Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(2)AWC1511(SC); 2008(3)BomCR66; (SCSuppl)2008(4)CHN21; 2008(1)CTC530; 2008(1)CTLJ299(SC); JT2008(2)SC63; (2008)2MLJ750(SC); 2008(1)SCALE705; (2008)4SCC46; 2008AIRSCW1183; AIR2008SC1205; 2008(4)SCC464; 2008(2)CivilLJ843; 2008(1)SCALE705; 2008(1)Supreme673; 2008(1)LH(SC)675; 2008(2)ICC4
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Leave granted. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.01.2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in First Appeal No. 743 of 1993 in and by which the High Court set aside the decree for specific performance granted by the trial Court and consequently dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. 2. Brief facts in a nutshell are:The appellants/plaintiffs in special civil suit No. 320 of 1988 filed the same for specific performance of agreement dated 31.07.1985. According to the plaintiffs, the respondent herein/defendant is the owner of land Block No. 208 and Block No. 209 respectively admeasuring Area H. 0.60 R and H. 0.40 R of Village Nagaon in Hatkanangale Tahsil. The defendant had entered into an agreement for sale of the said lands to the plaintiffs for a consideration of Rs. 85,000/- per acre. The agreement was reduced into writing and according to the terms of the agreement, the sale deed was to be executed by the defendant within...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC1105; JT2008(2)SC60; 2008(1)SCALE694; (2008)3SCC49; 2008AIRSCW941; 2008(2)KCCRSN94
P. Sathasivam, J.1. These appeals are directed against the final judgment and order dated 25.06.2002 passed by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Petition Nos. 29675 & 29712 of 1997 in and by which the High Court dismissed these writ petitions filed by the appellants herein.2. BRIEF FACTS:The schedule land forms part of Sy. No. 30 of Taranagar Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and the total extent of which is Ac. 3.19 guntas. Out of the said extent, one Chakali Ramaiah owned an extent of Ac. 1.29 guntas of land and one Katika Baloji owned an extent of Ac.1.30 guntas. Out of total extent of Ac.1.29 guntas, Chakali Ramaiah sold an extent of Ac. 1.00 to Smt. Shamshunnisa Begum, contesting respondent No. 1 herein and 20 guntas to one Jahangir and retained the balance of 9 guntas. Katika Baloji sold an extent of 30 guntas to Smt. K. Sharada Bai, appellant No. 1 herein and 1 acre to H. Padmini Bhai, appellant No. 2 herein. The contesting res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC1108; 2008(2)AWC1483(SC); 2008(1)CTC537; JT2008(3)SC438; (2008)2MLJ755(SC); 2008(1)SCALE698; (2008)3SCC120; 2008AIRSCW944; 2008(3)LH(SC)2021; 2008(2)KCCR742
P. Sathasivam, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.03.1999 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Regular Second Appeal No. 131 of 1999 in and by which the learned single Judge dismissed the second appeal at the stage of admission.2. BRIEF FACTS:The appellant and Shri Shivayya (since deceased) and two others were brothers. Their father owned many properties apart from being tenant of suit lands. Their father died in the year 1952. According to the appellant, he alone was cultivating the suit lands as tenant excluding all the brothers. The properties were divided among the brothers. The suit property continued to be in the exclusive possession of the appellant as the same was a tenanted land. Under Section 44 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') all the lands held by or in possession of tenants stood transferred to and vested in the Government. Under Section 45 of the Act, tenants were given an option to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(129)ECC124; 2008(155)LC124(SC)
ORDERAshok Bhan, Dalveer Bhandari and P. Sathasivam, JJ.1. The Appellant is a small scale industry. It commenced manufacturing electric fans falling under the erstwhile Tariff Item No. 33 prior to coming into force of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, after obtaining central excise licence. Rotors and stators falling under Tariff Item 30D which are essential components required for the manufacture of electric fans, were also manufactured by the Appellant and captively used. The Appellant, from time to time, also received orders for doing diverse specific specialised processing work on job work basis on customers' raw materials like winding, die casting, coil setting etc. which did not transform the customers' raw materials into rotors and stators as commercially known and the customers undertook various further processes in their own factories to manufacture rotors and stators and used the same in the manufacture of their fans.2. For the period January 1983 to March 1984, the Collector ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(4)ALT2(SC); (2008)3MLJ499(SC); 2008(1)SCALE665; (2008)11SCC149; 2008AIRSCW1113; 2008(1)LH(SC)680
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Civil Revision filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh dismissing the revision petition filed.2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:Respondent No. 2 was a declarant in respect of lands covered by the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (in short the 'Act'). The declaration was filed by respondent No. 2 Maqbool Alam under Section 8(1) of the Act in response to the public notice in Form IV as required under Rule 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974 (in short the 'Rules') containing the particulars of the land and the persons holding such lands in respect of the declaration received which was duly notified. By various modes the fact of receipt of the declaration and its availability for public inspection in the office of Lands Reforms Tribunal, Adilabad (in short the Tr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2009]178TAXMAN1(SC)
Civil Appeal No. 8340 of 2004 with Civil Appeal Nos. 8337 to 8339, 8361 & 8363 of 20041. In these cases, appellants have challenged the validity of Rule 3 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, as amended by the Income Tax (Twenty-second) Amendment Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') which amended the method of computing valuation of perquisites under Section 17(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). According to the appellants, amended Rule 3 is inconsistent with the parent Act and also ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution.2. Writ petitions filed by the appellants herein have been dismissed by the High Court, aggrieved against which the present appeals have been filed.3. The amended notification was the subject-matter of appeals in this Court in the case of Aran Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. 2006) 12 ITCL 188 (SC) : (2007) 1 SCC 732. A three Judge Bench of this Court did not strike down Rule 3 of the Rules but read down the ru...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC1222; 2008(1)SCALE635; (2008)3SCC108; 2008AIRSCW1215; 2008(1)Supreme456
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. This appeal relates to compensation payable to a Bhopal gas tragedy victim. The appellant was in the womb of his mother on the fateful day that is, 2/3.12.1984. He was subsequently born on 14.5.1985. An application was made on his behalf for payment of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- under the scheme for payment of compensation to the gas victims alleging that the appellant's pregnant mother was affected by the leaked gas and consequently, the appellant, who was in her womb, was also affected.2. The Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Registration and Processing of Claims) Scheme, 1985 was framed by the Central Government in exercise of power under Section 9 of the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985. Clause 5 thereof provides for categorization and registration of claims. The application on behalf of appellant was considered by the Deputy Commissioner, for Bhopal gas victims. The appellant had been examined and a medical dossier prepared at the time of S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(2)ALLMR(SC)327; 2008(5)BomCR413; (2008)2MLJ1078(SC); 2008(1)SCALE652; (2008)3SCC78; 2008AIRSCW793
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court allowing the appeal filed by the respondents. The appeal was filed by the respondents challenging the order passed by learned Additional Chief Judge of Small Causes Court dated 31.3.2000 in Municipal Appeal No. 19 of 2000 under Section 217 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (in short the 'Act'). In the appeal, the order of assessment passed by the present appellants was under challenge. The order of the respondents related to refusal to entertain the complaint of the respondents and confirmation of rateable value.3. Though many points were urged in support of the appeal, the main plank of the argument of learned Counsel for the appellants was that the High Court has not applied its mind to various points urged and after noting the submissions came to abrupt conclusions. In other words it is submitted the judgment is practically non-reasoned...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008AIRSCW794; 2008(2)ALLMR(SC)755; 2008(2)AWC1473(SC); [2008(116)FLR835]; (2008)2MLJ1097(SC); 2008(1)SCALE655; (2008)3SCC172; 2008(2)LH(SC)1081
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 18497 of 1994. The dispute related to fixation of seniority.2. It is not necessary to go into the factual aspects in detail as the writ petition was disposed of in a summary manner observing as follows:This is a writ petition challenging the final seniority list.We have heard counsel for the parties. The seniority has been given from the date of confirmation. We see no illegality. The writ petition is dismissed.3. In support of the appeal, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that such summary dismissal of writ petition was not warranted as several issues of considerable importance were involved, more particularly whether the norms for fixing seniority in the background facts of the case were to be considered.4. Learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out that in the seniority list he was placed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. This writ petition has been filed highlighting the problems of residents of KBK districts in State of Orissa and seeking directions to prevent starvation deaths and occurance of famines etc. 2. On 28.4.1997, this Hon'ble Court noted that the National Human Rights Commissions (for short 'NHRC') was seized of the matter and recorded the submission of the learned Advocate General of State of Orissa that the State Government will implement all directions including those interim in nature, given by NHRC. In the subsequent order dated 21.7.1997, the petitioners were permitted to approach the NHRC with suggestions, for interim directions. NHRC evolved short term and long term schemes to empower the people of this region and also monitored implementation of such scheme for more than eight years. It submitted several interim reports to this Court. On 10.3.2003, this Court noted:It is brought to our notice that in the light of the progress made in the matter before the NHRC, the matter s...
Tag this Judgment!