Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC860; 2008(1)AWC955(SC); 2008(1)JKJ12[SC]; JT2008(1)SC161; 2007(14)SCALE439; 2009(1)SLJ181(SC)
Markandey Katju, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 21.3.2000 in Civil Writ Petition No. 1311 of 2000.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. The facts of the case are that the respondent joined the Central Secretariat Service on 13.7.1983 after passing Assistants Grade Examination held in October, 1981. The respondent was allocated to the finance cadre comprising the Ministry of Finance.4. After completion of eight years of regular service in the grade of Assistant, the respondent was granted a short-term promotion to the grade of Section Officer on 24.7.1991. The respondent continues to work in this post till date. 5. Select List (Seniority quota) for promotion to the Section Officers Grade for the year 1991 was issued on 28th May, 1993. The respondent's name has not been included in this select list although the respondent was qualified to be included in the select list. Officers junior to the respon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC681; 2008(1)AWC889(SC); JT2008(1)SC159; 2008(I)OLR(SC)264; 2007(14)SCALE320; 2008(3)CivilLJ77; 2008(3)ICC760; 2007AIRSCW7795
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. It appears that vide an interim order dated 12.1.2001, the High Court granted ad interim injunction and a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court refused to interfere.3. A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice:4. The respondent filed a suit claiming that she is a film actress of good standing. Certain articles were published in the magazine published by the appellants called 'Stardust'. A suit for damages of Rs. 20 crores alleging that the articles are defamatory in nature and would affect her career and for injunction restraining the appellants from publishing defamatory articles was filed. Notice of motion for interim injunction was taken out. Learned Single Judge was of the prima facie view that the articles deal with the personal life and are defamatory in nature and granted interim injunction. The interim injunction reads as follows:Therefore, as directed in the case of Indian Express Newspapers (supra), ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2008)214CTR(SC)1; [2008]297ITR429(SC); JT2008(1)SC46; 2007(14)SCALE645; 2007(8)Supreme386; 2008AIRSCW315; 2008(1)SCC674; 2008(4)KCCRSN284
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court dismissing the Tax Case Appeals as according to the High Court the case at hand is covered against the revenue in view of the order passed earlier by the High Court in Southern Asbestos Cement Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax .3. These appeals relate to assessment years 1989-90, 1991- 92 and 1992-93. The core issue is the allowability of investment allowance under Section 32A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'). The assessing officer was of the view that it is only to be allowed in one assessment year and not several assessment years. The Tribunal and the High Court appear to have proceeded on the basis that in view of Section 43A(1) of the Act the allowance was to be granted in different assessment years. 4. Sections 32A and 43A(1) of the Act read as under:Section 32A- INVESTMENT ALLOWANCE. (1) In respect of a ship or an aircraft or machin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Leave granted.3. By the impugned order, the High Court has permitted the assessees to file IT returns in Form Saral 2D instead of Forms ITR-1 to ITR-8. It has been stated by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent that this order was passed by the High Court because of paucity of time and non-availability of adequate number of forms. We are not impressed by the submission. Whether the return should be filed in a particular form is not the business of the Court. It is for the statutory authority to decide the same. Be that as it may, as the original time for filing the return has already expired, the learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing on behalf of the Union of India, stated that the time for filing the return in the prescribed form is being extended to 29-2-2008, in relation to all categories of assessees. This being the position, the impugned order is set aside. All the assessees, who have already filed ret...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC856; [2008(116)FLR397]; JT2008(1)SC145; (2008)ILLJ867SC; (2008)2MLJ490(SC); 2007(14)SCALE451; (2008)2SCC229; 2009(2)SLJ90(SC); 2008(1)LC114(SC); 2008LABIC458; 2007(8)Crimes437; 2008(1)LH(SC)262
Markandey Katju, J.1. Writ Petition No. 4648/2002 titled Union of India and Anr. v. S.R. Dhingra and Ors. was filed in the Delhi High Court and was thereafter transferred to this Court by order dated 9.5.2006 in Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 278 of 2005.2. It appears that similar matters were pending before the Delhi High Court, Punjab & Haryana High Court and Central Administrative Tribunal and further proceedings in those cases were ordered to be stayed awaiting the judgment in the matter which was transferred to this Court by the order dated 9.5.2006. 3. The facts of the case are that in the Railways there are certain employees such as drivers, guards, shunters etc, who go along with the railway train and are categorized as 'Running Staff'. Such staffs are entitled to an allowance called 'Running Allowance' which is apart from their salary. Computation of pension after retirement in the railways is made on the basis of average emoluments plus a part of the running allowance which is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC861; [2008(116)FLR401]; (2008)ILLJ871SC; 2007(14)SCALE903; 2009(1)SLJ167(SC); 2008(1)SCC716; 2008LABIC46; 2008(1)LH(SC)405
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Gajanand M. Dalwadi, since deceased (delinquent officer) was working in the Regional Transport Office under the Commissioner of Transport in the State of Gujarat. He had been working in the Department for Grant of Licence. At the relevant time, however, he was serving in the Accounts Department as a Summary Clerk. 2. An inspection was conducted in the Licence Branch of the Regional Transport Office during the period 21.8.1995 to 13.9.1995. 3. Several misconducts committed by the delinquent officer came to the notice of the authorities. It was found that a forged license was granted to one Narendra Kumar who had met with an accident although at the relevant point of time, he was possessing a valid driving licence. A chargesheet was issued against him. Upon holding a disciplinary proceeding, the enquiry officer submitted a Report on 6.12.1997 stating that the charges against him have been proved. The disciplinary authority directed his removal from service by an Order da...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(1)LH(SC)13; 2008(3)KCCRSN226; AIR2008SC867; 2007CriLJ821; 2007(14)SCALE656; 2008(1)Crimes61; 2007(8)Supreme475; 2008(1)LH(SC)13; 2008(3)KCCRSN226
S.B. Sinha, J.Leave granted.1. Appellant is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment dated 21st January, 2004 passed by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 341 of 1991 arising out of the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 2nd September, 1991 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge XIth, Gaya, in Sessions Trial No. 12 of 1991.2. A land dispute arose between the accused and the prosecution witnesses in relation to a piece of land bearing plot No. 1/555 of village Gamahariya. While measurement of the said land was going on, both the parties, viz., Kameshwar Yadav and Chander Dusadh, claimed their right thereupon, on the basis of purchases made by them under their respective registered deeds of sale. 3. A quarrel ensued between both the parties. Kameshwar Yadav exhorted others to eliminate Chander Dusadh. It was followed by an assault on Kali Dusadh by a hard and blunt object by him. Jaldhari Yadav assaulted Kali Dusadh on his righ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(2)KarLJ460; 2007(14)SCALE607; AIRSCW268; 2008(1)LH(SC)408; ILR2008(1)Kar1163; 2008(4)KCCR2837; 2008(2)AIRKarR141
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the writ appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act (in short the 'High Court Act'). Challenge in the writ appeal was to the order passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 180897/95 dated 9.9.1998.3. Factual background in a nutshell is as follows:The Government land measuring 30 guntas in extent in Sy. No. 96/12 of Heggur village, T.N. Pura Taluk was originally granted temporarily to R-1's husband Lingaiah on 26.9.1959 for upset price at the rate of Rs. 500/- per acre allowing him to pay the same within the specified time and subject to the condition that on payment thereof the grant shall be confirmed in his favour. It transpires from the impugned orders of the authorities below that because of poverty the grantee could not make payment of the upset price in time and the same was, therefo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2008(116)FLR408]; JT2008(1)SC65; 2007(14)SCALE653; (2008)2SCC62; 2008(1)LH(SC)150
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants. 3. Factual background facts in a nutshell is as follows:The appellant No. 2 herein invited applications for several posts including the post of Cook by Employment/ Recruitment Notice published in the Employment News dated 19-25th October, 2002. The upper age limit in regard to unreserved category candidate was mentioned as 25 yrs. Respondent furnished his date of birth as 17.3.1978 and on that basis he was selected. The School Certificate and other records showed the date of birth as 17.3 1977. Respondent claimed that he did not suppress any facts and he disclosed all the material facts in regard to his date of birth and had also filed an affidavit stating that his date of birth was 17.3.1978 and he had sought for correction of date of birth in the School Records. However, as he was found to be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2008(116)FLR1145]; JT2008(1)SC156; (2008)ILLJ917SC; 2007(14)SCALE457; (2008)2SCC545; 2008AIRSCW93; 2008LABIC435; 2007(8)Supreme510; 2008-I-LLJ-917; 2008(1)LH(SC)324; 2008(4)KCCRSN240.
P. Sathasivam, J.1. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 01.08.2000 passed by the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in Writ Appeal No. 195 of 1996 whereby the High Court allowed the writ appeal, inter alia, directing the appellant to pay equal and similar wages and other benefits to the contract labourers who work in the finishing job under Rule 25 (2) (v) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Assam Rules, 1971 (hereinafter called the 'Rules'). 2. Brief facts in a nut shell are as follows:The contesting 1st respondent herein is a registered Trade Union having its registered office at Panchgram District Hailakandi, Assam on behalf of 34 contract labourers hired by a contractor for the appellant-Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. (Cachar Paper Mill) (in short the 'Mill') filed a representation before the Labour Officer/Inspector of Assam, Hailakandi through its president for implementation of Rule 25(2) (v) (a) of the Rules vide their letter...
Tag this Judgment!