Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

SABYASACHI MUKHERJI

305 judgments delivered by benches including this judge — showing 1–200.

REET MOHINDER SINGH SEKHONversusMOHINDER PARKASH & ORS.

1989 INSC 21731 July 1989Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, successor to the original mortgagor, filed a suit for redemption of a property mortgaged on 22 May 1886. The suit was filed on 28 December 1968, well after the 60‑year limitation under the Limitation Act, 1908, but the appellant argued that a sale deed dated 1 November 1913 contained an acknowledgment by

SHAFAIT ALI THROUGH SUPREME COURT LEGAL AID COMMITTEEversusSHIVA MAL (DEAD) BY LRS.

1987 INSC 18931 July 1987Dismissed

The appellant, Shafait Ali, appealed against an order of eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, on the ground of the landlord's bona‑fide requirement. The principal question was whether Sections 14(1)(e) and 14A (along with 25A‑C) of the Rent Act are special provisions that override the Sl

SIR SHADI LAL SUGAR AND GENERAL MILLS LTD. & ANR.versusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

1987 INSC 19031 July 1987Appeal(s) allowed

Shad! Lal Sugar Mills Ltd. was assessed for the year 1958-59 with additions of Rs 48,500 for cane cost, Rs 67,500 for shortage and Rs 21,700 for out‑station staff salary. The assessee did not contest the assessment but later faced a penalty under s.274 read with s.271 of the Income‑Tax Act, 1961, after admitting that t

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABADversusJAYANT OIL MILLS PVT. LTD .

1989 INSC 11731 March 1989Dismissed

The Collector of Central Excise appealed against the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal which had held that hydrogenated rice bran oil manufactured by Jayant Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. fell under Tariff Item 12 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Department argued that the hydrogenation process c

P. ANANTHAKRISHNAN NAIR & ANR.versusDR. G. RAMAKRISHNAN & ANR.

1987 INSC 9031 March 1987Dismissed

The appellants, heirs and a receiver of a leasehold property in Madras, sought to invoke Section 9 of the Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 to compel the landlords to sell the demised land to them after an ejectment suit was filed. The lease, originally granted in 1924, had been abandoned in 1964 and the bui

STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.versusH. GANESH KAMATH ETC. ETC.

1983 INSC 3131 March 1983Dismissed

The State of Karnataka and Regional Transport Officers appealed against the Karnataka High Court’s decision striking down sub‑rule (2) of Rule 5 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963, which required a two‑year experience of driving a medium motor vehicle before granting a licence to drive a heavy motor vehicle. T

SURESH CHANDversusGULAM CHISTI

1990 INSC 2131 January 1990Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord Suresh Chand let a premises completed in 1967 to tenant Gulam Chisti and filed an eviction suit on 27 May 1972, before the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 came into force on 15 July 1972. The tenant later deposited the arrears of rent and costs in September 1977, w

BHOR INUDSTRIES LTD., BOMBAYversusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY

1989 INSC 3531 January 1989Appeal(s) allowed

Bhor Industries Ltd., a manufacturer of crude PVC films used as intermediate inputs for leather cloth, laminated jute mattings and PVC tapes, claimed that the films were non‑marketable and therefore not liable to excise duty. The Appellate Collector (1974) accepted this view, but the Assistant Collector later re‑classi

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BANGALOREversusB. A. JAYARAM AND OTHERS

1984 INSC 2431 January 1984Dismissed

The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (K.S.R.T. Corp.) appealed against a Karnataka High Court order that dismissed its writ appeal challenging the rejection of an application to increase the number of trips on an inter‑state stage‑carriage permit. The issue centered on whether Section 57(8) of the Motor Vehic

DANDASI SAHUversusSTATE OF ORISSA

1989 INSC 36930 November 1989Dismissed

The contractor Dandasi Sahu claimed payment for work and interest before an arbitrator, later filing a supplemental claim and a consolidated abstract totalling Rs.31.44 million. The arbitrator awarded a lump sum of Rs.25.00 million with 9% interest, which the State of Orissa challenged. The High Court set aside the awa

DIPAK BANERJEEversusSMT. LILABATI CHAKRABORTY

1987 INSC 18830 July 1987Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord, Smt. Lilabati Chakraborty, sued her tenant, Dipak Banerjee, alleging that the tenant had sub-let two rooms of a four‑room dwelling to a tailor, Lalit Mohan Biswas, in violation of Section 13(1)(a) of the West Bengal Premises Act, 1956. The trial court, the first appellate court and the Calcutta High Court

ANDHRA STEEL CORPORATIONversusCOMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES IN KARNATAKA

1990 INSC 11530 March 1990Appeal(s) allowed

Andhra Steel Corporation, a dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, purchased iron scrap both within and outside Karnataka to manufacture steel products. The Act's Section 5(4) together with Schedule IV, Item 2 and Explanation II (applicable before 1‑April‑1978) exempted sales of steel semis made from scrap on which

LACHHMAN DASSversusRAM LAL & ANR.

1989 INSC 11130 March 1989Appeal(s) allowed

Lachhman Dass and Ram Lal entered into an arbitration agreement to settle a land dispute. The arbitrator awarded that half of the appellant's share in the land would now belong to the respondent, effectively creating a new right in immovable property valued over Rs 100. The award was filed for making it a rule of court

A.R. ANTULAYversusR.S. NAIK & ORS.

1986 INSC 22329 October 1986Dismissed

The petition sought revocation of special leave that had been granted by the Supreme Court in the presence of the respondents' counsel after hearing. The Court examined whether it could set aside its own order of special leave, considering the procedural propriety of the original grant and the constitutional implicatio

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTA-IIversusEASTEND PAPER INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR.

1989 INSC 25829 August 1989Dismissed

Eastend Paper Industries Ltd. manufactured various papers, including wrapping paper, and removed 4,000 kg of wrapping paper from its factory without paying excise duty. The Revenue issued a show‑cause notice under Rules 9(1), 173‑F and 173‑G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, alleging duty evasion. The assessee contend

SURESH RAGHO DESAI & ANR.versusSMT. VIJAYA VINAYAK GHAG & ANR.

1988 INSC 24829 August 1988Dismissed

The petitioners, Suresh Ragho Desai and another, participated in an arbitration proceeding in 1979 without objection and an award was rendered in 1981. They later challenged the award on the ground that it was unreasoned and that relevant documents had not been considered. The Bombay High Court dismissed the challenge,

ADITYA MILLS LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA

1988 INSC 25029 August 1988Dismissed

Aditya Mills Ltd. produced a yarn called PPRF, made by doubling two plies of polyester spun yarn with one ply of rayon filament yarn. The company claimed that excise duty had already been paid on the component yarns and sought to clear the product under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules. The authorities directed th

SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT DEPTT., MADRASversusMUNUSWAMY MUDALIAR & ORS.

1988 INSC 25129 August 1988Appeal(s) allowed

The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu sought to enforce a bridge construction contract, while the contractor claimed damages and refund of earnest money. The contract contained an arbitration clause naming the Superintending Engineer of the relevant circle as arbitrator. During arbitration the arbitrator was tr

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PATLALAversusM/S. JAGANNATH PYARELAL

1985 INSC 19029 August 1985Appeal(s) allowed

The partnership firm M/s Jagannath Pyarelal, consisting of eleven partners, filed an application on 30 September 1959 for registration under section 26A of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. The partnership deed had not been signed by one partner, Shri Rabinder Kumar, who had left India for studies, and the application w

A.R. ANTULAYversusR.S. NAYAK & ANR.

1988 INSC 12329 April 1988Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a former Chief Minister of Maharashtra, was prosecuted for corruption offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Supreme Court, in an earlier order dated 16.2.1984, suo motu transferred the case from the Special Judge to the Bombay High Court for speedy trial. The appe

INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIAversusK.D. BALI & ANOTHER

1988 INSC 8929 March 1988Dismissed

The International Airport Authority of India (IAAI) entered into a construction contract that contained an arbitration clause. When disputes arose, the Chief Engineer appointed K.D. Bali as sole arbitrator under the Arbitration Act, 1940. IAAI later challenged the arbitrator’s authority, alleging bias and seeking revoc

MADAN & CO.versusWAZIR JAIVIR CHAND

1988 INSC 35728 November 1988Dismissed

The landlord served a notice of rent arrears and termination of tenancy by registered post, which was returned undelivered, and subsequently affixed a copy of the notice on the premises. The tenant argued that the statutory requirement under Section 11 of the Jammu & Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966, dem

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL,EXCISE, COIMBATOREversusPROTEIN PRODUCTS OF INDIA LTD

1988 INSC 35828 November 1988Dismissed

The respondent, Protein Products of India Ltd., manufactures ossein and gelatine from crushed bones and claimed exemption from excise duty under the 30 June 1979 notification that listed "crushed bones and bone products" as exempt items. The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal held that these products

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTAversusJAY ENGINEERING WORKS LTD.

1988 INSC 35928 November 1988Dismissed

Jay Engineering Works Ltd., a manufacturer of electric fans, affixed nameplates (tariff item 68) to its fans and claimed proforma credit under Notification No. 201/79‑CE, which allows credit for inputs used in the manufacture of excisable goods. The Assistant Collector disallowed the credit, but the Collector (Appeals)

N.M. GOEL & COversusSALES TAX OFFICER, RAJNANDGAON & ANR.

1988 INSC 33328 October 1988Dismissed

N.M. Goel & Co., a building contractor, entered into a works contract with the Central Public Works Department (PWD) for construction of a godown. Under clause 10 of the contract, the PWD supplied iron, steel and cement from its stores, retained ownership of the materials, and deducted their value from the contractor's

U.P HOTELS ETC.versusU.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

1988 INSC 33428 October 1988Case Allowed

U.P. Hotels entered into a bulk‑supply agreement with Agra Electric Supply Co. which was later taken over by the U.P. State Electricity Board (SEB). The SEB unilaterally imposed a uniform tariff under section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1949, withdrawing agreed discounts. The dispute was referred to arbitration;

WALLACE FLOUR MILLS COMPANY LTD.versusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY, DIVISION III.

1989 INSC 29628 September 1989Dismissed

Wallace Flour Mills Co. Ltd., a manufacturer of food products, claimed that stocks of goods fully manufactured before the Finance Bill 1987-88 made them dutiable (effective 1 March 1987) should be cleared duty‑free as pre‑budget stocks. The Assistant Collector, the Collector (Appeals) and the Central Excise & Gold (Con

FASIH CHAUDHARYversusDIRECTOR GENERAL, DOORDARSHAN & ORS.

1988 INSC 30628 September 1988Dismissed

Doordarshan invited proposals for TV serials on themes such as national integration and set detailed guidelines for submission. Fasih Chaudhary (petitioner) submitted a complete proposal on Mirza Ghalib, while Gulzar (respondent No.2) initially sent only a theme letter but later completed his proposal. Doordarshan sele

S.N. MUKHERJEEversusUNION OF INDIA

1990 INSC 25728 August 1990Dismissed

The appellant, a permanent commissioned officer, was tried by a General Court‑Martial for alleged fraud and misconduct and was dismissed from service. The findings and sentence were confirmed by the Chief of the Army Staff, and the appellant's post‑confirmation petition under section 164(2) of the Army Act was rejected

A.K. SUBBAIAH & ORS.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

1987 INSC 23128 August 1987Dismissed

The State Government filed a criminal complaint under s.500 IPC, with sanction under s.199(2) CrPC, alleging defamation of the Director General of Police. The trial court took cognizance and issued process against the appellants. The appellants filed a revision petition under s.397 and s.401 CrPC challenging the issue

SUBRAMANIAM SHANMUGHAMversusM.L. RAJENDRAN & ORS.

1987 INSC 23228 August 1987Dismissed

The appellant, a tenant, occupied a room in the front portion of a residential building for non‑residential purposes. The landlord sought eviction under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, claiming the need for additional residential accommodation due to family marriages. Th

STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.versusRENUSAGAR POWER CO. AND OTHERS

1988 INSC 19028 July 1988Disposed off

The State of Uttar Pradesh issued a demand notice for electricity duty on power supplied by Renusagar Power Co. to its wholly‑owned subsidiary Hindalco. The High Court quashed the demand, holding that Renusagar was Hindalco's own source of generation and that the State had not complied with natural‑justice requirements

INDIAN OXYGEN LTD.versusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE.

1988 INSC 19228 July 1988Disposed off

Indian Oxygen Ltd., a manufacturer of compressed oxygen and dissolved acetylene, sold its products to government undertakings at rates fixed by the Department of Goods and Services and to other buyers at higher slab‑based prices, also levying delivery, collection, cylinder deposit and rental charges. The company claime

SNOW WHITE INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, MADRASversusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRAS

1989 INSC 15028 April 1989Dismissed

Snow White Industrial Corporation, a Madras partnership manufacturing paint, entered into a written agreement with Gillanders Arbuthnot & Co., a Calcutta firm, designating Gillanders as the "sole selling agents" for its product across India. The agreement contained clauses for return of unsold stock after two years, re

GALIB BIN AWAZversusMOHD. ABDUL KHADER AND ORS.

1987 INSC 13428 April 1987Dismissed

The case concerned lands originally settled by the appellant’s grandfather that were requisitioned by the military in 1963 and later acquired by the Central Government in 1970. Abdul Khader, a flower‑picker, claimed to be a protected tenant under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1

M. G. BROTHERS LORRY SERVICEversusPRASAD TEXTILES

1983 INSC 5128 April 1983Dismissed

M.G. Brothers Lorry Service, a common carrier, failed to deliver a consignment of yarn entrusted by Prasad Textiles. The Way Bill governing the carriage contained Condition 15, which required any claim to be made in writing within 30 days of booking or arrival. Prasad Textiles gave notice of claim on June 20, 1969, aft

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRAS.versusKUTTY FLUSH DOORS & FURNITURE CO. (P) LTD.

1988 INSC 8728 March 1988Dismissed

The respondent, Kutty Flush Doors & Furniture Co. Ltd., sought classification of sawn and dried timber as non‑excisable, arguing that sawing logs into various sizes does not amount to manufacture. The Assistant Collector and the Collector held that the conversion creates a new article and levied excise duty under Tarif

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ANR.versusGREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD.

1988 INSC 8828 March 1988Dismissed

The Food Corporation of India entered into a charter‑party with Great Eastern Shipping for bulk cargo transport and later disputed demurrage and overtime charges. The contract required joint arbitration, each party appointing an arbitrator; the appellant’s arbitrator was instructed in writing to give reasons for his aw

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXversusMUSSADILAL RAM BHAROSE

1987 INSC 2428 January 1987Dismissed

The assessee, a liquor‑vendor firm, filed its return of income based on its own books, which the Income‑Tax Officer rejected and recomputed using an 8% net‑profit rate, resulting in a total income that was less than 80% of the correct income. A penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income‑Tax Act was levied, but the T

CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND 0THERSversusADITYA V. BIRLA

1987 INSC 35127 November 1987Dismissed

Aditya V. Birla, a technician, entered into a three‑year agreement with Thai Rayon Company to provide services in Bangkok and sought approval from the Indian Government to claim a deduction under Section 80RRA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Government refused, contending that the provision applied only to "employees"

BRIJ SUNDER KAPOOR ETC. ETC.versusIST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE & ORS.

1988 INSC 32727 October 1988Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined whether the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (Act 13) applies to cantonment areas in Uttar Pradesh and whether the Central Government’s notifications of 1 Sept 1973 and 17 Feb 1982, issued under the Cantonments (Extension of Rent Control Laws)

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISEversusCALCUTTA STEEL INDUSTRIES AND ORS.

1988 INSC 32827 October 1988Dismissed

Calcutta Steel Industries classified its thin rectangular steel products (thickness <3 mm, width <75 mm) as bars under Central Excise Tariff Item 26AA(ia). The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, and later the Collector, held that the same products fell within the definition of "hoops" and should be taxed under Item

STATE OF KERALAversusATTESEE (AGRO INDUSTRIAL TRADING CORPORATION)

1988 INSC 32927 October 1988Dismissed

The State of Kerala appealed against the Agro Industrial Trading Corporation, which claimed exemption from sales tax on PVC cloth under item 7 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The issue was whether the definition of "cotton fabrics" referred to in the Act, taken from the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, sh

D. K. SONIversusP.K. MUKERJEE AND ORS.

1987 INSC 29527 October 1987Dismissed

The appellant, D.K. Soni, a tenant, challenged an order allowing the landlord, P.K. Mukerjee, to evict him on the ground of personal need under the U.P. Temporary Control of Rent and Eviction Act. The landlord obtained a final permission for eviction before the 1972 Urban Buildings Act came into force, and later execut

REGIONAL DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATIONversusRAM CHANDER

1987 INSC 29727 October 1987Appeal(s) allowed

Ram Chander operated a tailoring shop employing about 10‑12 tailors and used an electric iron for stitching and finishing garments. The issue was whether, under the Notification of 20 September 1975 issued under Section 1(5) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, his establishment fell within the Act’s coverage.

MODULA INDIAversusKAMAKSHYA SINGH DEO

1988 INSC 30527 September 1988Case Allowed

The landlord filed a suit for possession of premises under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The tenant filed a written statement but later failed to comply with court orders to deposit rent and his defence was struck out under s.17(3) of the Act. The tenant appealed, contending that even after his defence wa

HINDUSTAN STEEL WORKS CONSTRUCTION LTD.versusC. RAJASEKHAR RAO

1987 INSC 18527 July 1987

Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd entered into a contract with C. Rajasekhar Rao for certain works. Disputes arose and, after the appointed arbitrators could not agree, the Supreme Court directed the appointment of party‑appointed arbitrators and, in case of disagreement, an umpire (Justice Jaganmohan Reddy). The u

DWARKADAS MARFATIA & SONSversusBOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF BOMBAY

1989 INSC 14427 April 1989Dismissed

The appellant, DWARKADAS MARFATIA & SONS, had been a tenant of the Bombay Port Trust since 1932 for a portion of a plot that was later re‑constituted. The Trust, exempt from the Bombay Rents Act, decided to allocate the entire re‑constituted plot to another tenant, Dhanji Mavji, terminating the appellant's tenancy and

UJAGAR PRINTS ETC. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

1989 INSC 3027 January 1989Disposed off

The Supreme Court clarified the method of computing the assessable value of processed fabric for Central Excise duty. It held that the assessable value equals the value of the grey cloth in the processor's possession plus the value of the job‑work performed and the processor's manufacturing profit and expenses, i.e., t

P. KESAVAN(DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusAMMUKUTTY AMMA & ORS.

1987 INSC 35026 November 1987Dismissed

The landlord sought eviction of a tenant who was using a building for non‑residential purposes, claiming a bona‑fide need to occupy the premises himself as a residence. The Rent Controller, the Appellate Authority, the District Judge and the Kerala High Court all upheld the landlord’s claim under Section 11(3) of the K

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BARODAversusKOSAN METAL PRODUCTS LIMITED

1988 INSC 32426 October 1988Dismissed

Kosan Metal Products Ltd, a manufacturer of LPG valves, claimed a set‑off of excise duty on brass rods received from another company under Notification 178/77. The rods were later re‑classified, and the Superintendent of Central Excise issued a show‑cause notice under Rule 10 demanding recovery of Rs 51,261.88 and a pe

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, GUNTURversusANDHRA SUGAR LTD.

1988 INSC 32526 October 1988Dismissed

Andhra Sugar Ltd. manufactured acetic anhydride and claimed refunds of excise duty, asserting that the product was a "drug intermediate" exempt under Notification 55/75 CE (as amended by 62/78 CE). The Assistant Collector allowed the refund, but the Collector (Appeals) reversed the order, and the Customs, Excise and Go

NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION OF INDIA LTD.versusALIMENTA S.A.

1988 INSC 32626 October 1988Dismissed

The National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India Ltd. entered into two contracts with Swiss firm Alimenta S.A. for groundnut supplies, but a government export ban prevented performance. The first contract contained an arbitration clause, leading Alimenta to invoke arbitration through FOSFA, while the

GURBACHAN SINGHversusSATPAL SINGH & ORS.

1989 INSC 29526 September 1989Appeal(s) allowed

Gurbachan Singh filed a special leave appeal after the Punjab & Haryana High Court acquitted Satpal Singh and others of abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC. The deceased, Ravinder Kaur, had allegedly committed suicide by self‑immolation after severe dowry‑related harassment and taunts by her husband, his parents

JUGAL KISHOREversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

1988 INSC 30026 September 1988Dismissed

The petitioner, Juggal Kishore, claimed that lands leased to tenants under the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 should be excluded from his family unit's holdings in the ceiling proceedings under the Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. The Sub‑Divisional Officer

MADHU GOPALversusVI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE & ORS.

1988 INSC 30126 September 1988Dismissed

The tenant applied for allotment of a shop after the sole occupying co‑owner vacated it. The Rent Controller allotted the shop to the tenant, but a non‑occupant co‑owner (a landlord) filed a review application under section 16(5) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, within 2

COMMISSIONER, SALES TAX, U.P. LUCKNOWversusANOOP WINES, KHULDABAD, ALLAHABAD

1988 INSC 24326 August 1988Dismissed

Anoop Wines, a dealer in foreign liquor, commenced business on 1 May 1976. A sales‑tax survey directed the dealer to register for the assessment years 1976‑77 and 1977‑78, which it failed to do. The Sales Tax Officer imposed a penalty of Rs.4,500 under Section 15A(1)(g) of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948 for non‑

SMT. SHANTI SHARMA & ORS.versusSMT. VED PRABHA & ORS.

1987 INSC 22526 August 1987Dismissed

The tenant appealed against a decree of eviction granted to the landlord under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 on the ground of bona‑fide requirement. The landlord’s building stood on land leased from the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), and the lease had been subject to a cancellation notice, th

MD. SALIMversusMD. ALI SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HIS LRS. MD. ASSIM & ORS.

1987 INSC 22626 August 1987Dismissed

The petitioners, Md. Salim and others, claimed they were sub‑tenants under a 1966 agreement with the landlord, Md. Ali, and therefore should not be bound by an eviction decree issued against the principal tenant. The High Court held that the agreement was merely for the management of the landlord’s business and did not

COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAXversusPRABHUDAYAL PREM NARAIN

1988 INSC 18526 July 1988Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined an appeal by the Uttar Pradesh Commissioner of Sales Tax against a decision of the Allahabad High Court that had remitted a sales‑tax exemption dispute to the Tribunal for further evidence. The respondent, a dealer in pulses, claimed exemption under s.30(2) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act for purch

MAHALAKSHMI GLASS WORKS (P) LTD.versusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY

1988 INSC 18626 July 1988Dismissed

Mahalakshmi Glass Works manufactured glass bottles and sold them packed in gunny bags and cartons, which it claimed were durable and returnable, and therefore the cost of such packing should be excluded from the assessable value under Section 4(4)(d)(i) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The company paid duty o

ANIL KUMAR NEOTIA AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

1988 INSC 12026 April 1988Dismissed

The petitioners, shareholders of Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd., challenged the constitutional validity of sections 3 and 4 of the Swadeshi Cotton Mills Ltd. (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1986, alleging that the forced vesting of shares in the Central Government amounted to confiscation without compen

HINDI HITRAKSHAK SAMITI AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1990 INSC 5726 February 1990Dismissed as withdrawn

The petitioners, a language advocacy society and several students, filed a writ under Article 32 seeking a direction that pre‑medical and pre‑dental entrance examinations be conducted in Hindi and other regional languages, alleging that the exclusive use of English violated Article 29(2) of the Constitution. The respon

GOVINDversusDR. JEETSINGH

1987 INSC 34825 November 1987Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord filed an eviction suit under Section 12(1)(e) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, claiming a bona‑fide need for the premises. The tenant contested, asserting the landlord already had sufficient accommodation and the suit was to raise rent. The trial court ordered eviction, but the first

FORASOLversusOIL & NATURAL GAS COMMISSION (AND VICE VERSA)

1983 INSC 16225 October 1983Disposed off

Forasol, a French company, entered into a drilling contract with ONGC that required most payments in French Francs and 20% in Indian rupees at a fixed rate. After the rupee was devalued, Forasol claimed a higher conversion rate, which the arbitrator awarded without specifying a rate for the Franc portion. The Delhi Hig

CHANDAVARKAR SITA RATNA RAOversusASHALATA S. GURAM

1986 INSC 19925 September 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute arose when the landlady, Ashalata S. Guram, sought possession of a flat occupied by her former tenant S.P. Rao, who had allowed Sita Ratna Rao to stay as a licensee under a purported leave‑and‑licence agreement. After a series of decrees and appeals, the Small Causes Court held that Rao was in possession on

STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.versusLALL BROTHERS

1988 INSC 24025 August 1988Dismissed

The State of Orissa contracted Lall Brothers to complete a minor irrigation project, which was finished late. Disagreements over the final payment led the contractor to invoke the arbitration clause, resulting in the appointment of an arbitrator who awarded a lump sum of Rs. 14.67 lakh with interest. The State challeng

SADIQ BAKERY ETC.versusSTATE OF A.P. & ORS.

1987 INSC 34524 November 1987Dismissed

The petitioners, Sadiq Bakery and others, filed writ petitions challenging the imposition of sales tax and surcharge on bread, rusk and bun under the Andhra Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1957, arguing that bread and biscuits constitute a homogeneous class and should be taxed at the same rate. They contended that the different

MAJOR (RETD.) INDER SINGH REKHIversusDELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

1988 INSC 8524 March 1988Appeal(s) allowed

Major (Retd.) Inder Singh Rekhi constructed 240 Janta houses for the Delhi Development Authority, completing the work on 2 April 1980. After the work was finished, he repeatedly requested the Authority to finalise the bills, sending the first letter on 28 February 1983 and a final notice on 4 September 1985, and therea

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRASversusSTANDARD MOTOR PRODUCTS, ETC.

1989 INSC 7024 February 1989Dismissed

The Collector of Central Excise, Madras filed statutory appeals against orders of the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal and sought condonation of delay for those appeals. A Single Judge of the Supreme Court dismissed the condonation applications under Order VI Rule 2(14) of the Supreme Court Rules, 19

P.V.G. RAJU GARUversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

1990 INSC 1624 January 1990Dismissed

The State Government took over a hospital that was run by the Zamindar of an impartible estate and claimed recovery of endowment amounts (Rs 1,00,000 for the hospital and Rs 1,00,000 for a charitable fund) with interest at 6% per annum from the compensation paid on abolition of the estate under the Andhra Pradesh (Andh

VISHWANATH SOODversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

1989 INSC 2624 January 1989Appeal(s) allowed

Vishwanath Sood contracted with the Union of India and the State of Himachal Pradesh to construct a Farmers' Community Centre. The contract contained Clause 2, which imposed a penalty compensation for delay to be determined solely by the Superintending Engineer, and Clause 25, which provided for arbitration of disputes

STATE OF TAMIL NADUversusANANDAM VISWANATHAN

1989 INSC 2724 January 1989Dismissed

A. Viswanathan, a printer, entered into contracts with universities to print examination question papers. The demand notes itemised charges for printing, block making, packing, handling, delivery, postage and the value of paper separately. The Assessing Officer and later the Tribunal treated the printing and block‑maki

GUJARAT WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARDversusUNIQUE ERECTORS {GUJARAT) (P) LTD. & ANR.

1989 INSC 2824 January 1989Disposed off

The Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board entered into contracts with Unique Erectors for a water‑supply scheme and later referred disputes arising under clause 30 of the contract to arbitration. A sole arbitrator was appointed, decided the arbitrability of the claims, and issued a lump‑sum award on 8 July 1985, which

SWADESHI POLYTEX LTD.versusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

1989 INSC 36023 November 1989Appeal(s) allowed

Swadeshi PolytEx Ltd., a manufacturer of polyester fibre, used ethylene glycol (tariff item 68) and DMT in its process, which also generated methanol and other waste. The company claimed a set‑off of the excise duty paid on the glycol under exemption notification No. 201/79, as amended by notification No. 102/81. The A

HINDUSTAN POLYMERS ETC. ETC.versusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, ETC. ETC.

1989 INSC 25323 August 1989Appeal(s) allowed

Hindustan Polymers, a manufacturer of fusel oil and styrene monomer, sold most of its product in bulk via tankers, but occasionally delivered it in drums that were supplied by the buyers at no charge. The Revenue issued show‑cause notices demanding that the value of these drums be added to the assessable value of the g

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.versusOM PARKASH BALDEV KRISHAN

1988 INSC 23523 August 1988Dismissed

The Punjab Public Works Department invited tenders for a high‑level bridge. The lowest bidder, Om Prakash Baldev Krishan, was told by the Executive Engineer that his tender was accepted and was asked to sign a pending agreement within ten days, but no agreement was ever executed and the acceptance was not made in the n

SHRI BALAGANESAN METALSversusSHRI M.N. SHANMUGHAM CHETTY & ORS.

1987 INSC 12723 April 1987Dismissed

The appellant, a tenant occupying the ground floor of a one‑storey building as a godown, was evicted under Section 10(3)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 after the landlord’s legatees claimed bona‑fide need for additional residential accommodation. The appellant challenged the eviction

COMMITTEE FOR PROTECTION OF RIGHTS OF ONGC EMPLOYEES AND ORS.versusOIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN- TEL BHA VAN DEHRADUN AND ANR.

1990 INSC 10523 March 1990Dismissed

The petitioners, former temporary employees of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC) who were absorbed into the statutory body after the ONGC Act, 1959, claimed a right to a pension in addition to the benefits of the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF). They relied on Section 13(1) of the ONGC Act and Regulation 3(2)

ASIAN PAINTS INDIA LTD.versusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

1988 INSC 8323 March 1988Dismissed

Asian Paints Ltd. manufactured a product called Decoplast and contested its classification under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. The Revenue classified Decoplast as a plastic emulsion paint under Tariff Item 14(I)(3)(iv), which the appellant challenged, arguing that it was not recognized as such in trade and dif

MOHAN LALversusJAI BHAGWAN

1988 INSC 8423 March 1988Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Mohan Lal, leased a shop from the respondent, Jai Bhagwan, under a rent note that stipulated the premises be used for the "business of English Liquor Vend". After the liquor licence was not renewed in 1979, the tenant switched to selling general merchandise. The landlord filed an eviction petition under

CHARAN LAL SAHU ETC. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1989 INSC 39522 December 1989Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985, which gave the Central Government exclusive authority to represent all victims of the 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy in litigation against Union Carbide. The Court held that the Act was a valid exercise of

VIDEO ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. AND ANR. ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. ETC. ETC .

1989 INSC 39622 December 1989Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined several writ petitions challenging state notifications that granted sales‑tax exemptions to new manufacturing units in Uttar Pradesh, Punjab and other states. The petitioners, dealers of imported cinematographic and electronic goods, claimed the exemptions discriminated against them in violat

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY-I & ANR.versusPARLE EXPORTS (P) LTD.

1988 INSC 35322 November 1988Appeal(s) allowed

Parle Exports (P) Ltd manufactured non‑alcoholic beverage bases such as Gold Spot, Limca and Thumps Up under Tariff Item 68 without a valid central excise licence and was assessed duty and penalty. The company claimed exemption under Notification No. 55/75 CE, which exempts "all kinds of food products and food preparat

FIRM GANPAT RAM RAJKUMARversusKALU RAM & ORS.

1989 INSC 28822 September 1989Disposed off

The firm Ganpat Ram Rajkumar was ordered by the Supreme Court to vacate a shop in Narnaul within six months, on the condition that it filed a "usual undertaking" confirming possession and delivery of vacant possession. The firm failed to file any undertaking and did not vacate the premises. The partners' sons subsequen

ATMA RAM MITTALversusISHWAR SINGH PUNIA

1988 INSC 23422 August 1988Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord, Atma Ram Mittal, filed a suit for possession of a shop he let to Ishwar Singh Punja, relying on Section 1(3) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, which exempts buildings completed after the Act’s commencement for ten years. The building was completed in June 1974, so the exemptio

INDRU RAMCHAND BHARVANI AND OTHERSversusUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

1988 INSC 18222 July 1988Dismissed

The petitioners, partners of a diamond trading firm, were found by Customs officers to possess over 3,200 carats of diamonds and other valuables after a search based on secret information. The officers seized the goods under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, asserting a reasonable belief that the diamonds were smug

STATE OF ORISSAversusDANDASI SAHU

1988 INSC 18422 July 1988Dismissed

The State of Orissa contracted Dandasi Sahu for an irrigation project; after completion and final payment, Sahu claimed extra work and invoked the arbitration clause. The arbitrator awarded Rs 15,23,657 plus interest without giving reasons. The Sub‑ordinate Judge set aside the award, but the Orissa High Court restored

MADHO S/O SHRIHARI DESHPANDEversusMADHAO S/O TRIMBAK DHARMADHIKAREE

1988 INSC 11722 April 1988Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute involved an arbitration award concerning properties mainly located in Warora, Chandrapur, with a small portion in Nagpur. The arbitrator, a resident of Nagpur, filed the award in the Nagpur Civil Court. The Civil Judge held that only the Nagpur property and the arbitrator's residence did not confer jurisdic

VENKATLAL G. PITTIE & ANR.versusBRIGHT BROS. (PVT.) LTD.

1987 INSC 17921 July 1987Appeal(s) allowed

The landlords (Venkatlal G. Pittie & Anr.) sued their tenant (Bright Bros. Pvt. Ltd.) for eviction, alleging that the tenant had erected permanent structures in violation of clause (p) of s.108 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and s.13(1)(b) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1974, and

RAMESH BIRCH & ORS. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.

1989 INSC 13621 April 1989Dismissed

The petitioners challenged a Central Government notification dated 15 December 1986 that, under Section 87 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, extended the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985 to the Union Territory of Chandigarh. The core issues were whether Section 87 itself violated the Const

NOORALI BABUL THANEWALAversusK.M.M. SHETTY AND ORS.

1989 INSC 39320 December 1989Disposed off

The landlord filed an eviction suit in 1970 against tenant K.M.M. Shetty and others, which was decreed in his favour. The Supreme Court allowed the tenant to remain in possession until 31 March 1989 on condition that he and his employees file an undertaking to vacate thereafter. In early 1989 a second respondent obtain

ACCOUNTANT AND SECRETARIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD. & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

1988 INSC 17920 July 1988Dismissed

The appellant, a private limited company, occupied part of premises owned by United Commercial Bank and challenged an eviction notice issued under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The company argued that the Act, as applied to premises of a public‑sector corporation, was ultra vires P

PRASUN ROYversusCALCUTTA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.

1987 INSC 17620 July 1987Appeal(s) allowed

The parties entered into a contract containing an arbitration clause that named the Director/Unit Head of the Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority as the sole arbitrator. The appellant, fearing bias, applied under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for the appointment of an independent arbitrator, and the

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAYversusBHOR INDUSTRIES LTD.

1988 INSC 11220 April 1988Dismissed

The respondent imported a chemical known as 'Sancticizer 429' and challenged the customs duty levied on it. The Assistant Collector classified it as a polymeric plasticizer under heading 39.01/06 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, a view upheld by the Appellate Collector. The Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tr

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHIversusKELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD.

1988 INSC 11420 April 1988Dismissed

Kelvinator of India Ltd manufactures refrigerators and includes a one‑year warranty in the sale price. After the warranty expires, it offers an optional four‑year service contract for the sealed system at a charge of Rs 300‑450 per unit, which 91% of customers accept. The Assistant Collector and Appellate Collector hel

GOPAL SARANversusSATYANARAYANA

1989 INSC 6620 February 1989Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord sued the tenant for eviction under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, alleging (i) parting with possession of the shop roof by installing an advertisement board, (ii) material alteration of the premises by fixing the board with iron angles, and (iii) default in rent. The trial

WORLD WIDE AGENCIES PVT. LTD. AND ANR .versusMRS. MARGARAT T. DESOR AND ORS.

1989 INSC 39219 December 1989Dismissed

World Wide Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and its director Mrs. Amrit Kaur Singh appealed against a Delhi High Court order that allowed the widow and children of the deceased shareholder S.K. Desor to file a petition under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956 (and alternatively for winding up). The respondents argued th

U.P. CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION LTD.versusSINGH CONSULTANTS & ENGINEERS (P) LTD.

1987 INSC 34119 November 1987Appeal(s) allowed

The Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Federation Ltd. (appellant), a state enterprise, contracted with Singh Consultants & Engineers (P) Ltd. (respondent) to supply and install a vanaspati plant, requiring the respondent to furnish two irrevocable bank guarantees. The plant was not completed within the stipulated time, and the

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISEversusPONDS INDIA LTD.

1989 INSC 31319 October 1989Appeal(s) allowed

Pond's India Ltd., a manufacturer of talc and face powder, claimed a deduction for the cost of secondary packing (master cartons) used for transporting small packs to wholesale dealers. The claim was initially approved but later disallowed by the Assistant Collector, who treated the outer cartons as non‑deductible unde

GOODYEAR INDIA LTD. ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF HARYANA & ANR. ETC. ETC.

1989 INSC 31519 October 1989Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 (as amended) and the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (section 13‑AA) could levy a tax on the despatch of manufactured goods to a dealer’s own branches outside the State. It held that the taxable event under both statutes is the consignment/despatch o

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR.versusG.S. DALL AND FLOUR MILLS

1990 INSC 29119 September 1990Dismissed

The State of Madhya Pradesh issued a 1981 notification exempting certain classes of dealers from sales tax, but the Director of Industries denied certificates to flour and dal mill units on the ground that they were "traditional industries" excluded by earlier subsidy schemes. The assessees argued that the notification

J.M. BHATIA, APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX & ORS.versusJ.M. SHAH

1985 INSC 19919 September 1985Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent was assessed for wealth tax on Rs.6,07,690 including jewellery worth Rs.4,15,942 for AY 1969-70. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) excluded the jewellery under s.5(1)(viii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, and no appeal was filed, rendering the order final in the ordinary sense. After the Finance (N

ABHAY SINGH SURANA & ORSversusSECRETARY MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION & ORS.

1987 INSC 22019 August 1987Disposed off

The Supreme Court considered an appeal by Abhay Singh Surana & Ors. against the Secretary, Ministry of Communication & Ors. concerning interest on compensation awarded by an arbitrator for the requisition of premises under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. The Court reiterated establis

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTAversusBERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD.

1990 INSC 9119 March 1990Disposed off

The Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) against an order of the Divisional Assistant Commissioner, relying on a general authority dated 24 September 1986 and a note‑sheet order of the Collector. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal,

B. KRISHNA BHATversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1990 INSC 9019 March 1990Dismissed

B. Krishna Bhat filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking a direction to the State of Karnataka to enforce total prohibition and to declare a clause of the Karnataka Excise Rules, which grants a monopoly on liquor distribution to a state‑specified company, unconstitutional. He argued that Artic

M.B. ABDULLAversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KERALA

1990 INSC 9319 March 1990Dismissed

The petitioner was caught with contraband gold worth Rs 20 lakhs, which was confiscated by customs. The assessing officer added the value of the gold to the petitioner’s income under Section 69‑A of the Income‑Tax Act, treating it as income from an undisclosed source. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner reduced the in

HIRALAL KAPURversusPRABHU CHOUDHURY

1988 INSC 4819 February 1988Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord, an advocate, orally let a part of his residential premises comprising servants' quarters and a ground‑floor hall to the tenant for Rs 600 per month, with rent thereafter paid by two cheques—Rs 250 by the tenant and Rs 350 by a trust (Balkunj) of which the tenant was secretary. The landlord sought eviction

AUTO TRACTORS LIMITED, PRATAPGARHversusCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (APPEAL), BOMBAY

1989 INSC 2519 January 1989Appeal(s) allowed

Auto Tractors Ltd imported three consignments of tractor components and cleared them with a DGTD certificate that referenced Notification No. 179/80, thereby receiving a smaller customs duty concession. The company later discovered it was eligible for a larger concession under Notification No. 200/79, obtained amended

NAT STEEL EQUIPMENT PVT. LTD.versusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

1988 INSC 1719 January 1988Dismissed

Nat Steel Equipment Pvt. Ltd., a manufacturer of heavy‑duty hospital and industrial canteen appliances, classified fourteen items under Tariff Item No. 68 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. The Assistant Collector re‑classified items 2‑14 under Tariff Item No. 33C, invoking Explanation‑I and demanded differentia

SALONAH TEA COMPANYversusSUPERINTENDENT OF TAXES NOWGONG & ORS. ETC.

1987 INSC 38318 December 1987Appeal(s) allowed

Salonah Tea Co. paid taxes under assessment orders issued under the Assam Taxation (On Goods Carried by Road or Inland Waterways) Act, 1961. The assessments were later declared ultra vires and the tax was held to have been collected without legal authority. The company filed writ petitions under Article 226 seeking a r

AMARJIT SINGHversusSMT. KHATOON QUAMARAIN

1986 INSC 23918 November 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent landlady owned a two‑door premises and sought eviction of the appellant tenant under s.14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, claiming bonafide personal necessity for residence and that she had no other reasonably suitable accommodation. During the pendency of the proceedings the ground‑floor door

PADMINI PRODUCTSversusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE

1989 INSC 24718 August 1989Disposed off

Padmini Products, a manufacturer of agarbatis and dhoop sticks, claimed exemption from excise duty and licensing on the ground that the products were "handicrafts" under Notification 55/75 and thus exempt under Notification 111/78. The Collector rejected the claim, holding the items were not handicrafts; the Tribunal a

KASHI RAMversusRAKESH ARORA

1987 INSC 21318 August 1987Appeal(s) allowed

The Delhi Rent Controller ordered the eviction of tenant Kash! Ram in October 1960 on the ground of the landlord's bona‑fide requirement. The landlord's applications for permission to execute the order under Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 were dismissed in 1963, and a second applicat

SRINIVASA GOPALversusUNION TERRITORY OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH (NOW STATE)

1988 INSC 17718 July 1988Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, an executive engineer, was charged under IPC sections 279, 304A and 338 for a fatal jeep accident in Arunachal Pradesh in November 1976. The magistrate initially took cognizance on the date of the police report, but the High Court held that cognizance was only taken on 31 March 1986, more than nine years

AJAIB SINGHversusGURBAX SINGH & ORS.

1987 INSC 33817 November 1987Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Ajaib Singh, entered into a sale agreement with the respondents and paid the bulk of the purchase price, leaving only Rs.75 to be paid upon execution of title documents. The appellant took possession of the property in part performance, but the respondents failed to execute the title documents. The appel

NAND KISHORE MARWAH & OTHERSversusSMT. SAMUNDRI DEVI

1987 INSC 25217 September 1987Dismissed

The appellants, tenants of a shop let on 25 June 1976, faced an eviction suit filed by the landlord, SMT. Samundri Devi. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the Allahabad High Court set aside that order and decreed eviction. The tenants appealed, contending that the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHIversusJAGAN NATH ASHOK KUMAR & ANR.

1987 INSC 25417 September 1987Dismissed

The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) awarded a construction contract to Jagan Nath Ashok Kumar, which it later rescinded alleging delay. The contract contained an arbitration clause, and an arbitrator was appointed who held that the rescission was wrongful, awarded the contractor Rs.23,820 plus interest, and allowe

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. ETC.versusMADHUKAR BALKRISHNA BADIYA & ORS. ETC.

1988 INSC 22917 August 1988Disposed off

The State of Maharashtra amended the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958 to levy a one‑time tax on motorcycles and tricycles, charging fifteen times the annual rate and a higher rate for company‑owned vehicles, with limited refund provisions. The Bombay High Court struck down the amendment as beyond the State's legisla

GANPAT RAM SHARMA & ORS.versusSMT. GAYATRI DEVI

1987 INSC 17317 July 1987Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined an eviction dispute under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 where the landlord sought possession of three tenants on the ground that each had either built, acquired vacant possession of, or been allotted another residence, as stipulated in clause (h) of Section 14(1). The Court held that the w

VINOD KUMAR ARORAversusSMT. SURJIT KAUR

1987 INSC 17417 July 1987Dismissed

The widowed landlady (respondent) sought eviction of two tenants, including the doctor (appellant), alleging that they had changed the use of the premises to non‑residential purposes and that she required the hall for her own residential needs. The Rent Controller and Appellate Authority found against the landlady on b

M. SATYANANDAMversusDEPUTY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.

1987 INSC 17517 July 1987Dismissed

M. Satyanandam, an allottee of government‑owned premises, was ordered to vacate after the government, upon a fresh representation by the landlady, released the premises in her favour. The petitioner contended that he was not given a chance to show cause and that the government could not review its earlier order rejecti

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAYversusNAGPAL PRINTING MILLS & ANR.

1988 INSC 7717 March 1988Dismissed

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay fixed a water quota for Nagpal Printing Mills and, under Rule III(d)(i) of the 1976 Water Charges and Sewerage & Waste Removal Rules, billed the mill for a charge equal to one‑tenth of the quota when actual consumption fell short. The mill contested the charge, arguing that t

RAM SEWAKversusMUNNA LAL

1987 INSC 38016 December 1987Dismissed

Ram Sewak, a tenant, was sued for eviction by his landlord Munna Lal under Section 3(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 for non‑payment of rent for more than three months. The tenant claimed that he had tendered the rent, which the landlord refused to accept, and therefore dep

HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD.versusTHE STATE OF ORISSA

1983 INSC 20216 December 1983Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.'s (HAL) manufacture of MIG engines for the Government of India constituted a contract of sale liable to Central Sales Tax or a works contract exempt from tax. The Government of India, under a licence from the USSR, entrusted HAL to assemble and fit the engin

RACHAPPA GURUADAPPA BIJAPURversusGURUSIDDAPPA NURANIAPPA & ORS.

1988 INSC 34816 November 1988Dismissed

The petitioners and respondents were partners in a firm that had an arbitration agreement. Respondent No.1 filed a suit for dissolution and accounts, and respondent No.9 applied under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for a stay of the suit. The trial court observed that the petitioner (defendant No.4) had obtain

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KANPURversusKRISHNA CARBON PAPER CO.

1988 INSC 28116 September 1988Disposed off

Krishna Carbon Paper Co. manufactured carbon paper and cleared it from its factory in 1979 without paying central excise duty. The Revenue issued a notice demanding duty, arguing that carbon paper was covered under tariff item 17(2) (coated paper) since the 1976 amendment of the Central Excise Tariff. The company conte

VIJAY PRAKASH D. MEHTA & ANR.versusCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE), BOMBAY

1988 INSC 22316 August 1988Dismissed

The appellants, Indian citizens residing abroad, were caught with large amounts of foreign exchange and were penalised Rs 3 lakhs each under the Customs Act. They appealed the penalty under s.129A, and the Customs Appellate Tribunal, invoking s.129E, reduced the security deposit to Rs 1 lakh each. Claiming inability to

STATE OF RAJASTHANversusR.S. SHARMA & CO.

1988 INSC 22416 August 1988Disposed off

The State of Rajasthan and R.S. Sharma & Co. entered into a construction contract that later led to a dispute. While litigation was pending, the parties agreed to arbitrate, and the arbitrators awarded Rs.75,41,755 to the respondent without providing reasons. The appellant challenged the award on grounds of lack of rea

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARHversusDOABA CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD., JALANDHAR

1988 INSC 22616 August 1988Dismissed

Doaba Co‑operative Sugar Mills received an excess‑production rebate of Rs 5,60,679.40 under Notification 108/78. The Superintendent later issued a show‑cause notice for recovery of the alleged excess amount. The Assistant Collector held that no excess existed and that the notice was barred by limitation, dropping the d

SMT. KUSUM LATA SINGHALversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR AND ORS.

1990 INSC 20416 July 1990Dismissed

Smt. Kusum Lata Singhal, a tobacco stockist, challenged the seizure of her books and jewellery after a search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act was deemed unauthorized. Her husband, R.K. Singhal, was simultaneously prosecuted under Section 132(5) and claimed the jewellery belonged to him as undisclosed income. Th

C.I.T. BOMBAY CITYversusBOMBAY BURMAH TRADING CORPORATION, BOMBAY

1986 INSC 14416 July 1986Dismissed

The Bombay-based Burmah Trading Corporation held fifteen forest leases in Burma for timber extraction. After the Union of Burma nationalised the forest resources, the company surrendered its residuary rights and assets in exchange for 43,860 tons of teak logs, some in lieu of non‑duty paid logs and the rest as compensa

HUNDRAJ KANYALAL SAJNANI ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1990 INSC 8816 March 1990Dismissed

The petitioners, Group‑A Income‑Tax officers promoted from Group‑B, challenged the 1973 Seniority Rules and the accompanying seniority list, alleging that the rules were based on a mistaken finding that promotions exceeded the statutory quota and that the classification of officers into Group‑A and Group‑B violated Art

RAMESH S/O CHOTALAL DALALversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

1988 INSC 4416 February 1988Dismissed

The petitioners sought a writ of prohibition to stop the further telecast of the TV serial "Tamas", alleging that its content would incite communal violence and violate Articles 21 and 25 of the Constitution as well as Section 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and IPC sections 153A/153B. The serial, based on Bhisham Sa

P. M. PAULversusUNION OF INDIA

1989 INSC 1016 January 1989Disposed off

P.M. Paul, a contractor, entered into a two‑phase construction contract with the Union of India. A dispute arose over the handover of the site and alleged delays, leading the parties to invoke the arbitration clause in the contract. The Supreme Court appointed a former judge, Justice V. Khalid, as arbitrator, who award

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,versusVIKRAM COTTON MILLS LTD.

1987 INSC 37715 December 1987Dismissed

Vikram Cotton Mills Ltd., a textile manufacturer, incurred heavy losses and ceased production in 1953. In 1956, under a court‑approved scheme, its plant and machinery were leased to General Fibres Dealers for Rs 2.5 lakh per year for ten years (renewable) to generate income for creditors and enable future reconstructio

NARNE TULAMAN MANUFACTURES PVT. LTD. HYDERABADversusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD

1988 INSC 28015 September 1988Dismissed

Narne Tulaman Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. assembled three components – a platform, load cells and an indicating system – to create a complete weighbridge, for which excise duty was imposed under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The company contended that it only manufactured the indicating system, a component alread

BAL NIKETAN NURSERY SCHOOLversusKESARI PRASAD

1987 INSC 16915 July 1987Appeal(s) allowed

Bal Niketan Nursery School, a recognised institution under the U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 and run by a registered society, purchased land and super‑structures in its own name and, through its manager (who was also the society's secretary), served notice to four tenants and filed suits for eviction and arrears in th

P.N. DUDAversusP. SHIV SHANKAR & OTHERS

1988 INSC 10815 April 1988Dismissed

The petitioner, P.N. Duda, sought initiation of contempt proceedings against former Law Minister P.S. Shiv Shankar for remarks made in a Bar Council speech that allegedly disparaged the Supreme Court. The petition also impleaded the Attorney General, Solicitor General, and a newspaper editor, alleging refusal of consen

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY-IIversusKIRAN SPINNING MILLS, KOLSHET ROAD, THANE

1988 INSC 4315 February 1988Dismissed

The respondents purchased polyester fibre tow, described as "crimpled uncut waste," and cut it into short lengths to produce polyester staple fibre. The Collector held that this conversion constituted manufacture and attracted excise duty, but the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal found that merely cu

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR. ETC.versusR.V. RAYANIM ETC. ETC.

1990 INSC 815 January 1990Dismissed

The State of Andhra Pradesh entered into a contract with contractor R.V. Rayanim for constructing an earth dam. A dispute led to arbitration, where the arbitrator issued a non‑speaking award of Rs.19.39 lakhs in favour of the contractor, mentioning consideration of escalation damages but not quantifying any amount for

RAMSHARAN AUTYANUPRASI & ANRversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

1988 INSC 34614 November 1988Dismissed

The petitioners sought a writ under Article 32 of the Constitution, claiming that the management of the Sawai Man Singh II Museum Trust by its Chairman, Lt. Col. Sawai Bhawani Singh, violated public interest and their fundamental rights under Articles 21, 49 and 51A(f). The Court held that the dispute was essentially a

KAMESHWAR SINGH SRIVASTAVAversusIV ADDL. DIST. JUDGE LUCKNOW & ORS.

1986 INSC 23614 November 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a tenant, continued to pay rent by depositing it in the Munsif's court under Section 30(1) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 after the landlord's heirs refused to accept his tender. The landlords served a notice demanding vacating the premises and payment of

JAWAHARLAL WADHWA AND ANOTHERversusHARIPADA CHAKROBERTY

1988 INSC 32014 October 1988Disposed off

The appellants, Jawahar Lal Wadhwa and another, entered into a sale and construction agreement with the respondent, Haripada Chakrobarty, involving monthly instalments and a construction contract. The respondent later repudiated the agreement, leading to a dispute over possession of the property and the applicability o

UNITED OFFSET PROCESS PVT. LTD.versusASSTT. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY AND ORS.

1988 INSC 32314 October 1988Case Allowed

United Offset imported a Colour Scanner Chromagraph C‑299 and initially cleared it under tariff heading 84.35 as "other printing machinery". The Assistant Collector later re‑assessed the goods under heading 90.25(i) and subsequently issued a demand for additional duty, claiming the scanner fell under heading 90.10. The

SMT. KAMLABAI & ORS.versusMANGILAL DULICHAND MANTRI

1987 INSC 28114 October 1987Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, landlords, sought to evict the respondent tenant under Clause 13 of the C.P. & Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, but the tenant had surrendered the lease by mutual compromise and arbitration agreements. The Supreme Court held that Clause 13 restricts only the landlord’s right to term

MANEKLAL AND SONSversusTRUSTEES OF PORT OF BOMBAY & ORS.

1987 INSC 28214 October 1987Dismissed

The Trustees of the Port of Bombay, a local authority, leased a plot to Mustafa Husein in 1945 on a monthly tenancy and he erected a permanent godown. In 1958 Husein sub‑let the godown to Maneklal & Sons, who thereafter occupied it. The Trustees obtained a decree for eviction against Husein’s heirs, but the sub‑lessees

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARHversusPUNJAB ANAND LAMP INDUSTRIES MOHALI (PUNJAB)

1989 INSC 27814 September 1989Dismissed

Punjab Anand Lamp Industries manufactured printed sleeves for packing electric bulbs and tube lights. The Collector of Central Excise classified these sleeves as items under Tariff Item 17(3) and demanded excise duty. The Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal held that the sleeves could not be described a

MAHALAKSHMI OIL MILLS ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

1988 INSC 27914 September 1988Dismissed

Mahalaxmi Oil Mills and other assessees claimed that tobacco seed oil and tobacco seed cake were exempt from sales tax under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, which exempts "tobacco and all its products". The State of Andhra Pradesh contended that the definition of "tobacco" in the Act, mirro

RAJ KUMAR DEY AND OTHERSversusTARAPADA DEY AND OTHERS

1987 INSC 24814 September 1987

The appellants and respondent entered into a partition agreement which was referred to arbitration; the arbitrators rendered an award on 28 November 1977. The award was filed in court on 28 January 1978 and an interim injunction was issued on 26 July 1978, keeping the award in the court's custody until the injunction w

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, U.P.versusSHAH SADIQ AND SONS.

1987 INSC 10814 April 1987Dismissed

Shah Sadiq & Sons, a partnership firm registered under the Income Tax Act, incurred speculation losses of Rs 60,054 in AY 1960‑61 and Rs 6,839 in AY 1961‑62 and claimed to set them off against a profit of Rs 58,102 in AY 1962‑63. The Income‑Tax Officer rejected the claim, holding that, for a registered firm, losses cou

M.K. HARIHAR IYERversusAUTHORISED OFFICER LAND REFORMS, TIRUNELVELI

1990 INSC 3614 February 1990Dismissed

M.K. Iyer, a landowner in Kanyakumari district, held more than 30 standard acres and filed a return under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961. The Authorised Officer determined his family size and allowed him 30 acres plus stridhana for his wife and daughter, prompting Iyer to appeal. Wh

PRABHA MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETYversusBANWARI LAI

1989 INSC 5614 February 1989Dismissed

The Prabha Manufacturing Industrial Co‑operative Society was allotted an "industrial plot" with a self‑constructed shed by the Custodian of Evacuee Property in 1949. The Society later sought a permanent allotment, but the Custodian sold the land at auction in 1960 to the predecessor of Banwari Lal. The Society challeng

SUDARSAN TRADING CO.versusGOVT. OF KERALA & ANR.

1989 INSC 5714 February 1989Appeal(s) allowed

Sudarsan Trading Co. entered into a construction contract with the Government of Kerala which was later cancelled, leading the parties to refer their disputes to the arbitrator named in the agreement. The arbitrator issued three non‑speaking awards granting the contractor claims totalling Rs.31.15 lakhs, without provid

COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD.versusCHEMPHAR DRUGS & LINIMENTS, HYDERABAD.

1989 INSC 5914 February 1989Dismissed

The respondent, ChempHar Drugs, manufactured patent and proprietary medicines and pharmacopoeia preparations and claimed exemption from excise duty under Notification 71/78, but omitted the value of goods falling under Tariff Item 68 in its declaration. The Collector issued a show‑cause notice and demanded duty for the

KHALIL AHMED BASHIR AHMEDversusTUFELHUSSEIN SAMASBHAI SARANGPURWALA

1987 INSC 33413 November 1987Dismissed

The appellant, originally a monthly tenant, executed a written "leave and licence" agreement with the respondent (licensor) granting the appellant use of workshop premises for five years at a fixed licence fee, subject to numerous restrictions such as limited hours of use, prohibition of residential use, and the licens

SMT. ARATI DUTTAversusEASTERN TEA ESTATE (P) LTD.

1987 INSC 33513 November 1987Disposed off

The appellant filed a petition under Sections 397, 398 and 403 of the Companies Act, 1956 seeking determination of liabilities of Eastern Tea Estate (P) Ltd. The parties compromised, agreeing that no auditor would be appointed and that the Court would decide liability based on the 1973 balance sheet. A Single Judge of

CHHETRIYA PARDUSHAN MUKTI SANGHARSH SAMITIversusSTATE OF U.P AND ORS.

1990 INSC 23013 August 1990Dismissed

The Chhetriya Pardushan Mukti Sangharsh Samiti filed a letter alleging that an oil mill and a refinery in the Sarnath area were causing severe air and water pollution, leading to health hazards and ecological damage, and treated the letter as a writ petition under Article 32. The respondents, including the State of U.P

KRISHENA KUMAR AND ANR. ETC. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1990 INSC 20113 July 1990Dismissed

The petitioners, retired railway employees who had opted for the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) scheme, challenged twelve Railway Board notifications that allowed certain CPF retirees, after specified cut‑off dates, to switch to the pension scheme while denying the same option to other similarly situated retirees. T

R.N. KUMARversusR.K. SORAL

1988 INSC 10513 April 1988Dismissed

The petitioner and respondent entered into a film distribution agreement on 19 March 1983 that contained an arbitration clause. On 11 March 1985 they executed a second agreement in which the respondent promised to pay Rs 6.5 lakhs and the petitioner would surrender his distribution rights, purportedly cancelling the 19

SHRI SITARAM SUGAR COMPANY LIMITED & ANR. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

1990 INSC 8213 March 1990Dismissed

The petitioners, owners of sugar mills in Uttar Pradesh, challenged the Central Government's notifications fixing levy‑sugar prices on a zonal basis under Section 3(3‑C) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, alleging that the price‑fixation was arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14. The Court examined

COMMISSIONER OF EXCESS PROFIT TAX, KANPURversusKALYAN MAL PHOOL CHAND, NAGAR GANJ, KANPUR

1987 INSC 7613 March 1987Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Commissioner of Excess Profit Tax, Kanpur, challenged the High Court's order allowing the assessee, Kalyan Mal Phool Chand, to set off deficiencies of profit for the periods 28 Oct 1940‑31 Mar 1941 and 23 Nov 1942‑31 Mar 1943 against profits of the chargeable accounting period 1 Apr 1943‑31 Mar 1944 unde

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANKversusP.K. MITTAL

1989 INSC 5313 February 1989Dismissed

P.K. Mittal, a permanent officer of Punjab National Bank, submitted a resignation on 21 January 1986, giving three months' notice and specifying that it would take effect on 30 June 1986. The bank, however, accepted his resignation on 7 February 1986, waiving the notice period and relieving him immediately. Mittal file

S. APPUKUTTANversusTHUNDIYIL JANAKI AMMA & ANR.

1988 INSC 1113 January 1988Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined whether Explanation II‑A to clause (25) of Section 2 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964 (as amended by Act 17 of 1972) confers Kudikidappu rights on any person who occupied a homestead or hut between 16 August 1968 and 31 January 1970, irrespective of proof of initial permission. The Court

SATYA NARAIN PANDEYversusSTATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

1988 INSC 1213 January 1988Dismissed

The landlords of Prem Talkies obtained vacant possession of the building in 1984 and later intended to let it out as a fully equipped cinema theatre to the Mehrotras. The appellant, Satya Narain Pandey, applied for allotment of the building under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act,

SHALIMAR TAR PRODUCTS LTD.versusH.C. SHARMA & ORS.

1987 INSC 33012 November 1987Dismissed

The landlord sought eviction of Shalimar Tar Products Ltd., the tenant, alleging that the tenant had sub-let part of the premises to R.C. Abrol & Co. without the landlord's written consent as required by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The tenant contended that no notice to quit was served, that no sub‑letting occurr

STATE OF KERALA & ANOTHERversusNILGIRI TEA ESTATES LTD.

1987 INSC 27812 October 1987Dismissed

The State of Kerala sought to have eucalyptus plantations in a tea estate declared private forest under Section 2(f) of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971, so that the land would vest in the Government. The respondent, Nilgiri Tea Estates Ltd., argued that the trees were planted solely as fue

BAKHSHISH SINGH BRARversusSMT. GURMEJ KAUR AND ANR.

1987 INSC 27912 October 1987Dismissed

The petitioner, a police officer, was charged with several offences including murder and grievous hurt arising from a raid. He argued that under Section 196 of the Criminal Procedure Code the court could not take cognizance or proceed with trial without a sanction under Section 197, which protects public servants actin

SHROFF & CO., ETC.versusMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY AND ANOTHER, ETC.

1988 INSC 22212 August 1988Dismissed

Shroff & Co., a partnership dealing in wines and spirits, imported liquor into Bombay and stored it in a bonded warehouse under the Maharashtra Foreign Liquor (Storage in Bond) Rules. The appellants challenged the inclusion of countervailing duty in the assessable value for octroi, arguing that the duty was not incurre

JOGINDER KUMAR BUTANversusR.P. OBEROI

1987 INSC 20812 August 1987Dismissed

The respondent, a government official residing in government quarters, obtained permission under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 to let a portion of his house to the appellant for 18 months. After the lease term expired, the appellant refused to vacate and the respondent filed an execution application, w

DABUR INDIA LTD. AND ANR.versusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.

1990 INSC 19712 July 1990Disposed off

M/s Dabur India Ltd. manufactured a homeopathic toothpaste called Homeodent for M/s Sharda Boiron Laboratories between 1985 and 1988 and paid excise duty under the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The State Excise authorities later claimed that Homeodent contained alcohol (through mother‑tincture) and therefore attrac

INDO- ADEN SALT MFG. & TRADING CO. PVT. LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY

1986 INSC 3612 March 1986Dismissed

Indo‑Aden Salt Manufacturing & Trading Co. Ltd. had taken over a partnership business and claimed depreciation on assets assuming they were masonry works. Later it was discovered that the majority of the assets were earth works, making the claimed 6% depreciation inappropriate. The Income Tax Officer reopened the asses

N. SATYANARAYANAversusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

1986 INSC 3812 March 1986Dismissed

M. Satyanarayana, a meritorious student, applied for admission to the MBBS first year under the special category for sons of political sufferers/freedom fighters as defined in Rule 4(iii) of the Karnataka Medical Colleges (Selection of Candidates for Admission) Rules, 1984. His father had participated in the 1942 movem

DOYPACK SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS., ETC.

1988 INSC 4212 February 1988Disposed off

The Supreme Court considered multiple suits and special leave petitions concerning whether 10,00,000 shares in Swadeshi Polytex Ltd. and 17,18,344 shares in Swadeshi Mining & Manufacturing Ltd., held by Swadeshi Cotton Mills, along with certain immovable properties in Kanpur, vested in the Central Government under Sect

SALES TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 MORADABAD AND 2 ORS.versusORIENTAL COAL CORPORATION MORADABAD.

1988 INSC 412 January 1988Dismissed

The Oriental Coal Corporation, an unregistered coal dealer, was assessed to central sales tax for the years 1967-68 and 1968-69. The Allahabad High Court set aside the assessment, holding that Section 9 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 imposed tax liability only on registered dealers. The State appealed, contending t

YUDHISHTERversusASHOK KUMAR

1986 INSC 26511 December 1986Dismissed

The appellant, Yudhishter, had been in possession of a residential premises since 1962. The respondent landlord, Ashok Kumar, purchased the premises in 1971 and later filed an eviction petition in 1974 under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, claiming a bona‑fide requirement for his own occupat

R.S DASS ETC. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

1986 INSC 26611 December 1986Dismissed

Three officers of the Punjab State Civil Service claimed that they were superseded in the 1978, 1979, 1980 and 1983 IAS promotion Select Lists because junior officers were included while they were omitted, and that the Selection Committee failed to record reasons for supersession, violating Articles 14 and 16 and princ

AMBICA QUARRY WORKS & ANR.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

1986 INSC 26711 December 1986Dismissed

Ambica Quarry Works and others held quarry leases for minor minerals that were granted before the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 came into force. After the Act, they applied for renewal of these leases under Rule 18 of the Gujarat Minor Mineral Rules, 1966, but the applications were rejected because the lands were cla

NATIONAL ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LIMITEDversusSHRI SHRI KISHAN BHAGERIA & OTHERS

1987 INSC 32811 November 1987Dismissed

The appellant, National Engineering Industries Ltd., dismissed Shri Kishan Bhageria, an internal auditor, after alleging unauthorised absence. Bhageria claimed salary arrears under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the employer contended that he was not a “workman” within the meaning of section 2

YADLAPATI VENKATESWARLUversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANR.

1990 INSC 27311 September 1990Dismissed

The Vijayawada Municipal Council originally levied property tax under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Areas) District Municipalities Act, 1920. After the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 repealed the old Act, the State Government issued several General Orders directing the council to levy tax under the new Act, later

RASHPAL MALHOTRAversusMRS. SATYA RAJPUT AND ANOTHER

1987 INSC 24711 September 1987Dismissed

The landlady (respondent No.1) leased a house in Chandigarh to Haryana Milk Food Corporation (respondent No.2) for the residence of its General Manager, R.P. Malhotra, who signed the lease on behalf of the corporation. After Malhotra left the corporation, the landlady stopped accepting rent and filed an eviction suit u

S.K. CHAKRABORTHY AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

1988 INSC 17211 July 1988Dismissed

The petitioners, 75 employees of the Production Control Organisation (PCO) at Kharagpur Railway Workshop, challenged a 1979 memorandum that declared their posts ex‑cadre, alleging that it infringed vested rights and amounted to hostile discrimination compared with the PCO at the Integral Coach Factory (ICF) where posts

JAGAN NATH (DECEASED) THROUGH L.RS.versusCHANDER BHAN AND 0THERS

1988 INSC 16711 May 1988Appeal(s) allowed

The landlord sought eviction of the tenant under sections 14(1)(a) and 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, alleging that the tenant had part‑ended possession of a residential‑cum‑commercial premises by allowing his sons to run a tent‑house business there. The tenant contended that he retained exclusive legal

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTAversusSUN INDUSTRIES

1988 INSC 10311 April 1988Dismissed

Sun Industries shipped plywood panels from Calcutta to Colombo and claimed drawback under Section 75 of the Customs Act. The vessel developed engine trouble, returned, and ran aground in Indian territorial waters, after which the cargo was salvaged. The Assistant Collector and Appellate Collector rejected the drawback

STATE OF UITAR PRADESH & ORS.versusRADHEY SHYAM NIGAM & ORS. ETC. ETC.

1989 INSC 711 January 1989Dismissed

The State of Uttar Pradesh sought to acquire land for a market yard under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, issuing a Section 4 notification and a Section 6 declaration on the same day after the 1984 amendment. The landowners challenged the simultaneous issuance, arguing that the amendment to Section 17(4) required the d

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIAversusSURENDRA, DEVENDRA & MOHENDRA TRANSPORT CO.

1987 INSC 37110 December 1987Disposed off

The Food Corporation of India (appellant) hired Sureendra, Devendra & Mohendra Transport Co. (respondent) as a transport contractor under three written agreements. Disputes over demurrage, wharfage and shortage charges were referred to an arbitrator pursuant to an arbitration clause. The arbitrator reduced the appellan

RAM NATH AND OTHERSversusDY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND OTHERS

1987 INSC 31810 November 1987Dismissed

The appellants challenged the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation that evicted them from land, invoking Section 209 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The Allahabad High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that the respondents had been in possession since May 1958 and that the six‑year limi

WAZID ALI ABID ALI, ETC.versusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW, ETC.

1987 INSC 32310 November 1987Case Partly allowed

The case concerned two registered partnership firms in which a partner died during the previous year. In the first firm, the partnership deed expressly provided that the firm would not dissolve on a partner's death, and the deceased partner's son was admitted as a new partner without executing a fresh deed. The Supreme

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search