Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: income tax act Court: supreme court of india Year: 1999 Page 19 of about 188 results (0.108 seconds)

Apr 06 1999 (SC)

V.M. Chandra Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-06-1999

Reported in : AIR1999SC1624; [1999(82)FLR288]; JT1999(2)SC594; (1999)IILLJ497SC; 1999(2)SCALE448; (1999)4SCC62

orders. rajendra babu, j.1. the appellant before us was initially engaged as a technical mate on a dally rate of rs. 6.70 with effect from august 23, 1976 and thereafter at the daily rate which varied from rs. 6.70 to rs. 15.40. form time to time her services were utilised as technical mate as the required qualification is a diploma passed or failed. she was continued in service and she was declared to have attained temporary status in 1981. when the appellant represented that she had not been conferred with temporary status in group 'c the chief engineer took the view that the appellant was not entitled to be employed in group 'c. thereafter an application was presented to the central administrative tribunal, ernakulam bench [hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal'] seeking the relief of absorption in group 'c. the tribunal set aside the action of the chief engineer and remitted the matter to the concerned authorities. again the decision was rendered against the appellant and she approached the tribunal. on this occasion the tribunal directed the chairman of the railway board to examine this matter and give appropriate relief. the chairman of the railway board stated as under :there are no category of posts designated as technical mates on the railways....zonal railways have to power to introduce any new designation/category of posts. further, designation are meant to describe the incumbents of posts in regular scales. casual labourers who do not hold any post are not to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 27 1999 (SC)

Jagdish Yadav Vs. State of Bihar

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jan-27-1999

Reported in : 1999(1)BLJR643; JT1999(1)SC439; 1999(1)SCALE440; (1999)9SCC99

ordernanavati, j.1. the appellant has been convicted under section 396 of the indian penal code and sentenced to death. he has filed this appeal against the order of sentence only in view of the limited leave granted by this court.2. what the prosecution has been able to prove is that during the night between first and second of june, 1989, the appellant along with 30 to 40 other dacoits committed dacoity in the house of deceased dhaneshwar, that the dacoits killed dhaneshwar, surendra, awadhesh, kharha and kanhai and also set on fire some of the articles belonging to the family of the deceased. in all 24 accused were put up for trial out of whom 13 were acquitted by the trial court. the other accused were convicted under section 396 and out of them only appellant jagdish was sentenced to death. all others were awarded sentence of life imprisonment. the high court agreed with the findings recorded by the trial court after re-appreciating the evidence and, dismissed the appeals and accepted the death reference. while confirming the death sentence the high court observed as under:in the case before me, it has already been noticed that there are so many as six eye witnesses, including the informant, who have categorically stated that this appellant shot at two innocent and unarmed persons from a close granted by rifle with a full determination to commit their murder.... for the reasons stated above, i have no option but to confirm the death penalty against appellant jagdish .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 03 1999 (SC)

Tobacco Board Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-03-1999

Reported in : (2000)160CTR(SC)527; [2000]243ITR4(SC); 1999(2)MPLJ168; (2000)10SCC522

1. leave granted.2. the appellant filed a writ petition in the high court of madras seeking a mandamus to the chief engineer, madras port trust - respondent herein to accept the community certificate of the appellant dated 10.3.1987, issued by the tehsildar, mambalam, for the purpose of his appointment as a mazdoor in the madras port trust. it appears that the appellant was called for an interview for appointment to the post of mazdoor by the respondent by the letter dated 19th august, 1995 and subsequently he was called to appear for an interview on 17th november, 1995 together with all the testimonials and certificates. the appellant appeared before the respondent and produced the relevant documents including the community certificate issued by the tehsildar, mambalam, madras, dated 10.3.1987. that certificate was not acceptable by the port trust and on 20th november, 1995, the respondent-port trust required the appellant to produce 'latest original community certificate' from the revenue divisional officer. the request of the appellant to accept the certificate issued by the tehsildar in 1987 and not to insist upon the production of a fresh certificate from the revenue divisional officer was turned down and the appellant was told that if he did not produce the certificate from the revenue divisional officer on or before 30th december, 1995, his name would be left out of consideration for appointment. the appellant at that stage approached the high court. a learned single .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 05 1999 (SC)

Sneha Dutta (Smt) and anr. Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corpn. and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-05-1999

Reported in : I(2000)ACC404; 1999ACJ1589; AIR2000SC201; JT1999(9)SC168; (1999)123PLR372; (1999)5SCC169

order1. leave granted.2. we have heard learned counsel for the parties.3. in our view, the appropriate award of compensation to the heirs of the deceased who died during a motor accident would work out at least up to rs. 4 lacs in all instead of rs. 2,75,000/- as awarded by the high court by reducing figure of rs. 5,60,000/- as awarded by the trial court. the reason is obvious. the appellants' breadwinner who died because of the unfortunate accident, was drawing a monthly salary of rs. 4,000/- as held by the tribunal. even deducting an amount of rs. 1,500/-, rs. 2,500/- would have been the economic benefit available to the heirs of the deceased and if the deceased had survived the rest of the earning career, he would have made available to his dependents at least rs. 5,000/- per month. adding rs. 5,000/-to rs. 2,500/- the total would work out to rs. 7,500/-. reducing it to 1/2 over years the average economic loss to the dependents would work out to rs. 3,500/- per month and even deducting rs. 500/- therefrom as personal expenses of the deceased, rs. 3,000/- would have been available to the appellants per month and multiplying by 12 the annual economic benefit would work out at rs. 36.000/- and considering the remaining earning years of the deceased had he survived multiplier of 12 would yield at least rs. 4 lacs as total compensation if not more. considering all these aspects of the matter, therefore, the appellants shall be entitled to an additional sum of rs. 1,25,000/-. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 30 1999 (SC)

State of Jandk Vs. Shiv Ram Sharma and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Mar-30-1999

Reported in : AIR1999SC2012; [1999(82)FLR93]; JT1999(2)SC483; (1999)ILLJ1080SC; 1999(2)SCALE325; (1999)3SCC653; [1999]2SCR251; 1999(2)LC1108(SC)

s. rajendra babu, j.1. leave granted.2. respondents filed writ petitions in the high court of jammu & kashmir seeking quashing of the rules published vide notification no. sro: 328 dated november 22, 1992 to the extent it related to qualification bar in class-a categories i & ii and for further direction to fill up the posts on the basis of seniority irrespective of qualifications. respondent nos. 1 and 2 were initially appointed as rig-man in the months of march, 1967 and november, 1967 respectively. respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 were initially appointed as boring mistry, grade ii in february, 1984, july, 1984 and january, 1984 respectively. respondent nos. 1 and 2 were promoted in the month of february, 1983 from the post of rig-man which was later on re-designated as boring-mistry, grade i and again re-designated as drill operator, grade i in the year 1990. respondent nos. 3,4 and 5 were working on the post of drill operator, grade ii. on november 22, 1990 rules were promulgated under section 124 of the constitution of jammu and kashmir styled as 'jammu & kashmir geology and mining (subordinate) service recruitment rules, 1990'. the rules were to come into force from the date of their publication in the government gazette, which, it is said, was done on november 22, 1990. under these rules, the requisite qualification for promotion of a drilling assistant was prescribed as matriculation with five years service as boring mistry, grade i or drill operator, grade i. for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 29 1999 (SC)

S.M. Bawankar Vs. the Chief Officer, Municipal Council Tumsar and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-29-1999

Reported in : AIR1999SC1964; JT1999(3)SC295; 1999(3)SCALE73; (1999)9SCC184; 1999(2)LC960(SC); (1999)3UPLBEC1961

ordersethi, j.1. the appellant claims to have been appointed as head mistress on the basis of her seniority in the high schools on 25.9.1990. respondent no. 4 is stated to have been appointed as assistant head master on 5.10.1990. the president of the respondent-municipal council issued the orders for promotion of the appellant as head mistress on 13.7.1993. respondent no. 4 filed a petition under article 226 of the constitution of india praying for issuance of an appropriate writ setting aside the order dated 13.7.1993 by which the appellant was promoted as head mistress with a further direction to the chief officer of the municipal council to appoint him as head master of the municipal nehru high school, tumsar. the writ petition was allowed vide the order impugned on the ground of the respondent no. 4 allegedly being senior.2. it is not in dispute that the seniority is a relevant term which has reference to the class, category or grade regarding which an issue is raised. a perusal of annexure r-1 would show that the appellant had joined the school on 23.7.1957 whereas respondent no. 4 was employed on 20.8.1959. the appellant is shown to have appointed in the high school in the year 1959 whereas respondent no. 4 on 16.7.1962. it is also on record that the appellant had rendered services to teach high school classes from 1959 prior to her substantive appointment on 4.9.1968. the municipal council, tumsar, the employer of the contending parties in its resolution annexure 'b' .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 20 1999 (SC)

Chief Engineer, Irrigation and Flood Control Department Vs. J.S. Ramth ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-20-1999

Reported in : (2000)10SCC276

the text below is only a summarized version of the order pronouncedthe disputed question of fact has to be resolved by a division bench of the high court after arriving at a clear finding on hearing the parties as to when the possession of the acquired land of the respondent was in fact taken by the appellant and then decide the claim of interest put forward by the respondents. the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed to the limited extent. the writ appeal no. 40 of 1997 is restored to the file of the gauhati high court, imphal bench.

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 20 1999 (SC)

Mohd. Zahid Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-20-1999

Reported in : AIR1999SC2416; 1999(2)ALD(Cri)328; 1999CriLJ3699; JT1999(5)SC5; 1999(4)SCALE173; (1999)6SCC120; 1999(2)LC1294(SC)

ordersantosh hegde, j.1. the appellant in the above appeal was charged with an offence punishable under section 302 i.p.c. before the vith additional sessions judge, madras in s.c. no. 83/86 who found him guilty of the said offence and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. his appeal before the division bench of the madras high court in criminal appeal no. 1054 of 1986 came to be dismissed and he is now in appeal before us by special leave.2. the prosecution case stated briefly against the appellant is that he was married to one jabeena on 29th january, 1-984 and after the marriage for some time they resided in an independent house. in the year 1985, jabeena gave birth to a make child in her parents house and thereafter the appellant came to live in the house of his father-in-law mohd. ahamed (pw-1) in the house bearing door no. 22, 11th avenue, ashok nagar, madras. the said house contained one bed room in the ground floor which was occupied by pw-l's elder daughter and her husband. out of the four bed rooms on the first floor, one bed room was occupied by pw-1 and his wife, the second bed room next to that was occupied by the appellant and jabeena with their child, the third bed room was occupied by two unmarried sons of pw-1 and the fourth bed room was lying vacant.3. on 27-12-1985 at about 6.00 a.m. the wife of p.w. 1, by name maliga ahamed, (pw-3) heard the continuous cries of jabeena's child, hence, she came to the room of the appellant and knocked on the door .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //