessment year 1992-93 declaring a loss of Rs. 6,95,63,045.72. While computing the said loss the appellant declared in its return a sum of Rs. 1,48,38,263.88 as interest which had accrued for the relevant assessment year which was payable to the creditors and had been debited in the profit and loss account, hence, sought for its deduction. A return claiming similar losses were also filed for the Assessment Year 1993-94. The assessing officer processed the returns filed by the appellant under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act (the Act) and disallowed the deduction of Rs. 1,48,38,263.88 claimed by the appellant on account of interest payable to the creditors. He also imposed a penal additional tax of Rs. 11,62,502 under section 143(1)(a) of the Act. Being aggrieved by the said order of assessment the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Rohta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC998; [2005(104)FLR1005]; [2005(2)JCR15(SC)]; JT2005(2)SC378; 2005(3)KarLJ62; (2005)ILLJ1089SC; (2005)3SCC202; 2005(2)SLJ236(SC); 2005(2)LC1083(SC); (2005)2UPLBEC16
Ruma Pal, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant was employed by the respondent. He claimed promotion as a clerk. When this was not granted, the appellant raised an industrial dispute. The question whether the appellant was justified in his prayer for promotion with effect from the date that his juniors were promoted was referred to the Industrial Tribunal by the State Government. In their written statement before the Tribunal the respondent denied the appellant's claim for promotion on merits. In addition, it was contended by the respondent that the individual dispute raised by the appellant was not an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as the workman was neither supported by a substantial number of workmen nor by a majority union. The appellant claims that his cause was espoused by the Gokak Mills Staff Union.3. Before the Tribunal, apart from examining himself, the General Secretary of the Union was examined as a witness in suppo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(98)ECC777; 2005(181)ELT154(SC); JT2005(2)SC398; (2005)3SCC363
ORDER1. This Appeal is against the Judgment of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal dated, 11th June, 1999.2. The question for consideration is whether the Respondents (herein) are entitled to the benefit of Verification No. 30/97-C.E. dated 1st August, 1997. The relevant portion of the said Notification reads as follows:-'G.S.R. 445 (E) - In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), the Central Government having regard to the nature of the process of manufacture or production of ingots and billets of non-alloy steel falling under sub-heading Nos. 7206.90 and 7207.90 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986), manufactured or produced in an induction furnace (hereinafter referred to as such goods), the extent of evasion of duty in regard to such goods and on being satisfied that it is necessary to safeguard the interest of revenue, hereby specifies such goods as notified goods,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(2)ESC170; [2005(104)FLR1063]; [2005(2)JCR18(SC)]; JT2005(2)SC358; 2005(I)OLR(SC)548; (2005)2SCC746; 2005(2)SLJ233(SC); (2005)2UPLBEC1628
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to legality of the judgment of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court setting aside the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (in short the 'Tribunal') and holding that authorities were not justified in denying appointment to the respondent.3. A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice:The respondent appeared for the recruitment test conducted for the selection of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable (Civil) in Visakhapatnam. He was successful in the test and thereafter he was subjected to medical test. After the two tests were over, he was required to undergo training. But he was not sent for training on the ground that the Superintendent of Police, Visakhapatnam by order dated 5.5.2003 had directed that he was not to be sent for training. Questioning legality of such order, the respondent filed an Original Application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that the exa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2007]292ITR3(SC)
ORDER1. We agree with the High Court that no question of law was required to be referred albeit for reasons other than the reason expressed by the High Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : I(2005)BC598; 2005(2)CTC692; JT2005(2)SC129; (2005)2SCC575; [2005]140STC1(SC)
Ruma Pal, J.1. The issue to be decided in these appeals is whether the appellant is liable to pay interest on the balance of sales tax dues for the period 1.10.93 to 30.9.94 under Section 24(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 or was it exempt from doing so under Section 17A(2) of that Act?2. The appellant-company is a registered dealer under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Sometime in 1988 proceedings were commenced in respect of the appellant under the Sick Industries Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. (referred to hereafter as SICA). Ultimately on 28th September, 1993 a scheme was sanctioned by the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (hereinafter referred to as 'BIFR') for rehabilitation of the appellant. Under the heading, 'Cost of the scheme and Means of financing', the BIFR noted the requirement of funds for the rehabilitation of the Appellant and the means of finance. As far as the requirements of funds are concerned it was assessed a...
Tag this Judgment!