Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2000]245ITR5(SC)
ORDER1. Special leave granted.2. After hearing' counsel for the appellant, we direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following two questions of law to the High Court :1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in allowing investment allowance under Section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the excavator, which was used for excavation of earth at site ?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in holding that the Assessing Officer cannot verify which machinery was used for contract work in proceedings under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act ?3. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the order of the High Court is set aside and the application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act is allowed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2131; 1999(47)BLJR1555; JT1999(3)SC592; 1999(4)SCALE36; (1999)5SCC50; [1999]3SCR442
Umesh C. Banerjee, J. 1. The core question that falls for consideration in this appeal, by the grant of special leave, is whether a Deity being consecrated by performance of appropriate ceremonies having a visible image and residing in its abode is to be treated as a juridical person for the purpose of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (Bihar Act XII of 1962).2. On a reference to the factual backdrop, the records depict, that one Mahanth Sukhram Das did execute two separate deeds of dedication in December, 1950, and duly registered under the Indian Registration Act, dedicating therein the landed properties to the deities 'Ram Janki Ji' (Appellant No. 1) and Thakur Raja (wrongly described in the records of the High Court as 'Raja Rani') (Appellant No. 2). Both the deities were separately given the landed property to the extent of 81.14 acres of land and in fact were put in possession through the shebaits. After however the death of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1847; 1999(108)ELT321(SC); JT1999(4)SC95; 1999(3)SCALE564B; (1999)5SCC15; 1999(Supp)SCC15; [1999]3SCR471
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. Levy of additional duty of customs under Section 3(1) of the Customs Act, 1975 on import of asbestos fibre is challenged by the appellants in these appeals by special leave.2. The appellants, who use asbestos fibre as a raw material, imported the same into India. We are in these cases concerned with the imports made prior to the year 1986. On the import so made the department sought to raise a demand of additional duty of customs under Section 3(1) of the said Act. The appellants represented that on a correct interpretation no duty was payable inasmuch as asbestos fibre which was imported had not been manufactured or produced but was a natural mineral and thus no duty was leviable. The Collector, Central Excise, Hyderabad, however, issued a trade notice on 3rd August, 1997 taking the view that asbestos fibre as processed and graded had a distinct character differing from asbestos rock and the said item was covered within Tariff Item 22 (F) of the Excise Act and on the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1741; JT1999(4)SC3; 1999(3)SCALE584; (1999)4SCC348; 1999(2)LC986(SC)
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.3. We also tried to work out an amicable settlement between the parties, at least regarding custody of minor children. Various interim orders were passed. The latest interim order regarding access of the minor children to be given to the mother was passed on 26th March, 1999 granting access to the mother on alternative Saturdays listed therein.4. The appeal arises out of an appellate order of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, taking the view that custody proceedings by the mother would lie in the Guardian and Wards Court at Delhi and not in a Court at Chandigarh. As the minor children are residing with the father at Delhi no fault can be found with that order.5. We, therefore, while disposing of this appeal direct the transfer of custody proceedings from Chandigarh Court to be filed before Guardian and Wards Court, Delhi/District Court, Delhi. The District Court, Delhi shall proceed to deal with this...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2000(84)FLR295]; JT1999(9)SC334; (1999)6SCC49
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. These appeals are directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 3-8-1995 refusing to issue a mandamus to the respondents to recruit him to the post to which he was selected as well as against the order refusing to review the said judgment dated 3-8-1995. The appellant undisputably was selected for the post of Assistant Personnel Officer meant for a Scheduled Tribe category. He had produced the certificate of the Magistrate indicating that he belongs to 'Halba' caste which is undoubtedly the Scheduled Tribe, but the employer in accordance with the procedure prescribed referred his case to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for verification. The said committee being of the opinion that the appellant does not belong to Halba caste denied him the right to be employed notwithstanding his selection for the post in question. The said order of the Scrutiny Committee was upheld in appeal but a writ petition being carried, the High Court in WP No. 445 of 1993 ca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2180; (1999)3CompLJ170(SC); 1999(2)CTC539; 1999(3)SCALE564; (1999)4SCC382; [1999]3SCR512
ORDER1. We see no reason why the High Courts in such matters filed by the defendants in suits instituted by the banks before the Debt Recovery Tribunal should more or less as a matter of course grant stay of proceedings before the Tribunals. The very purpose of setting up the Tribunals will be lost by granting stay merely because there is challenge to the notification constituting the Tribunal. In the present case, the High Court has rightly come to the conclusion that as the proceedings were initiated in the State of Madhya Pradesh, the Allahabad High Court had no jurisdiction.2. The special leave petition is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1739; 88(1999)CLT343(SC); [1999(82)FLR982]; JT1999(4)SC10; 1999(3)SCALE582; (1999)4SCC618; [1999]3SCR457; 1999(2)LC1185(SC); (1999)3UPLBEC1729
S.N. Phukan, J. 1. Respondent No. 4 filed a writ petition before the High Court regarding her seniority vis-a-vis the seniority of the present appellant. The writ petition was allowed by judgment dated 01.03:1995 passed in O.J.C. No. 867 of 1990. Thereafter review petition No. 76/95 was filed which was dismissed by order dated 02.02.1996. One civil appeal has been filed before this Court against the above two orders. Another separate writ petition was filed by the appellant before the High Court which was registered as O.J.C. No. 1874 of 1996. By order dated 02.05.96 the said writ petition was dismissed. Against the said order of dismissal the another appeal has been filed. Both the appeals are being disposed of by this judgment.2. To appreciate the contentions of the parties we may briefly state the facts of the case.3. The appellant and respondent No. 4 joined the post of lecturer in economics in the college namely Kamla Nehru Women's College, Bhubaneswar on the same day i.e. 27.07.1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1860; 1999(2)ALD(Cri)600; 1999CriLJ2569; 1999(3)Crimes120(SC); JT1999(3)SC504; 1999(3)SCALE600; (1999)5SCC1; [1999]3SCR426; 1999(2)LC1149(SC)
Umesh C. Banerjee, J. 1. Leave granted.2. This appeal by the grant of special leave is directed against the order of confirmation of death sentence by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. Since the appeal pertains to confirmation of death sentence by the High Court and the submission in support of the appeal is restricted to the question of sentence, it would be convenient to note at this juncture that it is only in the rarest of rare cases that this punishment is to be inflicted and it is on this score that Mr. Muralidhar, the amicus curiae appointed in the matter with his usual ability strongly contended that the punishment awarded by the Sessions Judge and as confirmed by the High Court, runs counter to the basic concept of law and justice of the situation. As a part of the submission, Mr. Muralidhar placed strong reliance on Sections 235(2) and 354(3) of the CrPC. But before consideration of the submissions on legal issue as above, it would be conveni...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2102; 1999(4)ALT1(SC); 1999(2)ARBLR695(SC); JT1999(3)SC514; 1999(3)SCALE587; (1999)5SCC651; [1999]3SCR490; 1999(2)LC997(SC)
M. Jagannadha Rao, J. 1. Leave granted.2. These three Civil Appeals are directed against the Judgment of the Bombay High Court in A. Nos. 175-177 of 1998 dated 2.4.98 in Arbitration Petitions 281-283 of 1997. By virtue of this judgment dated 2.4,98, the decision of the learned Single Judge in Arbitration Petitions 281-283 of 1997 dated 12.1.1998 was confirmed. The learned Single Judge had, by his decision, dismissed the objections filed by the appellant under Sections 5 and 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called the 'Act') to the awards and confirmed the three Awards passed by the Arbitrator on 13.11.1997. The learned Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court had appointed a retired Judge of that Court on 13.6.1997 as sole arbitrator and the said arbitrator had passed the three awards on 13.11.1997.3. The facts are as follows: There were three main agreements dated 9.3.94, 9.3.94 and 29.6.1994 under which the appellant agreed to sell Flat Nos. 101-102, 201-20...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998(4)SCALE17
ORDER1. On the basis of the news item published in 'Hindustan Times' and the 'Times of India' on 28.5.1998, it appears to us that a grave situation has arisen in the AIIMS as a result of which medical facilities are denied to hundreds of patients. We, therefore, take suo-moto notice of the said news item and issue notice to M.C.D., Delhi Vidyut Board and the N.C.T. of Delhi through the Chief Secretary, returnable on 4.6.1998. Issue notice also to N.D.M.C. It need not appear before this Court if it is not supplying electricity power to AIIMS. A copy of the news item be taken on record and to be as detailed as a petition. A copy of the petition may be supplied to Mr. Ranjit Kumar, adv. who is requested by us to appear as Amicus-Curiae in the matter. The Registry to take steps to see that notices to all the parties are served by tomorrow....
Tag this Judgment!