Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC773; 2007(3)SCALE502; (2008)2SCC144; 2007AIRSCW7960; 2008(1)ICC569; 2008(1)KCCRSN42
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Uttaranchal High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent. Said respondent undisputedly is the landlord of the premises which were let out to the present appellants.3. An application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. (Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, (Act No. 13 of 1972) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was filed by the respondent against the appellants praying for the release of the Shop situated at Mohalla Bazar Ganj (Park Road), Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, which was under tenancy on the ground that the respondent has passed High School Certificate Examination and is unemployed and he has no independent business to earn his livelihood and, therefore, he wants to do the business of Electrical Goods, T.V., V.C.R., Music System, Cooking Range etc. in the said Shop.4. It was, further, stated by the landlord...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC951; 2008(1)ALLMR(SC)472; 2008(1)ALT13(SC); (SCSuppl)2008(1)CHN151; 2008(1)MhLj523; 2008(1)MPHT453; 2007(3)SCALE511; 2007(8)Supreme530; 2008AIRSCW447; 2008(2)CivilLJ764; 2008(1)ICC567; 2008(1)KCCRSN34
ORDER1. These appeals are directed against the impugned judgment of the Madras High Court dated 17.8.2000 in Second Appeal Nos. 1601-04/1986 1601-04/1986 . 2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. The respondent in these appeals, Pandurangan filed a suit being Original Suit No. 807 of 1982 (OS No. 135 of 1982 at Cuddalore) which was decreed on 20.8.1984 by the trial court. In that suit the plaintiff alleged that he is the owner of the property in question, and he prayed for declaration of his title and for a decree of possession against the defendant.4. Against the judgment and decree of the trial court the appellant herein filed an appeal which was allowed by the Additional Sub-ordinate Judge, Cuddalore on 30.12.1985. The First Appellate Court set aside the judgment of the trial court and allowed the appeal and dismissed the plaintiff's suit, holding that the defendant had acquired title by adverse possession over the property in dispute.5. Against the afores...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2008)1SCC246
Ashok Bhan, J.1. The present appeal has been directed against the final judgment and order dated 16th August, 2001 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Income Tax Reference No. 194/86 whereby the High Court has upheld the order passed by the Tribunal to the effect that the assessee was not entitled to deduction under Section 32(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act').2. The question involved in the present appeal relates to the correct interpretation of Section 32(1)(iv) of the Act and that whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case the assessee-appellant, a Chartered Accountant's firm would be entitled to deduction under the said section.3. The brief facts are as under: The assessee (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant' ) is a firm of Chartered Accountants in Ahmedabad. The Assessment relates to the Year 1984-85 for the financial year ending on 31.03.1984. During the relevant year the appellant constructed a building for the purpos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2008(116)FLR374]; (2008)ILLJ857SC; 2007(3)SCALE406
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Writ Petition No.13440 of 2004. The appellants had challenged the composite order dated 13.11.1997 passed in OA No.691/1995 and OA No.89/1996 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur (in short 'CAT'). The respondents had moved CAT under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (in short `the Act') seeking regularization of their services. 3. The stand of the respondents before the CAT was that they have been on duties as Data Entry Operators on contract basis and were being paid at a rate of Rs.10 per hour up to the maximum of Rs.50/- per day. They have sought for regularization placing reliance on the factum of long rendition of service.4. In response, the present appellants contended that the respondents were not departmental employees and their grievances cannot be agitated before the CAT. Pla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC530; 105(2008)CLT729(SC); 2008CriLJ727; I(2008)DMC22SC; (2008)2GLR1159(SC); JT2008(1)SC78; 2008(1)KLT41; 2008(1)KLT41(SC); (2008)2MLJ481(SC); 2008(2)MPHT13(SC); 2008(2)SCC316; (2008)1SCC(Cri)356; 2008(1)Crimes74; 2008(1)AICLR342
ORDERArijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, dismissing the revision petition filed by the appellant in terms of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.'). The challenge before the High Court was to the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Neemuch, M.P. as affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Neemuch, M.P. The respondent had filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from the appellant. Undisputedly, the appellant and the respondent had entered into marital knot about four decades back and for more than two decades they were living separately. In the application it was claimed that she was unemployed and unable to maintain herself. Appellant had retired from the post of Assistant Director of Agriculture and was getting about Rs. 8,000/- as pension and a similar amount as hou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2007)213CTR(SC)473; [2008]297ITR1(SC); 2008(2)KCCRSN117(SC)
Ashok Bhan, J.1. Leave granted in S.L.P.(C) No. 7476 of 2006.2. The U.P. Forest Corporation (for short, 'the Corporation'), the appellant No. 1 in Civil Appeal Nos. 9432; 9433; 9435; and 9436 of 2003, was constituted by a notification issued under Section 3 of the U.P. Forest Corporation Act, 1974. In the year 1977, the Income-tax authorities issued a notice to the Corporation to file its return of income for the assessment year 1976-77 under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'). The Corporation challenged the said notice by filing Writ Petition No. 1568 of 1977 which was disposed of by the High Court by holding that the Corporation was a local authority under Section 10(20) of the Act and was entitled to claim exemption. Since the said order was not challenged by the Revenue, the same became final and remained in force till a contrary view was taken by this Court in respect of Assessment Years 1977-78, 1980-81 and 1984-85 in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Lucknow v...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2008(116)FLR1144]; (2008)ILLJ565SC; 2007(3)SCALE499; (2008)1SCC542; 2008AIRSCW445; 2008LABIC765; 2007(8)Crimes627; 2008-I-LLJ-565
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of Uttaranchal High Court. Appellant had questioned the correctness of the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Haldwani, Nainital (in short the 'Labour Court') in the writ petition.3. The Claim of the respondent was that he was working as a sweeper in the hospital of the appellant and was appointed on 1.7.1995 and worked up to 16.8.1996. But his services were terminated on 17.8.1996 without any notice and without any retrenchment allowances. A dispute was raised which was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act'). The Labour Court held that the respondent was entitled to the benefit of reinstatement and 50% of back wages. The stand of the appellant that the respondent was engaged on a daily wage basis for doing a part time job of sweeping was held to be not acceptable. It was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC542; 2008(1)JKJ9[SC]; (2008)2MLJ929(SC); 2007(3)SCALE522
ORDER1. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu dated 9th November, 2000 in Civil Second Appeal No. 4 of 1995 whereby the learned Single Judge upheld the finding of the First Appellate Court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff (appellant herein).3. The brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of the appeal are that a suit was filed by the Landlord (appellant herein) for eviction of the tenant-respondent. The landlord claimed the rent for January, 1984 to January, 1985 by sending a notice dated 27.2.1985 to the tenant. Thereafter the tenant committed a second default of payment of rent for February, 1985 and March, 1985. The third default was committed in April, 1985 and May, 1955. The total amount deposited by the tenant on 25.5.1985 was Rs. 6,000/-.4. Section 11(1)(i) of the Jammu & Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(2)MhLj907; 2007(3)SCALE552; (2008)2SCC85; 2008(2)CivilLJ35; 2008(2)KCCRSN92
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.1. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.07.2002 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CM No.10362/99 in CWP No.2890/97, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been directed to pay pension to Babu Singh by giving him benefit of Rule 6.16 (2) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1952 (Vol.-II Part-I) with further direction to do the needful within a period of three months from the date of submission of a certified copy of the order. 2. The necessary facts in brief may be stated as follows:Babu Singh, respondent herein, served the Indian Army as a Driver from 06.01.1964 to 31.01.1979. He was granted the benefit of pay fixation, seniority, increments etc. of the military service. After being discharged from Army service, the respondent was appointed as Driver in Haryana Roadways, Faridabad, w.e.f. 23.04.1979. On 09.03.1996, the respondent applied for voluntary retirement ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER DATED 2-4-2002 MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOURS1. By the captioned order, cross appeals for assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92 were disposed of. The aforesaid appeals were heard on 4-2-2002. After the hearing, the Hon'ble Bench on the request made, permitted the assessee to file written submissions in respect of cross appeals for assessment year 1991-92. The submissions were duly filed on 7-2-2002. The order was passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal on 2-4-2002.2. That ground No. 2 of departmental appeal for assessment year1990-91 (ITA No. 5544/D/96) and ground No. 3 of departmental appeal for assessment year 1991-92 (ITA No. 5545/D/96) were against allowance of depreciation on exchange rate fluctuation which had not been paid by the assessee. This issue was decided by the Commissioner (Appeals) in favour of the assessee by relying upon his order in the case of Samtel Color Ltd. It was submitted during the course of hearing as also in the written propositions that departmental appeal in the...
Tag this Judgment!