Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(3)AWC2358(SC); JT2009(5)SC189; 2009(3)SCALE786; (2009)4SCC684; 2009AIRSCW2509; 2009(4)KCCR2824.
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J.1. Leave granted. The respondent who appears in person, in response to the notice informing the hearing date, has requested that his presence may be dispensed with and his written submissions (reply with copies of the documents) may be treated as his arguments and matter may be disposed of. We have heard the learned Counsel for appellant and considered the contentions of the respondent in his written submissions.2. The appellant (Bhubaneshwar Development Authority) allotted MIG house bearing No. M-19, to the respondent, as per letter of allotment dated 1.5.1991. A lease-cum-sale agreement was entered between the appellant and the respondent on 6.5.1991. Clause (2) of the agreement stipulated the price of the house to be Rs. 139,215/40. After deducting the payment of Rs. 37,415/- made by the lessee towards the price (on 29.6.1990), it permitted the lessee to pay the balance of Rs. 101,800/40 in 52 quarterly instalments of Rs. 1957/70 each commencing from 1.9.1989...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The appellant while working as a Superintendent in the office of the Advocate-General, Haryana made applications for allotment of a plot under the Government employees quota in Sector 25, Panchkula and for allotment of a plot under the general category in Sector 26, Panchkula. The Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA), by letter dated 14.11.1994 informed her that she had been selected for allotment of Plot No. 817 in Sector 26 under the general category in the draw of lots held on 31.10.1994. HUDA also selected her for allotment of a plot (No. 946 in Sector 25) under the Government employees quota.3. As a person could not have allotment of more than one plot, the appellant opted for retaining the allotment of Plot No. 817 (Sector 26) under the general category, and sent a letter dated 10.3.1995 requesting for cancellation of proposed allotment of Plot No. 946 (Sector 25) under the Government employees quota.4. HUDA, by letters dated 4.4.1995, called the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Leave granted. Heard.2. The lands in question originally belonged to one Irfanul Haq Beg. He is stated to have died leaving a will dated 13.12.1967 bequeathing the suit lands to one Naseer Baig (father of appellants) subject to a life interest in favour of Mariyam Bibi (wife of the testator). The first respondent is a transferee from Mariyam Bibi under sale deed dated 11.10.1990. On the death of Mariyam Bibi, the first respondent sought mutation to his name in the revenue records. The appellants objected. The Tehsildar by order dated 26.4.2001 overruled the objections of the appellants and directed mutation from the name Mariyam Bibi to that of first respondent.3. Feeling aggrieved the appellants appealed to the Additional District Magistrate (Sadar), Sultanpur, who allowed the appeal by order dated 9.10.2002 and directed that the names of appellants be entered as the Bhumidars in place of Mariyam Bibi and remanded the matter for rehearing on merits after granting opportunity t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2009)226CTR(SC)685
ORDER1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has brought to our notice the judgment passed by this Court in CIT v. Ramaraju Surgical Cotton Mills : (2007) 294 ITR 328, wherein, in similar matters, this Court has held as under:5. There are a number of tests which are required to be considered while deciding whether the expenditure was revenue or capital in nature. A number of judgments have been cited before us in that regard. However, in the absence of the requisite details regarding the production capacity remaining constant even after replacement, the matter needs to be remitted to the Commissioner (Appeals). There is one more reason why we are inclined to remit the matter. As stated above, the impugned judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Janakiram Mills Ltd : (2005) 275 ITR 403 has been set aside by this Court as there was confusion between the tests to be applied in respect of Section 31 vis-a-vis the test to be applied in the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. The respondent filed an application dated 30.9.2001 for grant of a FL3 licence for his restaurant. In 2006, he was informed by the Excise authorities that his application could not be considered and granted as per the then existing law. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached the High Court by filing a writ petition. Learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition by order dated 6.12.2006 with a direction to the Excise Commissioner to consider the eligibility of the respondent with reference to the qualifications required as on the date of the application. That was challenged by the State by filing a writ appeal. The writ appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench on the ground of delay. The said order is challenged in this appeal by special leave. 2. On examining the reasons assigned by the appellant State for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the High Court, we are of the view that the delay ought to have been condoned by the High Court. The appellant sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. The eviction petition filed by the appellants on the ground of default in payment of rent and bona fide need was dismissed by Rent Controller, Secunderabad. On appeal, Additional Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, after detailed evaluation of the evidence produced by the parties reversed the order of the Rent Controller and granted eviction on the ground that the need of the appellants was bona fide. When the matter was taken in revision, the High Court overturned the finding of fact recorded by the appellate Court on the issue of bona fide need, set aside the order of the appellate Court and restored the order passed by the Rent Controller. Hence, this appeal by special leave.4. It is well settled that in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the High Court cannot re-appraise the evidence and substitute the finding of fact recorded by the final court of fact unless the same is found to be perverse. In the i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2009(2)SC1; RLW2009(3)SC2744; 2009(2)SCALE80; (2009)12SCC184; 2009(2)LC542(SC); 2009AIRSCW1590
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. Leave granted. Heard counsel.2. These appeals by special leave are preferred against the order dated 24.2.2006 passed by the Rajasthan High Court, allowing a petition filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`the Code' for short) and quashing FIR No. 241 of 2005 registered at Jyoti Nagar Police Station, Jaipur, in so far as respondents 1 to 3 herein.3. One Chauthmal is said to have entered into an agreement of sale dated 11.8.1980 followed by an agreement dated 24.11.1988 agreeing to sell 20 bighas of land in Khasra No. 9 in Sukhalpura village to Shiva Co- operative Housing Society Ltd. (for short `Society'). The said agreement is said to have confirmed (i) that payment of the entire price of 20 bighas of land was made by the society to Chauthmal; (ii) that possession of the land agreed to be sold was delivered to the society; and (iii) that out of 20 bighas agreed to be sold, 5 bighas of land stood in the name of o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. The appellant allotted plot No. E-170 at Nehru Nagar measuring 167.44 sq. mt. vide allotment letter dated 5.6.1985, the price being Rs. 37,842/-. The appellant send letters demanding payment of instalments which had become due and called upon the respondent to enter into a lease deed and take possession of the allotted site. The said allotment was cancelled on 16.3.1990 on the ground that the respondent had failed to take possession.2. The respondent requested withdrawal of the cancellation and restoration of the allotment, vide letter dated 17.3.1990. By letter dated 19.4.1990, the appellant restored the allotment subject to payment of restoration fee and subject to the condition that it would be the responsibility of the respondent to take possession and he will not seek change of plot. The respondent, however, applied for allotment of alternative plot on 15.9.1994, alleging that the municipal authorities had laid a sewer line on the plot and that some part of the plot was al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The appellants before us are running hospitals/clinics and diagnostic centers in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. In a public interest litigation filed before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir, the Division Bench of the High Court gave certain directions regarding basic infrastructure facilities which are to be provided in the hospitals and other clinical establishments. The petitioner in the public interest litigation alleged that many of the hospitals in the State of Jammu and Kashmir are not having adequate facilities and State Authorities are not taking care to insist that basic facilities should be there in the hospitals. It is alleged that licenses are issued for running these type of institutions without being any proper guidelines and requested the High Court to issue appropriate guidelines. The High Court considered these matters and directed the Chief Secretary of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to constitute a committee to be headed by Principal Secret...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2009(14)SC477; (2009)5MLJ127(SC); 2009(3)SCALE436
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. This appeal has been filed by the Government of NCT of Delhi against the judgment of the High Court of Delhi dated 24th February, 2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 21211 of 2005, whereby the High Court has allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 herein.Facts:3. Respondent No. 1 preferred a Writ Petition being W.P. (C) No. 21211 of 2005 before the High Court of Delhi, inter alia, seeking a mandamus to the appellants herein that the actual period of practice at the Bar subject to a maximum of 15 years, should be added to the total pensionable service while computing the pension and other retiral benefits in the case of a direct recruitee to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service. The High Court, after hearing both sides, by its impugned judgment held that the prayers made by the writ petitioner (respondent No. 1 herein) were reasonable and directed that the Rule 26(B) be inserted in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970 (for short 'the Rules') and w...
Tag this Judgment!