|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 2911 Records
-
1992 (11) TMI 284
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Nyaya Panchayat in matrimonial matters.
2. Definition and scope of "judicially separated wife" under Section 3(7) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960.
3. Validity and implications of the consent order recorded by the Nyaya Panchayat.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction of Nyaya Panchayat in Matrimonial Matters:
The primary issue was whether the Nyaya Panchayat had jurisdiction to handle matrimonial matters and grant a judicial separation. The judgment clarified that the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 does not confer jurisdiction on the Nyaya Panchayat to decide matrimonial matters. The civil jurisdiction under Section 64 of the Act is limited to claims related to money, movable property, and damages caused by cattle trespass, with monetary limits. Section 82, which allows the Nyaya Panchayat to decide disputes based on settlements or compromises, does not extend its jurisdiction to matters outside these specified areas. Therefore, the Nyaya Panchayat's consent order regarding the separation of Jeet Singh and Maya Wati was beyond its jurisdiction.
2. Definition and Scope of "Judicially Separated Wife" under Section 3(7) of the Ceiling Act:
The judgment examined whether Maya Wati could be considered a "judicially separated wife" under Section 3(7) of the Ceiling Act. The term "judicially separated" was interpreted to mean separation sanctioned by a court of competent jurisdiction. The court referenced Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and similar provisions under other personal laws, which require a judicial decree for separation. The court emphasized that "judicially separated" implies a separation resulting from a legal proceeding and order by a competent court, not merely an agreement or settlement outside the judicial framework.
3. Validity and Implications of the Consent Order Recorded by the Nyaya Panchayat:
The court addressed whether the consent order recorded by the Nyaya Panchayat could be considered a judicial separation. It was concluded that the consent order did not qualify as a judicial separation because the Nyaya Panchayat lacked the jurisdiction to issue such an order. The court cited the definition of "judicial" from authoritative dictionaries, emphasizing that it pertains to acts done in pursuance of a court order. The consent order, being outside the judicial process, did not meet this criterion. Consequently, the properties given to Maya Wati under the consent order were still considered part of Jeet Singh's holding under the Ceiling Act.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the Nyaya Panchayat lacked jurisdiction to grant judicial separation and that the consent order did not make Maya Wati a "judicially separated wife" under Section 3(7) of the Ceiling Act. The properties transferred to her were therefore includible in Jeet Singh's holding. The judgment affirmed the necessity of a judicial decree for recognizing a separation as "judicially separated" under the relevant legal provisions.
-
1992 (11) TMI 283
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the security order for the winding-up petition.
2. Principles for ordering security in winding-up petitions.
3. Comparison of legal principles from previous judgments.
4. Application of legal principles to the facts of the case.
5. Final decision on the winding-up application and related orders.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Security Order for the Winding-up Petition:
The appeal challenges a receiving order in a winding-up petition where the petitioner was directed to advertise unless the company, M/s. Dunlop India Ltd., furnished security of Rs. 50 lakhs. The lower court's decision was based on doubts about the company's defense and followed a dictum from Ofu Lynx Ltd. v. Simon Carves India Ltd., AIR 1970 Cal. 418.
2. Principles for Ordering Security in Winding-up Petitions:
The court emphasized that if a debt is bona fide disputed, a winding-up application would not lie. Conversely, sham disputes do not make a debt disputed. The court discussed borderline cases where the defense might not appear sound but cannot be dismissed outright, necessitating a trial. The court opined that ordering security in such cases of doubtful defense would contradict the principle that disputed debts are not appropriate for winding-up applications. The court should not weigh the strength of the defense at the receiving stage but should dismiss the winding-up application if the defense might succeed at trial.
3. Comparison of Legal Principles from Previous Judgments:
The court reviewed the dicta in Ofu Lynx Ltd., which suggested that if the court doubted the bona fides of disputes, it could order security. However, the court disagreed with this test, stating it was not appropriate. Instead, the court referred to Machalec Engineers & Manufacturers v. Basic Equipment Corporation, AIR 1977 SC 577, which provided five tests for granting leave to defend in summary suits. The court highlighted that security should only be ordered when the defendant shows no issue that might resist the claim at trial, yet the court entertains some doubt and shows mercy.
4. Application of Legal Principles to the Facts of the Case:
The court noted that M/s. Dunlop India Ltd. made payments to the petitioning creditor after the contract period, leading to disputes about whether these were final payments or part payments. The statutory notice and subsequent responses raised doubts about both the claim and the defense. The court concluded that the lower court's reliance on post-contract payments to order security was incorrect. The principles from Machalec Engineers & Manufacturers should apply, where the court should not order security if the defense might succeed at trial.
5. Final Decision on the Winding-up Application and Related Orders:
The court set aside the lower court's order for furnishing security and admission, stating that M/s. Dunlop India Ltd. disclosed facts that could be a possible complete defense at trial. The winding-up application was permanently stayed, and the petitioning creditor was relegated to a suit. The court extended the injunction restraining the petitioning creditor from instituting a suit for three weeks and did not interfere with the order relegating the creditor to a suit. The appeal was allowed, and there was no separate order on the cross-objection filed by the respondent.
Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, setting aside the lower court's order for security and admission of the winding-up application. The winding-up application was permanently stayed, with the petitioning creditor relegated to a suit. The court emphasized that security orders should not be based on doubtful defenses and reaffirmed the principles from Machalec Engineers & Manufacturers for granting leave to defend in summary suits.
-
1992 (11) TMI 282
Issues:
Whether an indigent person can be permitted to prefer a claim as an indigent person under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.
Analysis:
The appellant dispatched marble slabs by rail, which were damaged in an accident. The appellant sought compensation from the Railway Claims Tribunal but lacked the means to pay the prescribed fee. The Tribunal rejected the claim, stating that Order XXXIII of the CPC did not apply to claims under the Act. The Supreme Court analyzed the Act's provisions and highlighted that the Claims Tribunal was established to handle claims previously under civil court jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal, though not bound by CPC procedures, could invoke them for justice. Denying access to justice based on inability to pay fees would be unjust. The Court held that the Tribunal's narrow interpretation was incorrect and remitted the matter to the Tribunal, emphasizing the need to ensure access to justice for indigent persons under the Act.
The Act transfers pending suits to the Claims Tribunal if their cause of action falls within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The Claims Tribunal is empowered to regulate its procedure, guided by principles of natural justice. While not bound by CPC procedures, it can invoke them for justice. The Court highlighted that denying access to justice based on inability to pay fees would be unjust. The Tribunal's narrow interpretation was deemed incorrect, and the Court emphasized the need to ensure access to justice for indigent persons under the Act. The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for further consideration in line with the principles enunciated by the Court.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and remitted the matter for reconsideration. The Court stressed the importance of ensuring access to justice for indigent persons under the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, emphasizing that the Tribunal could invoke CPC procedures for justice despite not being bound by them. No costs were awarded in the circumstances of the case.
-
1992 (11) TMI 281
Disparity in promotional avenues from State Civil Services to All India Administrative Service -equitable principles of comparable seniority - operation of the First Amendment Rules - prospective or retrospective - Word ‘consultation’ - HELD THAT:- The first Amendment Rules doubtless provided the weightage to a maximum of 9 years and would track back the year of allotment anterior to the date of inclusion in the select list under the Recruitment Rules read with Promotion Regulations. The proviso intended to protect the seniority of the officer promoted/appointed earlier than the appellants and its effect would be that till rule 3(3) (ii) fully becomes operational graded weightage was given to the promotees. In other words it prevented to get seniority earlier to the date of his/her appointment to the Indian Administrative service. Equally it intended not to let endless compulsive circumstances denied the benefits of full 9 years weightage to officers promoted during 1987 to 1992. The discrimination, though is prevented unequals to become equals. The contention of sri P.P Rao, therefore, that invidious discrimination was meted out to senior officers and that they are similarly circumstanced are devoid of force.
Admittedly, the draft of the First Amendment Rules, as circulated to the State Government did not contain the offending proviso. It is stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Central Govt. that some of the State Government had suggested to incorporate the proviso and after necessary consultation the proviso was added to the First Amendment Rule.
It is thereby clear that sec. 3(1) empowers the Central Govt. to make any rule regulating the recruitment and the conditions of service of All India Service, which include amendment from time to time, but the rider it engrafted is that the power should be exercised "after consultation with the Governments of the State concerned". It is already held that by operation of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Act, the rules or regulations are statutory in character.
The proposal for amending the new Seniority Rules in the draft was only for inviting discussion and suggestions on the scope and ambit of the proposed law and the effect of the operation of the First Amendment Rules. Keeping the operational effect in view the proposed amendment could be modified or deleted or altered. The Central Govt. is not bound to accept all or every proposal or counter proposal.
Thus, we have no hesitation to hold that the general consultation has by the Central Govt. with the State Govts. and Union Territories was sufficient and it was not necessary to have prior consultation again to bring the proviso on statutes as part of the First Amendment Rules.
-
1992 (11) TMI 280
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Commissioner's action u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act.
2. Tribunal's decision to cancel the Commissioner's order.
3. Fresh assessment by the ITO following the Commissioner's order.
4. Tribunal's refusal to refer a question of law regarding the fresh assessment.
Summary:
1. Legality of the Commissioner's action u/s 263:
The Commissioner initiated action u/s 263, considering the ITO's assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The Commissioner observed that the ITO failed to investigate and analyze transactions with three parties, which were found to be fictitious. The Commissioner set aside the assessment and directed a de novo assessment by the ITO.
2. Tribunal's decision to cancel the Commissioner's order:
The Tribunal quashed the Commissioner's order, stating that the Commissioner did not establish that the ITO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal emphasized that the Commissioner must be prima facie satisfied of the error and prejudice before setting aside the assessment.
3. Fresh assessment by the ITO following the Commissioner's order:
Following the Commissioner's directive, the ITO made a fresh assessment, adding Rs. 2,66,878 to the assessee's income. The Commissioner (Appeals) annulled this fresh assessment, as the Tribunal had set aside the Commissioner's order u/s 263. The Tribunal upheld this annulment.
4. Tribunal's refusal to refer a question of law regarding the fresh assessment:
The Commissioner moved an application u/s 256(2) to refer a question of law regarding the annulled fresh assessment. The Tribunal refused, leading to the present application before the High Court.
High Court's Judgment:
The High Court held that the Commissioner was correct in finding the ITO's assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The ITO's failure to discuss and record findings on substantial issues warranted the Commissioner's action. The Tribunal's view that the Commissioner should have recorded the findings himself was incorrect. The High Court answered the referred question in favor of the revenue, stating that the Tribunal's cancellation of the Commissioner's order was incorrect.
Regarding the fresh assessment annulment, the High Court noted the peculiar situation where the Tribunal's earlier order influenced subsequent decisions. The High Court directed the Tribunal to state a case and refer the question of law concerning the annulment of the fresh assessment for its opinion.
-
1992 (11) TMI 279
Issues:
Challenge to the rejection of review application for modification of eligibility certificate duration.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought to quash an order rejecting the review application and modify the eligibility certificate duration. The petitioner initially claimed exemption for six years but later challenged the order on the ground of unsustainable exemption granted for a specific period. The petitioner's investment increased after shifting the manufacturing unit, leading to a dispute over the entitlement for exemption duration.
2. The court considered whether the petitioner was entitled to exemption for four years based on the investment criteria. The starting date of production was not disputed, and the eligibility for exemption was to be determined from that date. The investment amount of the unit was crucial in deciding the exemption period, with the threshold being rupees three lacs for a four-year exemption.
3. The respondents argued that the unit's investment exceeded three lacs after shifting locations, disqualifying it from the exemption. However, the court analyzed the relevant provisions of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, focusing on the conditions specified for granting exemption to new units. The court emphasized that the investment should be considered as of the date the unit becomes eligible for exemption.
4. The court examined a circular by the Commissioner and the language of the Act to determine the investment criteria for granting exemptions. The court rejected the argument that shifting the unit constituted an addition or extension, emphasizing that mere relocation does not necessarily amount to an increase in production capacity or investment.
5. Ultimately, the court allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned order and directing the authority to modify the eligibility certificate for a four-year exemption from the starting date of production. The decision was based on the interpretation of the investment criteria and the conditions for granting exemptions under the U.P. Sales Tax Act.
This detailed analysis outlines the key aspects of the judgment, including the dispute over exemption duration, investment criteria for eligibility, and the court's interpretation of relevant legal provisions to determine the petitioner's entitlement to exemption.
-
1992 (11) TMI 278
Issues involved: Application for clarifications and directions by Union of India regarding the implementation of principles laid down in the main judgment.
Clarifications and Directions:
1. The Union of India sought clarifications and directions to address difficulties in applying the principles from the main judgment to cases beyond the specific petitioner's case.
2. The first aspect highlighted the challenges with pending similar petitions before the Supreme Court and various High Courts due to existing stay orders, hindering the immediate implementation of the judgment's directions.
3. The second aspect focused on pending matters before authorities that do not align with statutory limits, necessitating further guidance for proper implementation.
4. A clarification was made to adjust the time frame for cases pending before the Courts, stating that the period for affording an opportunity of being heard shall be calculated from the date of actual disposal of those matters.
5. Another clarification was provided for matters pending before authorities, stating that Form 37-I shall be considered filed as of the date of the main judgment for the completion of proceedings under section 269UD(1).
6. Certified copies of the main order and the clarification were to be provided to interested parties upon request.
This judgment addressed the practical challenges faced in implementing the main judgment's principles in cases beyond the specific petitioner, offering necessary clarifications and directions for pending petitions before the Courts and authorities to ensure a proper and consistent application of the law.
-
1992 (11) TMI 277
Interpretation of Articles 16(1), 16(2), and 16(4) of the Constitution - Equality of status and of opportunity - Doctrine of equality - "class" in Article 16(4) means "caste" - Expression "any backward class of citizens" in Article 16(4) - job- reservations - reservation of appointments or posts at the Stage of initial entry into Government Services or even in the process of promotion - Creamy layer - words 'class' and 'caste' - criterion for identifying backward classes - Whether the identification of 3743 castes as a "backward class" by Mandal Commission is constitutionally valid?
HELD THAT:- No exception can be taken to the recommendations of the Mandal Commission for reservation for backward class of citizens in services by the Union. But commissions are only fact finding bodies. The constitutional responsibility of reserving posts rests with the government. Unfortunately neither in 1990 nor in 1991 this duty was discharged constitutionally or even legally. Whether the report was within the term of reference and if the Commission in identifying socially and educationally backward class repeated the same mistake as was done by the first Commission and if the Commission could adopt two different yardsticks for determining backwardness among Hindus and non-Hindus were aspects which were required to be gone into by the Government before issuing any order. The exercise of power to reserve is coupled with duty to determine backward class of citizens and if they were adequately represented. If the Government failed to discharge its duty then the exercise of power stands vitiated.
CONCLUSIONS
Both the impugned orders issued by the respective governments in 1990 and 1991 reserving appointments and posts for socially and educationally backward classes of citizens, without discharging their constitutional obligation of examining if the identification of backward class by the Commission was in consonance with constitutional principle and philosophy of the basic feature of the Constitution and if the group or collectivity so identified was adequately represented or not which is the sine qua non for the exercise of the power under Article 16(4), are declared to be unenforceable.
(1) Reservation in public services either by legislative or executive action is neither a matter of policy nor a political issue. The higher courts in the country are constitutionally obliged to exercise the power of judicial review in every matter which is constitutional in nature or has potential of constitutional repercussions.
(2) (a) Constitutional bar under Article 16(2) against state for not discriminating on race, religion or caste is as much applicable to Article 16(4) as to Article 16(1) as they are part of the same scheme and serve same constitutional purpose of ensuring equality. Identification of backward class by caste is against the Constitutional.
(b) The prohibition is not mitigated by using the word, 'only' in Article 16(2) as a cover and evolving certain socio-economic indicators and then applying it to caste as the identification then suffers from the same vice. Such identification is apt to become arbitrary as well as the indicators evolved and applied to one community may be equally applicable to other community which is excluded and the backward class of which is denied similar benefit.
Identification of a group or collectivity by any criteria other than caste, such as, occupation cum social cum educational cum economic criteria ending in caste may not be invalid.
(c) Social and educational backward class under Article 340 being narrower in import than backward class in Article 16(4) it has to be construed in restricted manner. And the words educationally backward in this Article cannot be disregarded while determining backwardness.
(3) Reservation under Article 16(4) being for any class of citizens and citizen having been defined in Chapter II of the Constitution includes not only Hindus but Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists Jains etc. the principle of identification has to be of universal application so as to extend to every community and not only to those who are either converts from Hinduism or some of who carry on the same occupation as some of the Hindus.
(4) Reservation being extreme form of protective measure or affirmative action it should be confined to minority of seats. Even though the Constitution does not lay down any specific bar but the constitutional philosophy being against proportional equality the principle of balancing equality ordains reservation, of any manner, not to exceed 50%.
(5) Article 16(4) being part of the scheme of equality doctrine it is exhaustive of reservation, therefore, no reservation can be made under Article 16(1).
(6) Reservation in promotion is constitutionally impermissible as, once the advantaged and disadvantaged are made equal and are brought in one class or group then any further benefit extended for promotion on the inequality existing prior to be brought in the group would be treating equals unequally. It would not be eradicating the effects of past discrimination but perpetuating it.
(7) Economic backwardness may give jurisdication to state to reserve provided it can find out mechanism to ascertain inadequacy of representation of such class. But such group or collectivity does not fall under Article 16(1).
(8) Creamy layer amongst backward class of citizens must be excluded by fixation of proper income, property or status criteria.
Reservation by executive order may not be invalid but since it was being made for the first time in services under the Union propriety demanded that it should have been laid before Parliament not only to lay down healthy convention but also to consider the change in social, economic and political conditions of the country as nearly ten years had elapsed from the date of submissions of the report, a period considered sufficient for evaluation if the reservation may be continued or not.
-
1992 (11) TMI 276
Issues:
Appeal against acquittal under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act and the Customs Act; Validity of statement recorded under S. 108 of the Customs Act; Allegations against Customs Officers; Admissibility and evidentiary value of the accused's statement; Identification of parcels as corroborative evidence.
Analysis:
The judgment involves an appeal challenging the acquittal of the respondent in a case under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act and the Customs Act. The prosecution alleged that the accused, along with others, was involved in smuggling foreign items into the country using a method where parcels were dispatched via Bombay, containing contraband like watches and sarees. The trial court convicted the respondent based on his statement recorded under S. 108 of the Customs Act and his identification of the parcels. However, the Sessions Judge overturned the conviction, leading to the current appeal.
The main contention raised by the learned A.P.P. was that the appeal court's interference was unjustified, emphasizing the admissibility and reliability of the accused's statement under S. 108 of the Customs Act. The A.P.P. argued that the evidence, including the Customs Officers' testimonies, was strong enough to support the conviction, questioning the appeal court's doubts regarding the statement's voluntariness and the identification of parcels as separate acts.
On the other hand, the respondent's counsel supported the appellate judgment, highlighting the principles governing appeals against acquittals. The counsel argued that interference with an acquittal is warranted only in cases where the lower court's findings are incorrect or perverse, leading to a failure of justice. The counsel contended that the Sessions Judge had meticulously examined the evidence and applied the law correctly, justifying the acquittal.
The judgment extensively discussed the admissibility and evidentiary value of the accused's statement under S. 108 of the Customs Act. It was observed that the statement's voluntariness was in dispute, with concerns raised about coercion or inducement. The judgment referenced legal precedents emphasizing the caution required in relying on such statements and the need for independent corroboration for convictions based solely on these statements.
Ultimately, after a thorough review of the evidence and legal principles, the court upheld the appellate judgment, dismissing the appeal and affirming the acquittal of the respondent. The court found no grounds to interfere with the Sessions Judge's decision, emphasizing the importance of independent corroboration and the need for caution in evaluating statements recorded under S. 108 of the Customs Act.
-
1992 (11) TMI 275
Issues involved:
The judgment deals with the issue of whether a public authority's decision to reject the highest tender and engage in negotiations with all tenderers for obtaining a higher price is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Summary:
The appellant, Food Corporation of India, invited tenders for sale of damaged foodgrains, and the respondent submitted the highest bid for a stock of damaged rice. However, the appellant was not satisfied with the amount offered in the highest tenders and decided to negotiate with all tenderers. The respondent refused to revise its rates during negotiations, resulting in a significantly higher bid from another party. The High Court held that switching to negotiations after inviting tenders was arbitrary and violated Article 14. The Supreme Court, however, found that the appellant's actions were not arbitrary and were based on the legitimate expectation of obtaining the highest price for the commodity.
In the contractual sphere, public authorities must adhere to Article 14, ensuring non-arbitrariness and fair play in their actions. The doctrine of legitimate expectation plays a crucial role in decision-making processes, requiring due consideration of reasonable expectations of affected parties. While the highest tenderer has no automatic right to acceptance, the power to reject tenders must be exercised reasonably with cogent reasons.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the objective of inviting tenders is to procure the highest price for public interest. Inadequacy of the price offered in the highest tender can justify negotiations with tenderers to obtain a better offer. Retaining the option to accept the highest tender unless a significantly higher bid is received during negotiations is fair to all parties involved.
In this case, the appellant's decision to engage in negotiations after opening tenders was deemed reasonable due to the significantly higher bid obtained during negotiations. The High Court's view that such actions were arbitrary was overturned, and the appeal was allowed, dismissing the respondent's writ petition.
-
1992 (11) TMI 274
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notifications issued u/s 4, 6, 9, and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. Denial of personal hearing u/s 5A of the Act.
3. Exclusion of wakf property from acquisition.
4. Delay, laches, and acquiescence in filing the writ petition.
Summary:
1. Validity of Notifications:
The appeal by Ramjas Foundation challenged the Delhi High Court's dismissal of their writ petition against the notifications issued u/s 4, 6, 9, and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The notifications pertained to the acquisition of land for the planned development of Delhi.
2. Denial of Personal Hearing:
The appellants contended that their objections u/s 5A were rejected without a personal hearing, which they argued was mandatory. However, the court found that the appellants were represented by an advocate who was given a personal hearing, as evidenced by the Land Acquisition Collector's order dated 23.2.1968 (Annexure 'X'). The court held that the appellants' claim of not being heard was baseless and factually incorrect.
3. Exclusion of Wakf Property:
The appellants argued that their land, being used for educational and charitable purposes, should have been excluded from acquisition as wakf property. Alternatively, they contended that if the notification excluded only Muslim wakf properties, it violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The court did not find merit in these arguments and did not express an opinion on this issue due to the dismissal on other grounds.
4. Delay, Laches, and Acquiescence:
The court emphasized the significant delay in challenging the notifications. The notification u/s 4 was issued in 1959, and those u/s 6 were issued in 1968 and 1969, but the appellants did not challenge them until 1973. The court cited the precedent set in Aflatoon v. Lt. Governor Delhi, where similar delays led to the dismissal of writ petitions. The court found no justification for the delay and held that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the grounds of laches and delay.
Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed with costs, and all interim orders were vacated. The court declined to express any opinion on other questions of law raised in the appeal.
-
1992 (11) TMI 273
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the promotees have been appointed to I.P.S. according to Rules?
2. Whether their continuous officiation in cadre posts would enure to their seniority entitling to the year of allotment from the dates of their initial promotions?
3. Whether their inclusion in the select list and the computation of seniority from that date are conditions of service?
4. Whether the facts would justify drawing the presumption of deemed relaxation of relevant rules by Rule 3 of the Residuary Rules?
Summary:
Issue 1: Appointment According to Rules
The recruitment rules provide the method of recruitment to the Indian Police Service (IPS). The promotees must belong to the State Police Service and hold substantive posts. Appointment to the service should be made by the Central Government and must be in accordance with Rule 9(1) of the Recruitment Rules, which mandates consultation with the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). The promotees were appointed temporarily under Regulation 8 of the Promotion Regulations, which is distinct from appointment under Regulation 9. Temporary appointments do not confer the status of a member of the service.
Issue 2: Continuous Officiation and Seniority
Continuous officiation in cadre posts does not count towards seniority unless the promotee officer is appointed to the IPS in accordance with the rules and included in the select list approved by the UPSC. By operation of Explanation 1 to Rule 3(3)(b) of the Seniority Rules, seniority is counted only from the date of inclusion in the select list or the date of continuous officiation, whichever is later. The entire preceding officiating period earlier than being brought on the select list is treated as fortuitous.
Issue 3: Inclusion in Select List and Conditions of Service
Inclusion in the select list and the computation of seniority from that date are conditions of recruitment, not conditions of service. Conditions of recruitment must be strictly complied with for appointment by promotion. Seniority is an incidence of service, but the rules for recruitment and promotion form part of the conditions of recruitment and are not relaxable.
Issue 4: Deemed Relaxation of Rules
Rule 3 of the Residuary Rules permits the Central Government to relax rules in cases of undue hardship, but this must be done in writing with the consultation of the UPSC. There was no express order of relaxation in this case. The contention of deemed relaxation due to non-preparation of select lists was rejected. The failure to prepare the select list does not collapse Rule 3(3)(b) of the Seniority Rules or Regulation 9 of the Promotion Regulations.
Conclusion:
The promotees were not appointed to the IPS according to the rules, and their continuous officiation in cadre posts does not count towards seniority. Inclusion in the select list and seniority computation are conditions of recruitment, not service. There is no deemed relaxation of rules, and the appointments under Regulation 8 are not valid for seniority purposes. The appeals are allowed, and the directions of the Tribunal are modified accordingly.
-
1992 (11) TMI 272
Issues Involved:
1. Legislative competence of the State legislature to levy cess on coal under the Cess Act, 1880, West Bengal Primary Education Act, 1973, and West Bengal Rural Employment and Production Act, 1976.
2. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in light of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987.
3. Validity of the amendments to the West Bengal Primary Education Act, 1973, and West Bengal Rural Employment and Production Act, 1976, made by the West Bengal Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1992.
4. Propriety of vacating the interim order dated 10th December 1991.
5. Whether the appellate court can decide the main issue at the interlocutory stage.
6. Refund of cess collected under the impugned provisions.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Legislative Competence of the State Legislature:
The appellants argued that the levies under the Cess Act, 1880, West Bengal Primary Education Act, 1973, and West Bengal Rural Employment and Production Act, 1976, were beyond the legislative competence of the State legislature. The court examined whether these levies were "pari materia" with those declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in India Cement Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Orissa Cement Ltd. v. State of Orissa. The court held that there was no substantive difference between the levies considered in those cases and the levies challenged here. The court concluded that the provisions of the Cess Act, 1880, the West Bengal Primary Education Act, 1973, and the West Bengal Rural Employment and Production Act, 1976, were beyond the competence of the State Legislature and were, therefore, ultra vires and void.
2. Jurisdiction of the High Court:
The State contended that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 was ousted by Sections 6 and 14 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987, as amended by the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal (Amendment) Act, 1992. The court examined Article 323B of the Constitution and the relevant provisions of the Tribunal Act. It held that the exclusion of the High Court's jurisdiction could only be achieved by a law validly made under Article 323B, which requires the State Legislature to have the competence to make laws on the matter. Since the State Legislature lacked competence, the Tribunal Act's provisions excluding the High Court's jurisdiction were ineffective.
3. Validity of the Amendments:
The amendments to the West Bengal Primary Education Act, 1973, and the West Bengal Rural Employment and Production Act, 1976, made by the West Bengal Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1992, were also challenged. The court held that the amendments did not change the character of the levies, which remained unconstitutional. The court noted that the amendments were an attempt to cure the lacuna in the original Acts but did not succeed in doing so.
4. Propriety of Vacating the Interim Order:
The interim order dated 10th December 1991, which restrained the recovery of cess, was vacated by the trial judge on 7th May 1992, after the Supreme Court vacated a similar stay order. The court found that the trial judge's decision to vacate the interim order was proper, given the Supreme Court's order.
5. Appellate Court's Power at Interlocutory Stage:
The State argued that the appellate court should not decide the main issue at the interlocutory stage. The court rejected this argument, stating that in appropriate cases, the court could decide the main issue at the interlocutory stage, especially when the questions involved are pure questions of law covered by the Supreme Court's decisions.
6. Refund of Cess:
The court held that although the levies were unconstitutional, the appellants would not be entitled to a refund of any cess collected up to the date of the judgment. The court followed the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in India Cement and Orissa Cement, which directed that no refund should be made for cess collected up to the date of the judgment declaring the levy unconstitutional.
Conclusion:
The court declared the levies under the Cess Act, 1880, West Bengal Primary Education Act, 1973, and West Bengal Rural Employment and Production Act, 1976, as well as their amendments, unconstitutional and restrained the State from levying any such cess further. The court also restrained Coal India Limited and Eastern Coalfields Limited from including any amount on account of cess in their bills. The judgment's operation was stayed for four weeks to allow for any further orders.
-
1992 (11) TMI 271
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of statutory provisions under section 63(1) and (2) of the Finance Act 1976.
2. Use of Parliamentary debates as an aid to statutory construction.
3. Relevance of Hansard to the construction of the Finance Acts.
4. Whether reference to Hansard breaches Parliamentary privilege under article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688.
Summary:
1. Interpretation of Statutory Provisions u/s 63(1) and (2) of the Finance Act 1976:
The core issue was the valuation of benefits for income tax purposes under Schedule E, specifically the interpretation of "the cost of the benefit" and "expense incurred in or in connection with its provision." The taxpayers argued that the benefit should be assessed based on the marginal cost to the employer, which was minimal since the school was not at full capacity. The Crown contended that the benefit should be assessed based on the average cost, i.e., a proportionate part of the total cost of running the school. The House of Lords ultimately decided in favor of the taxpayers, concluding that the cost should be the additional or marginal cost, not the average cost.
2. Use of Parliamentary Debates as an Aid to Statutory Construction:
The judgment considered whether Parliamentary debates could be used to interpret ambiguous or obscure statutory provisions. The House of Lords decided to relax the exclusionary rule, allowing reference to Parliamentary material where the legislation is ambiguous or obscure, or leads to an absurdity, and where the material clearly discloses the legislative intention. This was a significant shift from the previous strict rule against using such materials.
3. Relevance of Hansard to the Construction of the Finance Acts:
The case involved examining the Parliamentary history of the Finance Act 1976, particularly the debates and statements made by the Financial Secretary. The House found that the Financial Secretary's statements were clear and consistent, indicating that the intention was to tax in-house benefits based on the marginal cost to the employer, not the average cost. This interpretation was supported by the fact that no relevant amendments were made to the Bill after these statements.
4. Whether Reference to Hansard Breaches Parliamentary Privilege u/s Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688:
The Attorney-General argued that using Hansard for statutory interpretation would breach article 9 of the Bill of Rights, which protects freedom of speech in Parliament. However, the House of Lords concluded that referring to Hansard for the purpose of construing legislation does not breach article 9, as it does not involve questioning or impeaching Parliamentary proceedings. The court's role is to give effect to the words enacted by Parliament, and using Hansard helps in understanding the legislative intent behind those words.
Conclusion:
The House of Lords allowed the appeals, determining that the cost of the benefit should be assessed based on the marginal cost to the employer. It also established a precedent for using Parliamentary debates as an aid to statutory construction, provided certain conditions are met, and clarified that such use does not breach Parliamentary privilege under article 9 of the Bill of Rights.
-
1992 (11) TMI 270
Issues:
1. Rejection of account books and best judgment assessment.
2. Entitlement to exemption on the purchase of electric motors.
Analysis:
1. The revision was filed against the Sales Tax Tribunal's order for the assessment year 1976-77. The applicant dealt in centrifugal pumps, electric motors, and diesel engines. The Sales Tax Officer rejected the account books and made a best judgment assessment. The applicant's appeal before the Assistant Commissioner was partly allowed, and the subsequent appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal was dismissed. The main argument was that even if account books are rejected, assessing authorities must consider material evidence before making a best judgment assessment, citing relevant case laws.
2. The Tribunal considered audit reports, survey reports, and other records after rejecting the account books. The taxable turnover disclosed by the assessee was Rs. 4,14,952, while the final determination was Rs. 5,40,000. The Tribunal did not grant exemption on the purchase of electric motors as the applicant supplied them separately from centrifugal pumping sets under a contract. The High Court found the Tribunal's reasoning erroneous, stating that the applicant was entitled to exemption on locally purchased electric motors sold within the state. The Court allowed the revision, modifying the Tribunal's order to grant the applicant exemption from U.P. sales tax on the sale of electric motors, with a direction to determine the tax amount accordingly.
This judgment highlights the importance of considering material evidence in best judgment assessments and clarifies the entitlement to exemption on specific transactions based on contractual terms and local sales regulations.
-
1992 (11) TMI 269
Issues:
- Interpretation of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 regarding the nature of transactions involving tea, soda lemon, cold drinks, ice cream, etc.
- Validity of allowing new grounds affecting the jurisdiction of sales tax authorities to be raised before the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal during second appeals.
Analysis:
1. The Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal referred a question under section 69 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969, regarding the nature of transactions involving tea, soda lemon, cold drinks, ice cream, etc., and whether they should be considered as services to customers or sales, based on the judgment in the case of Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi [1980] 45 STC 212.
2. M/s. Gandhi Cold Drink House, a registered dealer, was reassessed by the Sales Tax Officer for the period from April 1, 1967, to July 24, 1974, and penalties were levied under relevant sections of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, and the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969. The opponent appealed these orders to the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, who partially allowed the appeals leading to second appeals before the Gujarat Sales Tax Tribunal.
3. The opponent-dealer raised a new ground during the second appeals, arguing that certain transactions were in the nature of services, not sales, citing the judgment in the Northern India Caterers case. The Revenue objected to this new ground, stating that it was not raised at lower levels and could not be entertained at the second appeal stage.
4. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments, permitted the opponent-dealer to raise the new ground and set aside the orders of the Assistant Commissioner, remanding the matters for further consideration. The State of Gujarat then made a reference to the Tribunal under section 69 of the Act, leading to the current question before the High Court.
5. The High Court analyzed the powers of the Tribunal under the Act, emphasizing that the Tribunal has the authority to decide questions of facts and law, including new grounds affecting the jurisdiction of sales tax authorities. The Court referred to a previous judgment and a Full Bench decision to support the allowance of new grounds if they pertain to the same subject-matter of the appeal.
6. Ultimately, the High Court answered the reference in favor of the assessee, stating that the new ground raised by the opponent-dealer did not change the subject-matter of the appeals before the Tribunal and affected the jurisdiction of the sales tax authority in levying tax. The Court agreed with the Tribunal's reasoning for allowing the new ground and disposed of the reference with no order as to costs.
-
1992 (11) TMI 268
Issues:
Assessment based on rejected account books, denial of cross-examination opportunity, legality of remand by appellate authority, principles governing remand orders, necessity of further inquiry post remand, relevance of original documents and cross-examination in assessment proceedings.
Analysis:
The case involved a revision under section 11 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1984-85. The Sales Tax Officer rejected the applicant's account books and estimated suppressed sales based on seized documents from another firm. The applicant requested cross-examination of the partner of the other firm but was denied. The Assistant Commissioner remanded the case for cross-examination, which was challenged in a second appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal, eventually leading to the present revision.
The applicant contended that the remand was unjustified as the Sales Tax Officer failed to provide an opportunity for cross-examination and confrontation with original documents. The court referred to section 9 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, which allows the appellate authority to remand a case for further inquiry. The court emphasized that a remand should not be for a de novo trial but to rectify procedural irregularities or ensure the affected party's rights are upheld.
Citing precedent cases, the court highlighted the importance of allowing cross-examination and confronting parties with original documents in assessment proceedings. The court distinguished cases where remand was justified due to procedural irregularities from those where it was not necessary. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision to remand the case for cross-examination, emphasizing the discretionary nature of remand orders.
Ultimately, the court dismissed the revision, stating that the Tribunal did not act illegally in remanding the case. The court emphasized that interference with a remand order should be avoided unless there is a clear abuse of discretion. The applicant was directed to be given an opportunity for cross-examination and confrontation with relevant documents to ensure a fair assessment process.
-
1992 (11) TMI 267
Issues:
Interpretation of entry 17 of Schedule "A" to the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 regarding the classification of electric motors for sales tax purposes at either 6% or 10%.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to two General Sales Tax References concerning the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76, focusing on whether electric motors fall within the exception of entry 17 of Schedule "A" to the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, determining the applicable sales tax rate. The dealer, a registered dealer of electric goods, contested the assessment by the Assessing Authority, claiming electric motors were essential for generation, transmission, or distribution of electric power. The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner partially accepted the dealer's appeal, later dismissed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, leading to a reference to the High Court.
The central issue revolved around whether electric motors qualified as electrical equipment required for energy generation, transmission, or distribution, falling under the exception to entry 17 of Schedule "A" for a 6% tax rate. The Court emphasized the predominant usage of the item for the specified purpose to determine its classification. Despite various uses of electric motors in gadgets like computers and refrigerators, the Court held that they were not exclusively or predominantly utilized for energy generation, transmission, or distribution.
The Court distinguished the case of "super-enamelled copper wire" from the present scenario, clarifying that specific accessories may be considered equipment for energy generation, unlike electric motors. The judgment highlighted the distinction between goods that generate electricity and those consuming it, asserting that electric motors primarily convert electric energy into mechanical energy for motion, aligning with a 10% tax rate.
The Court referenced official memos specifying the tax treatment of electric motors, emphasizing that unless used in energy generation, transmission, or distribution, they are subject to a 10% tax rate. The dealer's argument based on historical memos granting concessions for a 6% tax rate was refuted, emphasizing the need to interpret the current statutory provisions accurately.
Ultimately, the Court ruled that electric motors did not qualify as excepted goods under entry 17 of Schedule "A," rendering them liable to a 10% sales tax rate, contrary to the dealer's claim for a 6% rate. The judgment concluded by answering the reference question negatively, affirming the higher tax rate for electric motors.
-
1992 (11) TMI 266
The Allahabad High Court allowed the revision against the judgment of the Sales Tax Tribunal, declaring the assessee non-taxable for the assessment year 1980-81. The Court found that the Tribunal did not consider the impact of the absence of form III-C(2) and the admission of tax liability by the assessee, leading to the judgment being set aside for fresh determination of tax payable.
-
1992 (11) TMI 265
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the pawnbrokers could be considered as "dealers" under section 2(1)(k) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.
2. Whether the provisions contained in section 3A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
3. The necessity to consider the validity of the provisions contained in section 3A and the circular dated October 30, 1991, if point No. (i) is answered in the affirmative.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Whether the pawnbrokers could be considered as "dealers" under section 2(1)(k) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.
The court examined the provisions of the Pawn Brokers Act, 1961, and the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. It was noted that the Pawn Brokers Act regulates and controls the business of pawnbrokers, allowing them to sell pawned articles through auction if the pawner defaults. The court emphasized that the pawnbroker has a special property interest in the pawned articles, which allows them to sell these articles to recover the loan amount.
The court held that the sale of pawned articles by pawnbrokers constitutes a "sale" under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, as the general property in the goods passes to the purchaser in an auction. Consequently, pawnbrokers fall within the definition of "dealer" under section 2(1)(k) of the Act, as they carry on the business of selling goods.
Issue 2: Whether the provisions contained in section 3A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The appellants contended that section 3A of the Act is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution because the circular issued under this section was done without affording an opportunity of hearing to the affected parties. The court noted that section 3A does not explicitly require such an opportunity and that the circulars issued are of a general nature, applicable to all pawnbrokers. Therefore, the absence of a hearing does not render the circular or the section unconstitutional.
Issue 3: The necessity to consider the validity of the provisions contained in section 3A and the circular dated October 30, 1991, if point No. (i) is answered in the affirmative.
Since the court concluded that pawnbrokers are "dealers" under the Act, it found it unnecessary to delve into the constitutional validity of section 3A. The circular dated October 30, 1991, was deemed valid as it was in conformity with the court's decision that pawnbrokers are dealers under the Act.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ appeals, holding that pawnbrokers are "dealers" under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, and that the circular dated October 30, 1991, is valid. The court did not find it necessary to address the constitutional validity of section 3A of the Act in this context.
............
|
9911796707
