Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC653; 1979MHLJ283(SC); (1979)2SCC495; [1979]2SCR586
D.A. Desai, J.1. This appeal by certificate arises out of Special Civil Suit No. 39/66 filed by the appellant-original plaintiff for specific performance of a contract dated 15th December 1965 for sale of land admeasuring 45 acres 5 gunthas bearing Survey No. 25 situated in Sholapur Mouje Dongaon in Maharashtra State for a consideration of Rs. 42,000/- out of which Rs. 5,000/- were paid as earnest money and a further amount of Rs. 5,000/- was paid on 22nd April 1966 when the period for performance of the contract for sale was extended by six months, which suit was dismissed by the trial Court and the plaintiff's First Appeal No. 117/68 was dismissed by the Bombay High Court.2. Plaintiff claimed specific performance of a contract dated 15th December 1965 coupled with supplementary agreement dated 26th April 1966 for sale of agricultural land. This suit was resisted by the defendant, inter alia, contending that the land which was the subject-matter of contract was covered by the provisio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1724; (1979)10CTR(SC)101; [1979]117ITR569(SC); (1980)3SCC54
ORDER1. There are two questions in respect of which a reference has been directed by the H. C. on the application of the Revenue under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act 1961. So far as the first question is concerned, it is undoubtedly a question of law and could properly form the subject-matter of a reference but the second question as framed is clearly a question of fact and we fail to see how it could be directed to be referred by the High Court. The question whether a particular expenditure on rent is excessive and unreasonable or not is essentially a question of fact and does not involve any issue of law and hence we are of the view that the second question ought not to have been directed to be referred by the High Court. But if the second question could not form the subject-matter of a reference, then obviously the first question becomes academic, because Section 40A(2)(a) cannot have any application, unless it is first held that the expenditure on rent was excessive or unreas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Union Pacific R. Co. v. Sheehan - 439 U.S. 89 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court Union Pacific R. Co. v. Sheehan, 439 U.S. 89 (1978) Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Sheehan No. 78-344 Decided December 4, 1978 439 U.S. 89 ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Syllabus The National Railroad Adjustment Board's determination that respondent railroad employee had not filed his appeal to the Board from his allegedly wrongful discharge by petitioner within the time prescribed by the governing collective bargaining agreement was final and binding upon the parties under 3 First (q) of the Railway Labor Act, and neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals had authority to disturb such decision. Certiorari granted; 576 F.2d 854, revered. PER CURIAM. Petitioner, the Union Pacific Railroad Co., discharged respondent for violating one of its employee work rules. Respondent thereupon began an action in state court alleging wrongful ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC478; (1979)1SCC380; [1979]2SCR476
Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J.1. On August 1, 1978 the President of India made a reference to this Court under Article 143(1) of the Constitution for consideration of the question whether the 'Special Courts Bill, 1978' or any of its provisions, if enacted, would be constitutionally invalid. The full text of the reference is as follows:WHEREAS certain Commissions of Inquiry appointed by the Central Government under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (Central Act 60 of 1952) have submitted reports which indicate that there is reason to believe that various offences have been committed by persons holding high political and public offices during the period of operation of the Proclamation of Emergency dated the 25th June, 1975, and the period immediately preceding that Proclamation; AND WHEREAS investigations into such offences are being made in accordance with law and are likely to be completed soon; AND WHEREAS suggestions have been made that the persons in respect of whom the investigations ...
Tag this Judgment!