advocatemmmohan
just another law knowledge bank
Union of India
Writ – Civil Suit by Auction Purchaser – Inter pleader suit by Tenant against the owner who purchased the property under court auction sale and also Union of India who claims to be owner under a Grant – who are entitled for rents is the question to be decided – High court held that since there are complicated issues writ not maintainable – with out evicting the auction purchaser due to process of law – Union of India not entitled for any rent from inter pleader suit plaintiff/ tenant and dismissed the writ and decreed the inter pleader suit in second appeal – Apex court held that The subject matter of the inter-pleader suit and the proceedings arising therefrom clearly pertains to the entitlement of the presently contesting parties to receive rent in respect of the property in question. The subject matter of the two proceedings i.e. inter-pleader suit and the appeals arising therefrom and the writ petitions filed by the appellant are, therefore, not directly and substantially the same so as to attract the principle of res judicata enshrined in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. the High Court had dismissed the Writ Petitions leaving it open for the appellant to avail the remedy of civil suit to get the title to the property adjudicated by a competent civil court, no fault, muchless any infirmity, can be found so as to warrant our interference. Accordingly, the civil appeal will have to be dismissed which we hereby do.The stand of the cantonment authority in the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.175 of 1969, noted by us, is based on the terms of the old grant issued by the Governor General in Council on 12.09.1836. The legal effect of the terms of the said grant has been dealt with by this Court in Chief Executive Officer Vs. Surendra Kumar Vakil & Ors.[1]and Union of India & Ors. Vs. Kamla Verma[2] and have been understood to be conveying a lease of the building standing on the cantonment land with the power of resumption in the cantonment authority subject to payment of compensation for the cost of the building and not as a lease of the land itself. The above position has been emphasised for being kept in mind while dealing with all possible future litigations concerning the property in question without, of course, expressing any opinion on the merits of the claims/contention of any of the parties.= CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2147 OF 2006 PURSHOTTAM DAS TANDON DEAD BY LRS. … APPELLANT (S) VERSUS MILITARY ESTATE OFFICER & ORS. …RESPONDENT (S) = 2014- Aug. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41825
Writ – Civil Suit by Auction Purchaser – Inter pleader suit by Tenant against the owner who purchased the property under court auction sale and also Union of India who claims to be owner under a Grant – who are entitled for rents is the question to be decided – High court held that since … Continue reading
Section 213. Right as executor or legatee when established. (1) No right as executor or legatee can be established in any Court of Justice, unless a Court of competent jurisdiction in India has granted probate of the will under which the right is claimed, or has granted letters of administration with the will or with a copy of a authenticated copy of the will annexed…………… (ii) in the case of wills made by any Parsi dying, after the commencement of the Indian Succession (Amendment) Act, 1962, where such wills are made within the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Courts at Calcutta, Madras and Bombay and where such wills are made outside those limits, in so far as they relate to immovable property situate within those limits.- Now by the Indian Succession [Amendment] Act, 1962, the section has been made applicable to wills made by Parsi dying after the commencement of the 1962 Act.- We have shown above that it is applicable to Parsis after the amendment of the Act in 1962 and to Hindus who reside within the territories which on 1.9.1870 were subject to the Lt. Governor of Bengal or to areas covered by original jurisdiction of the High Courts of Bombay and Madras and to all wills made outside those territories and limits so far as they relate to immovable property situate within those territories and limits.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6 CASE NO.: Writ Petition (civil) 137 of 1997 Writ Petition (civil) 674 of 1998 PETITIONER: CLARENCE PAIS & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/02/2001 BENCH: S. Rajendra Babu & R.C. Lahoti JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N TL…I…T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J … Continue reading
rail way accident claim =Respondents/applicants are the wife, son and three daughters of the deceased. On 13.08.2001, when the deceased was travelling by train No.7405 Krishna Express from Chirala to Vijayawada, while standing near the door on account of heavy crowd, due to the jerks of the train, he slipped, fell down and died. The ticket was missing in that incident.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON‘BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.M.A.No.363 of 2010. Date:23.08.2011 Between:- The Union of India, represented by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. ..Appellant/Respondent And P.Lakshmi Sarojini and others .. Respondents/Applicants JUDGMENT:- … Continue reading
Arbitration and conciliation act= The arbitrator was, therefore, not right in law in coming to the conclusion that the agreement between the appellant and the respondent No.2 was void and not enforceable as the consideration or object of the agreement was hit by the letter dated 31.08.1990 of the Government of India, Ministry of Defence. This letter may be an instruction to the officers of the Defence Department to reject a tender where the rate quoted by the tenderor is more than 20% below the reasonable rates but the letter was not an Act of the legislature declaring that any supply made at a rate below 20% of the reasonable rates was unlawful. The finding of the arbitrator on Issue No.4 is thus patently illegal and opposed to public policy. In Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs. Saw Pipes Ltd. (2003) 5 SCC 705 at page 727], this Court after examining the grounds on which an award of the arbitrator can be set aside under Section 34 of the Act has said: “31……However, the award which is, on the face of it, patently in violation of statutory provisions cannot be said to be in public interest. Such award/judgment/decision is likely to adversely affect the administration of justice. Hence, in our view in addition to narrower meaning given to the term “public policy” in Renusagar case it is required to be held that the award could be set aside if it is patently illegal.” 12. We accordingly set aside the Award of the arbitrator and the judgments of the City Civil Court, Hyderabad and the
1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2755 OF 2007 Union of India … Appellant Versus Col. L.S.N. Murthy & Anr. … Respondents J U D G M E N T A. K. PATNAIK, J. This is an appeal by way of special leave under Article 136 of … Continue reading
“An individual, who is dismissed under the provisions of the Army Act, is ineligible for pension or gratuity in respect of all previous service. In exceptional cases, however, he may, at the discretion of the President be granted service pension or gratuity at a rate not exceeding that for which he would have otherwise qualified had be been discharged on the same date.” Regulation 113(a) is clear that an individual, who is dismissed under the provisions of the Army Act, is ineligible for pension or gratuity in respect of all previous
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4523 OF 2006 Shish Ram … Appellant Versus Union of India & Ors. … Respondents J U D G M E N T A. K. PATNAIK, J. This is an appeal by way of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution … Continue reading
SERVICE MATTER = As has been held by this Court in Director, SCTI for Medical Science & Technology and Another v. M. Pushkaran (supra) each case must be considered on its own merits and where the Court does not find any reason for the authorities not to offer any appointment to the candidate placed in the selection panel the Court can direct appointment. In the facts of the present case, the Madras High Court did not see any justification on the part of the Central Government in not giving effect to the select panel when there was a very large pendency of cases in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal resulting in hardship to the litigant public as well as loss to the exchequer, but after the Appointments Committee approved appointments of 16 selected candidates found suitable for appointment as members of the Income Tax
1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6567-6569 OF 2010 Union of India & Anr. … Appellants Versus Pradip Kumar Kedia Etc. … Respondents J U D G M E N T A. K. PATNAIK, J. These are the appeals against the common judgment dated 20.03.2009 of the … Continue reading
AIR INDIA CABIN CREW ASSN=whether the promotional avenues and other terms of =In our view, once an employee is placed in the Executive cadre, he ceases to be a workman and also ceases to be governed by Settlements arrived at between the Management and the workmen through the concerned Trade Union. It is not a question of an attempt made by such employees to wriggle out of the Settlements which had been arrived at prior to their elevation to the Executive cadre, which, by operation of law, cease to have any binding force on the employee so promoted by the Management. 51. We are not, therefore, inclined to interfere with the orders passed in the several writ petitions, out of which the present appeals arise, and the same are, accordingly, dismissed.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.9857-9861 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP(C)Nos.20668-20672 of 2007) AIR INDIA CABIN CREW ASSN. & ORS. … APPELLANTS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. … RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.9862-9865 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP(C)Nos.20679-20682 of 2007) AND CIVIL APPEAL NOS.9866-9871 OF … Continue reading
APEX COURT NOT ACCEPTED HIGH COURT VIEW= whether definition of “tax arrears” contained in Section 87 (m)(ii)(b) is arbitrary, irrational or violative of the doctrine of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution and whether the petitioners are entitle to avail benefit under Scheme. = The High Court, vide its impugned Judgment and Order dated 25.07.2005, has declared that Section 87(m)(ii) (b) of Finance (No.2) Act, 1998 is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India insofar as it seeks to deny the benefit of the `Kar Vivad Samadhana Scheme, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as “the Scheme”) to those who were in arrears of duties etc., as on 31.03.1998 but to whom the notices were issued after 31.03.1998 and further, has struck down the expression “on or before the 31st day of March 1998” under Section 87(m)(ii)(b) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 as ultra vires of the Constitution of India and in particular, Article 14 of the Constitution on the ground that the said expression prescribes a cut-off date which arbitrarily excludes certain category of persons from availing the benefits under the Scheme. The High Court has further held that as per the definition of the `tax arrears’ in Section 87(m) 4
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2960 OF 2006 Union of India and Ors. ………….. Appellants versus M/s Nitdip Textile Processors Pvt. Ltd. and Another …………..Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2961 OF 2006 Union of India and Ors. ………….. Appellants versus M/s Nitdip Textile Processors Pvt. Ltd. and … Continue reading
Income Tax Act, 1961 – Bengal Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1944 – s.8 – Tea – Composite business of growing and manufacturing tea – Income from – Taxability of – Held: Such income has to be assessed under 1961 Act – 40% of income assessed would be taxable under 1961 Act and 60% is treated as agricultural income and taxable under 1944 Act – Income Tax Rules, 1962 – r.8. The respondent-assessee was carrying on the composite business of growing and manufacturing tea. It was selling green tea leaves produced in the tea gardens which is agricultural produce and also manufacturing tea. A notice of demand was issued on assessee on the ground that the income from sale of green tea leaves was taxable as agriculture income under the Bengal Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1944. The assessee filed writ petition seeking cancellation of the notice of demand. The writ petition was disposed of by the Single Judge of High Court in terms of judgment of this Court in *Tata Tea Ltd case. The Division Bench of High Court while following the ratio of *Tata Tea Ltd. case directed the Assessing Officer to compute the tax on the income of assessee. It held that the income from `tea grown and manufactured’ should be assessed by the Assessing Officer under the Income Tax Act, 1961; that 40% of the income assessed shall be taxed under the 1961 Act and balance 60% shall be taxed under the 1944 Act by Agricultural Income Tax Officer on the basis of income assessed by the Assessing Officer under the 1961 Act; and the income derived from sale of green tea leaves is agricultural income and assessable under the 1944 Act. In appeal to this Court, assessee contended that the sale proceeds of green tea leaves should be treated incidental to business and its income should be computed under the provisions of the 1961 Act. =Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. There is no dispute on the fact that from the income assessed, 60% is taxable by the State under the Bengal Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1944 and 40% is taxable by the Centre under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The object behind taxing the 60% and 40% share of the income assessed appears that there are common expenses on establishment and staff for two different activities that is tea grown and tea manufactured. There can be independent income from sale of green tea leaves and by sale of tea, that is, after processing of green tea leaves when green tea leaves become tea for use. Income from agriculture is taxable by the State and sale of tea after manufacturing is taxable by the Union of India as business income. To segregate income and expenses from two combined activities of assessee is not possible, but at the same time there cannot be two assessments of income by two different authorities. Therefore, there can be only one assessment of income from the tea business. [Paras 11, 12] [57-E-H, 58-A] 1.2 For the purpose of tax on agricultural income, the Agricultural Income Tax Officer will go by the assessment order made under the provisions of the 1961 Act and the contents of the assessment for the year made by the Assessing Officer under the 1961 Act shall be conclusive evidence of the contents of such order and he has to go by the assessment and tax only 60% income made under the assessment for the purpose of the 1944 Act. [Para 15] [59-E,F] 1.3 It is true that both rule 8 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and s.8 of the 1944 Act provide how the mixed income from the growing tea leaves and tea manufacturing can be taxed. Mixed income means the income derived by an assessee from the combined activities i.e. growing of tea leaves and manufacturing of tea. Therefore, for the purpose of computation of income under the 1961 Act, it should be the mixed income from `tea grown and manufactured’ by the assessee. [Para 19] [61-C,D,E] 1.4. If the income is by sale of green tea leaves by the assessee it cannot be called income assessable under the 1961 Act for the purpose of 40:60 share between the Centre and the State. In both the provisions i.e. rule 8 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and s.8 of the 1944 Act, the word used is income derived from the sale of `tea grown and manufactured’. The income from sale of green tea leaves is purely income from the agricultural product. There is no question of taxing it as incidental income of the assessee when there is a specific provision and authority to tax that income i.e. the State, under the 1944 Act. In this view of the matter, the agricultural income cannot be taxed under 1961 Act. [Paras 20, 21] [61-E,F,G] 2. It is also pertinent to mention that the Income Tax Officer has assessed the income of tea manufactured by the assessee from 1977-78 to 1980-81 to the tune of Rs.1,44,250/-, Rs.4,28,040/-, Rs.54,450/- and Rs.92,351/- respectively and income of the assessee from the sale of green tea leaves was more than Rs.10 lakhs in each accounting year (1977-78 and 1978-79). In this view of the matter, the income of the assessee from the sale of tea leaves can never be incidental to business. In a given case the assessee can process only 10% of green tea leaves and 90% of green tea leaves can be sold directly in the market. That income from sale of green tea leaves cannot be treated incidental to the business. In case the assessee directly sells the green tea leaves resulting into an income from agricultural products, it cannot be taken as incidental income to the business and whatever the income is derived from the sale of the green tea leaves can be assessed by the Agricultural Income Tax Officer under the 1944 Act. [Paras 22,23,24] [62-A,B,C,D,E] *Tata Tea Ltd. & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Ors. (1988) Supp SCC 316 – relied on. 3. The Assessing Officer is directed to frame an assessment order in the case of the respondent assessee on the principle of law laid down by this Court in the case of *Tata Tea and followed by the Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment, if not already made. [Paras 30, 31] [64-A-C] Parag P. Tripathi, ASG, Naveen Prakash, Shweta Garg, B.V. Balaram Das, H.K. Puri and Rajeev Sharma for the appearing Parties.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPEALLTE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.8284-8285 of 2002 Union of India & Another .. Appellants Versus Belgachi Tea Co. Ltd. & Others .. Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.8283 of 2002. JUDGMENT Dalveer Bhandari, J. 1. These appeals are directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the … Continue reading
whether the liability of the revenue to pay interest under Section 11BB of the Act commences from the date of expiry of three months from the date of receipt of application for refund or on the expiry of the said period from the date on which the order of refund is made? =In view of the above analysis, our answer to the question formulated in para (1) supra is that the liability of the revenue to pay interest under Section 11BB of the Act 16
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6823 OF 2010 RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD. — APPELLANT VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. — RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7637 OF 2009 AND CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3088 OF 2010 JUDGMENT D.K. JAIN, J.: 1. The challenge in this batch of appeals … Continue reading
