Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The writ petitions filed by the appellants questioning the legality of the action taken by the State Government to include Jat Community in the list of OBCs were disposed of by the High Court with the observation that they have already got admission in the Post-Graduate Courses and inclusion of `Jats' in the list of OBCs by the Government will not affect their right. By now the appellants have completed Post-Graduation and, as such, the appeals have become infructuous. Therefore, we refrain from expressing any opinion on the legality or otherwise of Notification No. 334/64-I-2000-46/95 dated 10th March, 2000, issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh under Section 13 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994.3. The civil appeals are, accordingly, disposed of.4. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. In these appeals, we are required to consider the scope of Section 158BB(4) of Chapter XIV-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as, 1961 Act).3. We quote hereinbelow Section 158BB, which refers to Computation of undisclosed income of a block period:158BB.--(I) The undisclosed income of the block period shall be the aggregate of the total income of the previous years falling within the block period computed, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter IV, on the basis of evidence found as a result of search or requisition of books of account or documents and such other materials or information as are available with assessing officer, as reduced by the aggregate of the total income, or as the case may be, as increased by the aggregate of the losses of such previous years, determined,--(a) where assessments under Section 143 or Section 144 or Section 147 have been concluded, on the basis of such assessments;(b) where returns of income have been ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. There are as many as 45 appellants before us. At the very out set it has been pointed out that out of the said 45 appellants, 27 appellants, namely, appellants Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19 to 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 41, 42 & 44 have filed two separate applications, being I.A No. 3 of 2008, for deletion of their names from the array of parties. Such prayer is allowed and that leaves us with 18 appellants. This order will, accordingly, govern the said 18 appellants.4. The appellants claim to be Units, which have been enjoying linkage for supply of coal vis-a-vis Bharat Coking Coal Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'BCCL'). On 30th November, 2004, BCCL issued a notice No. BCCL/S&M;/Link/04/5089, requiring the linked consumers to submit detailed data/information in terms of the details mentioned in the notice along with an affidavit and the photographs of owners on or before 31st December, 2004, to enable it to cross check the gen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation in relation to the land belonging to Appellant No. 1 at the rate of rupees ten thousand per acre, whereas in relation to Appellant No. 2 compensation was awarded at the rate of Rupees six thousand per acre. On an application filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Reference Court after making a detailed analysis of the evidence produced by the parties, enhanced the compensation in relation to the land of Appellant No. 1 from Rupees ten thousand per acre to rupees twenty thousand per acre, whereas, in relation to the land of Appellant No. 2 from rupees six thousand per acre to rupees ten thousand per acre. On appeal, the High Court reversed that order.3. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records, we are of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside because the High Court has not recorded any reason whatsoever for upsetting th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Exemption allowed.2. Delay in filing substitution application is condoned.3. Applications for substitution are allowed.4. No notice need be issued to the legal representatives of the deceased respondents as they have already entered appearance.5. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.6. The trial court dismissed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession filed by the plaintiff-respondent after recording findings both against the plaintiff and defendants. The High Court allowed the first appeal and decreed the suit only on the ground that the trial court recorded a finding against the defendants on the question of adverse possession. In our view, being the first appellate Court, the High Court was required to scrutinise the pleadings and evidence of parties and decide the appeal on merits in the light of the issues framed by the Trial Court. Since, the High Court has not adopted that course, this appeal deserves to be allowed.7. Accordingly, the appeal is allow...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(1)JT629; 2009(2)AWC1630(SC); JT2009(1)SC629; 2009(1)SCALE747; (2009)2SCC613; 2009(1)LHSC612
B. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of Allahabad High Court dated 3.7.2006 in CMWP No. 5813/85 setting aside the judgment and order of Revisional Court .3. The facts leading to filing of this appeal are: one Smt. Sonia resident of village Chhibab was married in Zari with Mengi. Only two daughters namely Bhagwania and Maiki were born out of the wedlock. The appellants herein Subba and Sudish are the sons of Maiki. After the demise of Mengi, Sonia inherited the property in question from the deceased Mengi. It is alleged that after the death of Mengi one Teni who was working for Sonia as labourer developed illicit relations with Sonia as a result one son Debiya respondent herein was born. Be it noted, as per the version of the appellants Debiya is not the legal son of Sonia and Mengi, therefore, he could not be the legal heir to succeed the inherited property of Sonia. Teni died in the year 1956. Sonia died in April, 1977. In th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC2084; 2009(3)AWC2440(SC); JT2009(1)SC651; 2009(9)KarLJ79; 2009(2)SCALE110; (2009)2SCC663
B. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Karnataka dated 17.8.2007 passed in RFA No. 959 of 2001 which was allowed in part reducing the amount of damages of Rs. 1,26,055.87 granted by the trial court to that of Rs. 48,556/- only with interest @ 6% from the date of suit till realization.3. Brief facts needed for disposal of this appeal are as under:4. The appellant - M/s. Malnad Traders (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant firm') is a registered partnership firm carrying on its business in Rice Mills and Oil Mills at Shimoga in various buildings, godowns and open yards. On 7.12.1982, the entire premises of the appellant firm including buildings, machineries, equipments and stocks in trade were insured with the respondent - M/s. New India Assurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent company') under the fire insurance policy bearing No. 1229400593 1229400593 . On 26.3.1983, there was a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2009(4)SC363; 2009(4)KarLJ85; 2009(3)SCALE333:2009AIRSCW1965:2009(2)LHSC1256:2009(3)KCCRSN149:2009(3)AIRKarR208
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. We are disposing of Civil Appeal Nos. 3332 to 3334 of 2001 by this judgment. The facts of these appeals are identical. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from Civil Appeal No. 3332 of 2001. Appellant's land measuring 1 acre 32 guntas in Survey No. 32/1 at Henjagondanahalli village was acquired pursuant to the preliminary notification published on 20.5.1997.2. The Land Acquisition Officer had granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 17,500/- per acre. The Reference Court on appeal enhanced the amount from Rs. 17,500/- to Rs. 2,17,800/- per acre. This amount was calculated at the rate of Rs. 5/- per square feet. The Karnataka Housing Board aggrieved by the said judgment preferred appeal before the High Court of Karnataka. The Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court while taking into consideration all the facts reduced the amount of compensation from Rs. 2,17,800/- to Rs. 1,30,680/- per acre. This amount of compensation has been calculated at t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2009]31ITR1(SC); [2009]181TAXMAN181(SC); 2009(2)LC695(SC)
ORDER1. A short question which arises for determination in these Civil Appeal(s) is - whether the assessee(s) was under statutory obligation under Income Tax Act, 1961, and/or the Rules to collect evidence to show that its employee(s) had actually utilized the amount(s) paid towards Leave Travel Concession(s)/Conveyance Allowance?2. It may be noted that the beneficiary of exemption under Section 10(5) is an individual employee. There is no circular of Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) requiring the employer under Section 192 to collect and examine the supporting evidence to the Declaration to be submitted by an employee(s).3. For the above reasons there is no merit in the Civil Appeals and the same are dismissed with no order as to costs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2009]183TAXMAN219(SC)
ORDER1. A short question which arises for determination in these Civil Appeal(s) is - whether the assessee(s) was under statutory obligation under Income Tax Act, 1961, and/or the Rules to collect evidence to show that its employee(s) had actually utilized the amount(s) paid towards Leave Travel Concession(s)/Conveyance Allowance?2. It may be noted that the beneficiary of exemption under Section 10(5) is an individual employee. There is no circular of Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) requiring the employer under Section 192 to collect and examine the supporting evidence to the Declaration to be submitted by an employee(s).3. For the above reasons there is no merit in the Civil Appeals and the same are dismissed with no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!