Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2968; 2005(191)ELT20(SC); JT2005(6)SC28; (2005)11SCC149; [2005]141STC406(SC)
Ruma Pal, J.1. The issue in these appeals is the extent of the entitlement of the respondent to the benefit of exemption from payment of trade tax granted under a notification dated 27th July, 1991 issued under Section 4A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')2. The respondent manufactures and sells ceramic files in its factory at Sikandarabad, District Bulandshahr in the State of Uttar Pradesh since 1988 having received an industrial licence from the Government of India to do so. The annual production capacity of the- respondent was 12000 TPA (tonnes per annum). The total investment made in the unit upto 12th August, 1988 was Rs. 16,21,54,452/- and the first sale was effected on 16th August, 1988.3. A notification issued on 26th December, 1985 (referred to as the 1985 Notification) under Section 4-A of the Act granted a six-years' tax exemption in respect of new units having an investment in excess of 3 lakhs starting production on or after the first da...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(3)AWC2497(SC); 2005(2)BLJR1642; 2006(1)BomCR466; (SCSuppl)2005(4)CHN135; 100(2005)CLT679(SC); 2005(3)CTC577; (2005)197CTR(SC)602; [2005(3)JCR201(SC)]; JT2005(6)SC167;
Arijit Pasayat, J. 1. Leave granted.2. Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court in Second Appeal in terms of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the 'Code'). The respondents are the legal heirs of the original plaintiff-Ishraj Narayan Singh. The original plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration of his title over the suit land and declaration of want of title of Smt. Ram Sakhi Devi, the appellant herein, the defendant No. 3 in the suit. The trial court had decreed the suit but in appeal the First Appellate Court reversed it. The respondents filed the second appeal before the Patna High Court. By the impugned judgment the High Court restored the judgment and decree of the trial court and set aside the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court.3. Though many points v/ere urged in support of the appeal, the pivotal plea was that the High Court could not have interfered with the judgment a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC4004; 2005(4)ALT51(SC); 2005(3)AWC2677(SC); (SCSuppl)2005(4)CHN102; 2005(4)CTC20; [2005(3)JCR203(SC)]; JT2005(6)SC333; (2005)4MLJ1(SC); (2005)6SCC202
D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.1. In these two appeals arising out of the impugned common judgment passed by the High Court of Madras in Second Appeal, the neat question involved is one of res judicata. The trial court in its common judgment passed in cross suits jointly tried came to the conclusion that the judgment in former suit OS No. 843/74 between the predecessor-in-title of the appellant and the respondents cannot operate as res judicata to bar the present suit claiming title to the suit property by the appellant. The High Court by the impugned common judgment in Second Appeal has reversed the judgment of the two courts below and held that the judgment in former suit OS No. 843/74 decided on 28.2.1976 operates as res judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Consequently, the suit filed by the appellant has been dismissed and the cross suit filed by the respondents has been decreed.2. The facts necessary for deciding the issue of res judicata are as under:-The property in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3066; [2005(106)FLR622]; [2005(3)JCR214(SC)]; 2005(3)KLT717(SC); (2005)5SCC561; 2005(3)SLJ130(SC); 2005(2)LC1040(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Point of controversy in all these appeals is whether teachers superannuating during a particular academic year but continuing in service by virtue of Rule 62 of Chapter XIV (A) of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (in short the 'KER') are entitled to the benefit of pay revision coming into effect during such extended period.3. Detailed reference to the factual aspect is unnecessary as the basic feature in each of the appeals is that the concerned teachers were to retire on the date of attaining the age of superannuation. The said date in each case fell within academic year. In view of the provisions contained in Rule 62 of Chapter XIV (A) of the KER they continued till the last date of the month in which the academic year ends. Undisputedly the academic year in each case came to end on 31st March of the concerned year. The age of retirement in each case is 55 years, but benefit of continuance in service is granted till the end of the academic year. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2897; 2005(5)ALD113(SC); 2005(3)AWC2541(SC); 2005(3)CTC545; JT2005(6)SC1; 2005(5)KarLJ17; 2005(II)OLR(SC)425; (2005)5SCC548; 2005(2)LC898(SC)
D.M. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. In these appeals preferred by the plaintiffs the only question involved is whether the trial court and the High Court were right in holding that the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure was liable to rejection. The High Court by the impugned order passed in Misc. Second Appeal reversed the order of the first appellate court and upheld that of the trial court.2. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff in this appeal contends that if the plaint allegations containing all facts are read in proper perspective, 'cause of action' has clearly been pleaded and the High Court grossly erred in rejecting the plaint on the ground that it does not disclose any cause of action.3. With the assistance and on the comments and counter comments of the parties, we have carefully gone through the contents of the plaint. We find that the plaint has been very cleverly drafted with a view to get over the bar of limitation and payment of ad valorem court f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2905; 2005(4)ALD116(SC); 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)848; 2005(3)AWC2537(SC); 2005(2)BLJR1608; (SCSuppl)2005(4)CHN119; 2005(3)CTC550; JT2005(6)SC6; 2005(II)OLR(SC)431; (2005)5
D.M. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. The appellant obtained possession on lease of the suit premises for running a Petrol Pump under a registered lease deed dated 17.7.1962 for a period of fifteen years. It was an annual lease but the rent at agreed rate was payable in monthly instalments. The period of lease expired on 17.7.1977.2. The registered sale deed contained Clauses Nos.(7) & (9) giving option of renewal for a further period which could be exercised before expiry of the initial period. After the period of lease expired on 19.7.1977 the lessee continued to remit the rent till August 19, 1977. On 23.8.1977 the lessee sent a lawyer's notice exercising his option under Clause (7) and seeking renewal of the lease. The lessee thereafter remitted monthly rent of Rs.345/- each for three months from March to May 1978. The rent was accepted by the lessor.3. Clause (7) of the lease providing option of renewal to the lessee contained two conditions firstly that the option has to be exercised before ...
Tag this Judgment!