Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC2202; (1976)1SCC373; [1976]2SCR214; 1975(7)LC954(SC)
V.R. Krishna Iyer, J.1. A single fundamental flaw in the order of the Appellate Tribunal (under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939), constrains us to allow this Appeal challenging the High Court's refusal to interfere with the grant of the permit in favour of Respondent No. 2. 2. Many applicants for one permit for a 'short route' pressed their claims before the Regional Transport Authority which evaluated the relevant merits and awarded the permit to Applicant No. 6, who is the Appellant before us. On appeal, Applicant No. 3, who is respondent No. 2 before us, succeeded. Whereupon, a Writ Petition was filed without success and the disappointed appellant has come to this Court by special leave.3. The system of marks under the Rules framed under the Act by the Tamil Nadu Government, prescribes the various qualifications for applicants for permits for passenger transport under the Motor Vehicles Act. Rule 155-A crystallises these considerations and describes them as guiding principles for the g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC283; (1976)ILLJ86SC; (1976)1SCC230; [1976]2SCR189; 1975(7)LC898(SC)
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. The appellant, the National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd., was engaged in execution of two projects, Chandan Das Project and the Gandak Dam Project. On 31st January 1967 the N.P.C.C. Workers' Union of the Chandan Dam Project gave a notice of strike and on 1st April 1967 the Labour Union of the Gandak Dam Project gave a similar notice. These notices were accompanied by a charter of demands which are practically the same in both cases Thereafter a settlement was arrived at with both these Unions on 11.4.1967 in the presence of the Labour Commissioner. Bihar,, the terms of which were also similar. By that settlement certain questions were agreed to be referred to arbitration and these questions are found in paragraph 4 of the both the settlements. The dispute with both the Labour Unions was accordingly referred to the arbitration of the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bihar, Patna on 3rd May, 1967. The arbitrator's award was sought to be quashed by m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC2292; [1975(31)FLR383]; 1975LabIC1748; (1976)1SCC236; [1976]2SCR184; 1975(7)LC895(SC)
A. Alagiriswami, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court dismiss in limine the appellant's writ petition for quashing an order reverting him from the post of legal Assistant in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal to his parent office. The appellant was working originally as an Assistant in the office of Chief Engineer, P.W.D., Irrigation Branch, Haryana and Chandigarh. On 8th October 1971 the legal remembrancer and secretary to Government, Legislative Department, Haryana wrote a letter to all Administrative departments and Heads of Departments in the State informing them that it had been decided to fill in some posts in the Law Department by selection of qualified candidates from amongst the Government servants working in other deparments and that for the present the tenure of these posts was one year only and the candidate would be appointed on a ad hoc basic. In pursuance of that letter the appellant applied for the post and he was app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC2295; (1976)1SCC115; [1976]2SCR193
P.K. Goswami, J.1. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court is whether a decree for preemption obtained prior to the enforcement of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951) survives for execution after the enforcement of the Act in the particular area in which the land is situated.2. Briefly the facts are as follows:The plaintiff (appellant herein) and defendants 5 and 6 were co-sharers-in proprietary interest of lands in Khata Khewat No. 1 of village Nayagaon Chandan Singh Bandobasti Pargana Bhabarkota, Tehsil Kaldhungi, District Nainital. Defendants 5 and 6 sold by registered sale deed a certain share of the land in that Khata Khewat in favour of defendants 1 to 4 (respondents herein). The plaintiff thereupon filed a suit for pre-emption and obtained a decree which was affirmed by the High Court in second appeal on April 27, 1970. The plaintiff als...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC479; (1976)1SCC295; [1976]2SCR205
N.L. Untwalia1. The defendant appellant in this appeal by certificate of the Calcutta High Court is a firm carrying on business in the town of Calcutta. The plaintiff respondent filed a suit for eviction of the appellant from the first and second floors of the building No. 86, Purshotam Rai Street, Calcutta on the ground that he reasonably required the suit premises for his own use and occupation and that he had no other house in or around Calcutta where he could reside. The suit was instituted on the original side of the Calcutta High Court. It was contested by the appellant on several grounds. The learned Trial Judge decreed the suit. The appellant's appeal was dismissed by a Bench of the High Court. It has come to this Court after obtaining a certificate of fitness from the High Court.2. Mr. Purshottam Chatterjee, learned Counsel for the appellant urged the following points in support of this appeal:(1) That the High Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. Only the City Civil Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC2221; 1978(2)ELT457(SC); (1976)2SCC887; [1976]2SCR93; 1975(7)LC851(SC)
N.L. Untwalia, J.1. The appellant in this appeal by special leave is a registered partnership firm and is carrying on business of manufacturing a number of milk products including condensed Milk and and condensed Skimmed milk. By the Finance Act, 1969 item 1 B was added to the First Schedule of The Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 hereinafter called the Excise Act, levying 10% ad valorem duty on 'prepared or preserved food put up in unit containers and ordinarily intended for sale including preparations of...milk....' In exercise of the powers of the Central Government under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and in supersession of the earlier notifications the Central Government issued Notification No. G.S.R. 339 dated the 1st March, 1970 exempting prepared or preserved foods falling under item No. 1 B of the First Schedule of the Excise Act other than those specified in the Schedule annexed to the notification from the whole of the duty of excise leviable ther...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC2275; (1976)1SCC88; [1976]2SCR78; 1975(7)LC868(SC)
A.G. Gupta, J.1. This appeal by special leave arises out of a proceeding under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1954 (herein-after referred to as the Act). The only question for determination in the appeal is whether the deletion of Rule 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) with effect from August 13, 1953 made any difference to the rights of the parties) concerned in this case. The question arises on. the following facts.2. Shops No. 2 in Tripri township in Patiala which is a Government built property was allotted in 1950 to the first respondent Khillu Ramjoiruly with one Tara Chand and his son by the Custodian of Evacuee Property. In 1951 both Tara Chand and his son left Tripri to settle elsewhere, and the second respondent Teju Mal applied for allotment of their share in the shop to him. By his order dated November. 11, 1959 the Managing Officer, Tripari and Rajpura, held that Teju...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC2288; 1983(13)ELT1562(SC); (1976)1SCC166; [1976]2SCR87; 1975(7)LC854(SC)
ORDERThe importation of the above goods without proper licence is prohibited under Sections 3(2) and 4 of the Import and Export (Control) Act of 1947 and Notification issued thereunder.I accordingly confiscate the goods under Section 167(8) Sea Customs Act. In lieu of confiscation 1 gave an option under Section 183 ibid to the importers to clear the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 22,600/- (rupees twenty thousand six hundred only). Customs duty and other charges as leviable on the goods will have to be paid in addition before these could be cleared out of customs control..dated 14-11-55 Sd/-Dy. Collector of Customs. Even so, the Court quashed the latter limit of the order under challenge which had imposed penalty in lieu of confiscation and, on top of it, directed payment of the import duty ordinarily leviable for the auto cycle pedals imported.3. The only ground which led to this fatal consequence was that the authorities, acting under Section 183 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 (Act V...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC2284; [1976]102ITR1(SC); (1976)1SCC248; [1976]2SCR131; 1975(7)LC859(SC)
A.C. Gupta, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against an order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad answering in the negative and in favour of the revenue the following question referred to it under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) :Whether the Assessee is entitled to registration under Section 26A of the Income-Tax Act, 1922 for the assessment year 1961-62.2. The assessee is a firm. The instrument of partnership was executed ary 5, 1959 but the application for registration under Section 26A remained sed of until the assessment for the year 1961.62 was taken up The meant shows that three persons, Mandyala Narayana, Mandyala Venkatiah, Mandyala Srinivasulu and a minor, Mandyala Jaganmohan who was admitted to the benefits of the partnership, held the following shares; Narayana 31 per cent, Venkatramaiah 23 per cent. Srinivasulu 23 per cent and minor Jaganmohan 23 per cent. Clause 2 of the instrument which sets o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC2073; (1976)1SCC95; 1975(7)LC870(SC)
A. Alagiriswami, J. 1. The appellants were the defendants in a suit filed by the respondent for specific performance of an agreement entered into by them to sell a house belonging to them in Bhopal. The agreement, Ex. P-1 is dated 17th September 1959 and reads as follows: To-day i. e. on 17.9.1959, one house in which I am living situate at Gojarpura, I agree to sell, the entire house apart from the side-portion of the door which has been given to the maternal uncle according to the religious law of MQHAMMADANISM, for a consideration of Rs. 31,375/- (i.e. thirty one thousand three hundred and seventy five rupees) to Seth Sanwaldas son of Motilal Sarraf CHOUK with the consent of my sister. The entire door is included in the said house. I have realised a sum of Rs. 2000/- (i.e. two thousand) as an earnest money. No other (person) has a right (in that house) and there is no necessity of any advice. Tomorrow morning you consult your pleader and get PACCI receipt executed and shall have no o...
Tag this Judgment!