|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 237 Records
-
1983 (3) TMI 316
Issues:
Bail application based on calculation of 90-day period under Section 167(2) of Cr. P. C.
Merits of the bail application regarding delay in identification parade and seizure of cash and ornaments.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Calculation of 90-day period under Section 167(2) of Cr. P. C.
The judgment addresses the calculation of the 90-day period under Section 167(2) of the Cr. P. C. The proviso to Section 167(2) mandates that if the challan is not filed within 90 days, the accused must be released on bail. The court refers to Section 9 of the General Clauses Act and Section 12 of the Limitation Act to interpret the calculation of time. Various High Courts have interpreted the exclusion or inclusion of certain days in the calculation of time for different legal provisions. The judgment cites cases from Andhra Pradesh, Patna, Delhi, Punjab, and Haryana High Courts to establish the correct method of calculating the 90-day period. The court concludes that in the present case, excluding the date of arrest, the filing of the challan on the 90th day does not entitle the applicants to bail under the proviso to Section 167(2).
Issue 2: Merits of the bail application
The judgment also delves into the merits of the bail application, focusing on the delay in the identification parade and the seizure of cash and ornaments. The applicants argued that there was undue delay in the identification parade and that the seized cash and ornaments were of common use and not connected to the dacoity. However, the court notes that there is a prima facie case showing the involvement of the applicants in the dacoity, as they were identified and stolen ornaments were recovered from each of them. The court emphasizes that at the bail stage, the question of proper identification or the connection of recovered property with the offense will be examined during the trial. Ultimately, the court rejects the bail applications, stating that there are sufficient grounds to show the involvement of the applicants in the dacoity, and no new grounds have been presented to warrant reconsideration.
In conclusion, the judgment dismisses the bail applications based on both the calculation of the 90-day period under Section 167(2) of the Cr. P. C. and the merits of the bail application concerning delay in the identification parade and the seizure of cash and ornaments. The court finds that the applicants failed to establish grounds for their release on bail, considering the evidence and circumstances presented in the case.
-
1983 (3) TMI 315
Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with Section 117(1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, and Rule 8 of the Madras High Court (Election Petitions) Rules, 1967.
2. Compliance with Section 81(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, regarding the non-supply of a photograph.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Compliance with Section 117(1) and Rule 8:
The first issue pertains to whether the election petition was liable to be dismissed in limine due to non-compliance with the requirements of Section 117(1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, read with Rule 8 of the Madras High Court (Election Petitions) Rules, 1967.
- Facts and Procedural History: The respondent filed an election petition challenging the appellant's election, accompanied by a pre-receipted challan showing a deposit of Rs. 2,000 as security for costs. The appellant contended that the petition should be dismissed due to non-compliance with Section 117(1) and Rule 8, as the deposit was not made in cash directly to the High Court but through the Reserve Bank of India.
- High Court's Findings: The High Court held that although the deposit was not made in strict compliance with Rule 8, there was substantial compliance since the amount was deposited to the credit of the Registrar, High Court, within the stipulated time.
- Supreme Court's Analysis: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's view, stating that the requirement of making a deposit of Rs. 2,000 as security for costs is mandatory, but the manner of making such a deposit is directory. The Court emphasized that substantial compliance with the procedural requirements is sufficient, citing the principle that procedural law should not defeat the ends of justice. The Court referred to previous decisions, including K. Kamaraja Nadar v. Kunju Thevar, where it was held that substantial compliance with Section 117 is sufficient.
- Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that there was substantial compliance with Section 117(1) and Rule 8, as the deposit was made to the credit of the Registrar, High Court, in the Reserve Bank of India.
2. Compliance with Section 81(3) Regarding Non-Supply of a Photograph:
The second issue concerns whether the election petition was liable to be dismissed for non-compliance with Section 81(3) due to the non-supply of a photograph referred to in the petition.
- Facts and Procedural History: The respondent alleged that the appellant committed corrupt practices by incurring unauthorized election expenses, including erecting fancy banners. A photograph of one such banner was filed with the petition but was not supplied to the appellant.
- High Court's Findings: The High Court held that the photograph was merely a piece of evidence and not an integral part of the election petition. Therefore, failure to supply a copy of the photograph did not amount to a breach of Section 81(3).
- Supreme Court's Analysis: The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court, stating that the photograph was an integral part of the averments in paragraph 18(b) of the petition. The Court emphasized that the photograph provided a visual description essential to the allegations of corrupt practice. The Court held that non-compliance with Section 81(3) was fatal, as it amounted to a total and complete non-compliance with the statutory requirements.
- Conclusion: The Supreme Court held that the failure to supply a copy of the photograph amounted to non-compliance with Section 81(3), making the election petition liable to be dismissed under Section 86(1).
Judgment:
The Supreme Court dismissed all appeals and special leave petitions except Civil Appeal No. 38 (NCE) of 1981. For Civil Appeal No. 38 (NCE) of 1981, the Court upheld the High Court's finding of substantial compliance with Section 117(1) but reversed the High Court's decision regarding the non-supply of the photograph, holding that the election petition must be dismissed for non-compliance with Section 81(3). The Court directed the High Court to permit the appellant to withdraw the recrimination petition filed under Section 97 of the Act. The costs were to be borne by the parties as incurred.
-
1983 (3) TMI 314
Issues:
Limitation period for filing a petition for probate or letters of administration after the deceased's death.
Analysis:
The judgment addresses the issue of limitation in filing a petition for probate or letters of administration after the death of the deceased. The respondent argued that the petition was time-barred under Art. 37 of the Limitation Act, as it was not filed within 3 years from the date of the deceased's death. However, the court disagreed with this contention, explaining that the Limitation Act does not specify a time limit for such applications. The court highlighted that the right to apply for probate or letters of administration is a continuous right that can be exercised as long as the trust exists or remains to be executed. The court emphasized that the right to apply does not necessarily accrue on the date of the deceased's death, and the 3-year period is not an absolute bar of limitation. The delay in filing the application must be explained, and suspicion may arise with longer delays, but once execution and attestation of the will are proved, the suspicion of delay no longer applies.
The court rejected the argument that the right to apply necessarily accrues on the date of the deceased's death, emphasizing that such applications are for seeking the court's permission to carry out duties under a will or as a testamentary trustee. The court clarified that the right to apply can be exercised at any time after the death of the deceased, as long as the right exists. The judgment cited cases to support the view that delay in filing the application must be justified, and the reason for delay needs to be explained satisfactorily. The court highlighted that delay does not equate to an absolute bar of limitation, and the necessity to apply may arise beyond 3 years from the deceased's death, requiring explanation to the court's satisfaction.
In conclusion, the court summarized that there is no prescribed period within which an application for probate or letters of administration must be made after the deceased's death. The judgment clarified that the right to apply for such purposes is a continuous right that can be exercised as long as the trust exists, and the necessity to apply may arise at any time after the death of the deceased. The court emphasized the need to explain delays in filing such applications and distinguished between delay and the absolute bar of limitation. The judgment provides a comprehensive analysis of the limitation period for filing petitions related to probate or letters of administration after the death of the deceased.
-
1983 (3) TMI 313
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of restrictions on the powers of Second Appellate Courts under Section 36 of the M.B. Land Revenue & Tenancy Act.
2. Whether the Hindi version of the Act can be referred to for interpretation.
3. Validity of the doctrine of 'stare decisis' in this context.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Applicability of Restrictions on the Powers of Second Appellate Courts under Section 36 of the M.B. Land Revenue & Tenancy Act:
The primary issue was whether the restrictions placed on the powers of Second Appellate Courts under Section 36 of the M.B. Land Revenue & Tenancy Act apply only to second appeals filed before the Board of Revenue or also to those filed before the Commissioner and the Settlement Commissioner. The petitioners argued that the restrictions were applicable only to the Board of Revenue. The Court examined the Hindi and English versions of Section 36, noting that the Hindi version clearly indicated that the restrictions applied to all second appeals, irrespective of the forum. The Court concluded that the restrictions placed on the powers of the second appellate Court under Section 36 apply not only to second appeals preferred before the Board of Revenue but also to second appeals preferred before the Commissioner and Settlement Commissioner.
2. Whether the Hindi Version of the Act Can Be Referred to for Interpretation:
The petitioners contended that it was not permissible to refer to the Hindi version of the Act, arguing that the English translation published in the Gazette was the authoritative text. The Court referred to the M.B. Official Language Act, which mandated that all Acts passed by the Legislature of Madhya Bharat should be in Hindi, with an authoritative English text published in accordance with Article 348(3) of the Constitution of India. The Court cited precedents from the Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court, which held that when Hindi has been adopted as the legislative language, both Hindi and English versions are authoritative, and it is permissible to rely on the Hindi version in case of doubt. Therefore, the Court upheld the contention that the Hindi version of the Act could be referred to for interpretation.
3. Validity of the Doctrine of 'Stare Decisis' in This Context:
The petitioners urged that the decision in Prabhudayal v. State (1964 Rn 262) should not be disturbed based on the doctrine of 'stare decisis'. The Court noted that the doctrine of 'stare decisis' does not preclude reconsideration of an interpretation that started as an unexamined assumption. The Court observed that the decision in 1964 Rn 262 was given in ignorance of the Hindi version of the Statute and was based on an unexamined assumption. The doctrine of 'stare decisis' is invoked to prevent serious embarrassment for those who have relied on a particular interpretation of a statute, but in this case, the interpretation of Section 36 concerns the powers of a second appellate Court and would not cause serious embarrassment. Consequently, the doctrine of 'stare decisis' was not applicable in this context.
Conclusion:
The Full Bench concluded that the restrictions placed on the powers of the second appellate Court under Section 36 of the M.B. Land Revenue & Tenancy Act apply to all second appeals, irrespective of whether they are filed before the Board of Revenue, the Commissioner, or the Settlement Commissioner. The case was remanded to the learned single Judge for disposal in accordance with this interpretation.
-
1983 (3) TMI 312
Issues Involved:
1. Vacation of ex parte ad interim injunction.
2. Reference to arbitration under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act.
3. Non-performance of the franchise agreement.
4. Grant of injunction under Section 41(e) read with Section 14(a) and (c) of the Specific Relief Act.
5. Applicability of Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act.
6. Determinability of the contract.
7. Balance of convenience and irreparable loss.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Vacation of Ex Parte Ad Interim Injunction:
On 8th March 1983, the court allowed I.A. No. 793 of 1983 filed by the defendant under Order 39, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking the vacation of the ex parte ad interim injunction passed on 16th February 1983. Consequently, the plaintiff's application, I.A. No. 719 of 1983, was dismissed.
2. Reference to Arbitration Under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act:
The plaintiff, Modern Food Industries Ltd., sought to file the original arbitration agreement in court and refer the disputes to arbitration as per the arbitration clause in the contract with the respondent, M/s. Shri Krishna Bottlers Pvt. Ltd. The disputes, as mentioned in para 16 of the petition, included the respondent's refusal to manufacture the plaintiff's products, leading to a claimed loss of Rs. 60 lakhs.
3. Non-Performance of the Franchise Agreement:
The plaintiff alleged that the respondent failed to bottle and market the soft drink '77' and instead entered into an agreement with another company, M/s. McDowell Company, to bottle and market their product 'Thril', which was similar in flavor and taste to '77'. The plaintiff claimed that this contravened the agreement dated 17th March 1982, which prohibited the respondent from dealing with any other similar product without written permission.
4. Grant of Injunction Under Section 41(e) Read with Section 14(a) and (c) of the Specific Relief Act:
The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the injunction sought could not be granted under Section 41(e) read with Section 14(a) and (c) of the Specific Relief Act. The court noted that the dispute regarding the non-performance of the negative agreement was not explicitly mentioned in para 16 of the main petition, but for the purpose of deciding the applications, it was presumed that such a dispute existed.
5. Applicability of Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act:
The plaintiff argued that the contract included a negative agreement not to manufacture or bottle any other soft drink except 'Nova Cola' for one year. Under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, the plaintiff sought an injunction to restrain the respondent from manufacturing and marketing 'Thril'. The court considered whether the enforcement of the negative stipulation was reasonably necessary for the protection of the plaintiff's legitimate interests.
6. Determinability of the Contract:
The respondent contended that the contract was determinable under clause 21, which allowed either party to terminate the agreement with prior notice. The respondent had already served a six-month notice of termination on the plaintiff on 28th February 1983. The court acknowledged that the contract was indeed determinable.
7. Balance of Convenience and Irreparable Loss:
The court assessed the balance of convenience and the potential for irreparable loss. The plaintiff claimed a potential loss of Rs. 60 lakhs due to the respondent's non-performance. However, the court noted that the plaintiff's products were still available in Hyderabad and Secunderabad through another franchise agreement with M/s. Spencer and Company. On the other hand, the respondent had invested in manufacturing 'Thril' and would suffer irreparable loss if restrained from doing so. The court found that the balance of convenience favored the respondent.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the plaintiff's application, I.A. No. 719 of 1983, and allowed the respondent's application, I.A. No. 793 of 1983, thereby vacating the injunction order passed on 16th February 1983. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
-
1983 (3) TMI 311
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Magistrate to authorize detention after submission of charge-sheet but before commitment to Sessions Court.
2. Interpretation of Sections 167, 207, 209, and 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
3. The legality of detention and the right to bail after the expiry of the prescribed period for investigation.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Jurisdiction of Magistrate to Authorize Detention:
The primary issue was whether the Magistrate had the jurisdiction to authorize the detention of an accused after the submission of the charge-sheet but before the commitment order to the Sessions Court was made. The High Court held that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to remand the accused to custody after the charge-sheet was submitted and before the commitment order was made. The Supreme Court disagreed with this view, stating that the proceedings before the Magistrate from the submission of the police report under Section 170 until the order of commitment under Section 209 would be considered an inquiry. During this period, Section 309(2) would enable the Magistrate to remand the accused to custody.
2. Interpretation of Sections 167, 207, 209, and 309 of the CrPC:
- Section 167: The High Court correctly concluded that on the expiry of 60 days from the date of arrest, if the charge-sheet is not submitted, the accused is entitled to bail if they are prepared to furnish bail. However, the High Court erroneously interpreted that the Magistrate had no power to remand the accused to custody after the charge-sheet was submitted and before the commitment order was made.
- Section 207: This section mandates the Magistrate to furnish copies of documents to the accused. The Supreme Court emphasized that this obligation is a judicial function and forms part of the inquiry.
- Section 209: The High Court interpreted that the Magistrate must commit the accused to the Sessions Court immediately upon receipt of the charge-sheet. The Supreme Court clarified that the Magistrate must first ensure compliance with Section 207 before committing the accused to the Sessions Court.
- Section 309: The Supreme Court stated that if the proceedings before the Magistrate are considered an inquiry, Section 309(2) would allow the Magistrate to remand the accused to custody during the period of the inquiry.
3. Legality of Detention and Right to Bail:
The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's interpretation introduced a stage of compulsory bail not envisaged by the Code. The High Court had directed the release of the respondents on bail, reasoning that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to remand them to custody before the commitment order was made. The Supreme Court set aside this view, stating that the proceedings before the Magistrate constitute an inquiry, and during this period, the Magistrate has the jurisdiction to remand the accused to custody under Section 309(2).
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order granting bail to the respondents on the grounds that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to remand them to custody before the commitment order was made. The Supreme Court clarified that the proceedings before the Magistrate from the submission of the police report until the order of commitment constitute an inquiry, during which the Magistrate can remand the accused to custody under Section 309(2).
-
1983 (3) TMI 310
Issues:
Interpretation of provisions of s. 64(1) of the IT Act, 1961 regarding gifts made by two individuals and the applicability of cross-gifts in tax assessment.
Analysis:
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh was presented with a reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, regarding the interpretation of provisions of cls. (iv) and (v) of s. 64(1) of the Act concerning gifts made by two individuals. The Tribunal found that there were cross-gifts between the two individuals, Shri Chandanmal and Shri Poonamchand, and invoked the aforementioned provisions to include the income from these gifts in their total income. The Tribunal's decision was challenged through appeals by the assesses, leading to this reference to the High Court for opinion.
During the assessment proceedings, it was revealed that Shri Chandanmal had made a gift of Rs. 25,000, and Shri Poonamchand had reciprocated with an equal amount within a short period. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) concluded that these transactions constituted cross-gifts, leading to the invocation of cls. (iv) and (v) of s. 64(1) to include the income from these gifts in the assesses' total income. The Appellate Authority Commission (AAC) and the Tribunal upheld the ITO's decision, emphasizing the interconnected nature of the transactions to evade tax implications.
The Tribunal's decision was based on the Supreme Court rulings in CIT, Bombay City-II vs. Keshavji Morarji and CIT Madras vs. C.M. Kothari, supporting the view that the gifts were interconnected and designed to circumvent tax implications. The High Court, after considering the arguments presented, concurred with the Tribunal's findings. The Court noted that the transfers by the assesses were part of the same transaction, indicating a deliberate attempt to avoid tax consequences under the relevant provisions of the IT Act.
Ultimately, the High Court answered the referred question in the affirmative, supporting the Tribunal's decision that the provisions of cls. (iv) and (v) of s. 64(1) of the Act were applicable to the gifts made by the assesses. The Court upheld the Tribunal's ruling, emphasizing the interconnected nature of the transactions and the circumvention of tax implications. The parties were directed to bear their own costs in this reference, bringing the matter to a conclusion.
-
1983 (3) TMI 309
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the petition under Section 155 of the Companies Act.
2. Alleged contravention of Section 299 of the Companies Act by the Directors.
3. Validity of the Board of Directors' meetings and resolutions.
4. Legality of the share transfers without share certificates.
5. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court versus the High Court.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Maintainability of the petition under Section 155 of the Companies Act:
The primary issue is whether the petition under Section 155 of the Companies Act is maintainable given the complexity of the case. Section 155 provides a summary remedy for rectification of the register of members. The court cited precedents, including *S. Bhagat Singh v. The Piar Bus Service Ltd., Amritsar* and *Smt. Soma Vatt Devi Chand v. Krishna Sugar Mills Ltd.*, which establish that Section 155 is intended for non-controversial matters requiring quick decisions. The court held that due to the various disputes and complexities involved, the matter should be relegated to a Civil Court. The Supreme Court's decision in *Public Passenger Service Ltd. Chidambaram v. M.A. Khadar* was also referenced, reinforcing that complex matters should be decided in a suit rather than under Section 155.
2. Alleged contravention of Section 299 of the Companies Act by the Directors:
The petitioners alleged that certain directors (Gurdeep Singh, Daljit Singh, Smt. Harmohinder Kaur, Smt. Inderjeet Kaur, and Miss Jasmeen Chug) violated Section 299 by not disclosing their interest in the theatre hire agreements, leading to automatic vacation of their offices. This allegation adds to the complexity, requiring detailed investigation, which is beyond the scope of summary proceedings under Section 155.
3. Validity of the Board of Directors' meetings and resolutions:
The petitioners contested the validity of the Board meetings held on 3rd July 1976 and 2nd November 1976, which appointed new directors and approved share transfers. The validity of these meetings is crucial as it impacts the legality of subsequent resolutions and actions. The court noted that determining the legality of these meetings involves intricate factual disputes, which are better suited for a Civil Court.
4. Legality of the share transfers without share certificates:
The petitioners argued that the share transfers were invalid as they were conducted without the original share certificates. The respondents countered that the certificates were lost, and the transfers were made based on representations and allotment letters. This issue involves factual determinations about the representations made and the circumstances of the transfers, further complicating the case.
5. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court versus the High Court:
The respondents initially objected to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, suggesting that the proper remedy was under Section 155 of the Companies Act. However, they later conceded this point. Given that similar suits are already pending in Civil Court, the High Court decided that the Civil Court is the appropriate forum for resolving these disputes. The court emphasized that the decision in the pending suits would be binding on the parties.
Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the petitions, upholding the preliminary objection that the matters involved complex questions of law and fact, which are unsuitable for summary proceedings under Section 155 of the Companies Act. The petitioners were advised to seek resolution through the Civil Court. No order as to costs was made.
-
1983 (3) TMI 308
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the Limitation Act to the Employees Insurance Court.
2. Authority of the Employees Insurance Court as a "Court" under the Limitation Act.
3. Application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to Rule 26(5) of the Bombay Employees Insurance Court Rules, 1959.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Applicability of the Limitation Act to the Employees Insurance Court:
The primary issue raised by the appellants was whether the Employees Insurance Court is a "Court" within the meaning of the Limitation Act, thereby making the provisions of the Limitation Act applicable to proceedings under Rule 26 of the Bombay Employees Insurance Court Rules, 1959. The appellants contended that the Employees Insurance Court is a domestic Tribunal, not a Court in the strict sense of the term, and thus, the provisions of the Limitation Act, including Section 5, do not apply. They relied on the decision in M/s. Popular Process Studio v. Employees State Insurance Corporation, where it was held that the Employees Insurance Court is not a Court for the purposes of the Limitation Act.
2. Authority of the Employees Insurance Court as a "Court" under the Limitation Act:
The judgment clarified that the criteria for determining whether a Tribunal is a Court include its power to give definitive judgments and its source of judicial power. The Employees Insurance Court, constituted under Section 74 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948, has the authority to decide disputes enumerated in Section 75 of the Act. It possesses powers akin to those of a Civil Court, such as summoning witnesses, compelling the production of documents, and administering oaths, as outlined in Section 78 of the Act. Additionally, its orders are enforceable as if they were decrees passed by a Civil Court. The Court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Thakur Jugal Kishore Sinha v. The Sitamarhi Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. and the Full Bench decision in Bapusaheb Patil v. The State of Maharashtra, which laid down the criteria for a Tribunal to be considered a Court. Based on these criteria, the Employees Insurance Court was deemed a "Court" for all practical purposes, including the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
3. Application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to Rule 26(5) of the Bombay Employees Insurance Court Rules, 1959:
Rule 26(5) of the Bombay Employees Insurance Court Rules, 1959, prescribes a 30-day period for filing an application to set aside an order of dismissal. The judgment noted that this period aligns with the limitation period prescribed under Article 122 of the Limitation Act for similar applications. Consequently, the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which allows for the condonation of delay, should apply to applications filed under Rule 26(5). The Court emphasized that there was no express exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act in the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the application for restoration of the dismissed application.
Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision of the learned Single Judge to allow the application for restoration of the dismissed application by condoning the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The judgment concluded that the Employees Insurance Court is indeed a "Court" within the meaning of the Limitation Act, and the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act are applicable to applications filed under Rule 26(5) of the Bombay Employees Insurance Court Rules, 1959.
-
1983 (3) TMI 307
Issues:
- Whether the Court has the power to extend time under Section 148, CPC after a compromise has been made and an order of the Court has been passed?
- Whether the Court can extend time for depositing the decretal amount after a sale has been confirmed under Order 21 Rule 92, CPC?
Analysis:
Issue 1:
The case involved a dispute where the appellants failed to deposit a sum of money in accordance with a compromise agreement. The High Court dismissed their application to extend the time for depositing the amount, citing that the Court could not extend time when parties had stipulated a time frame in their compromise. The appellants argued that the Court had the authority to extend time under Section 148, CPC even after a compromise had been reached. They relied on precedents from the High Courts of Bombay and Calcutta. The respondent contended that time should not be extended by the Court when parties had agreed on a specific timeline for depositing the amount.
Issue 2:
The Court referred to the decision in Hukamchand v. Bansilal, where it was established that the confirmation of a sale under Order 21 Rule 92 should follow the dismissal of an application under Order 21 Rule 90. The Court clarified that the time for depositing the decretal amount could not be extended to prevent the confirmation of the sale unless there was an agreement between the parties. In the present case, the Court distinguished the situation from Hukamchand's case, emphasizing that the parties had entered into a compromise, which became the basis for the time allowed by the Court. The Court concluded that the High Court erred in thinking it had no power to extend time and directed the High Court to reconsider the matter.
In summary, the judgment addressed the Court's authority to extend time under Section 148, CPC after a compromise and the limitations on extending time for depositing the decretal amount after a sale has been confirmed. The Court emphasized the importance of the parties' agreement and the Court's jurisdiction to prevent manifest injustice. The case was remanded to the High Court for further consideration.
-
1983 (3) TMI 306
Issues Involved:
1. Reasonableness and adequacy of compensation assessed by the Deputy Commissioner for land acquisition.
2. Fairness and adequacy of compensation for trees, jirats, and crops.
3. Entitlement to 15% additional compensation as solatium for compulsory acquisition.
4. Fairness and adequacy of annual compensation during the requisition period.
5. Other reliefs and entitlements for the claimants.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Reasonableness and Adequacy of Compensation for Land Acquisition:
The Arbitrator awarded compensation for land acquisition at Rs. 10,000 per bigha. The Deputy Commissioner had previously awarded compensation at varying rates based on land classification, which the Arbitrator found arbitrary. The Arbitrator relied on sale deeds and evidence presented by the claimants, noting that the market value of similar lands in 1970 was significantly higher. The acquired land was in a developing area with numerous public and private institutions, increasing its market value. The Arbitrator's decision was based on the area's development and the presence of institutions, which contributed to the land's increased value. However, the judgment noted that the Arbitrator made errors in referencing previous awards and should have awarded Rs. 12,000 per bigha, aligning with the Naren Kalita case.
2. Fairness and Adequacy of Compensation for Trees, Jirats, and Crops:
The judgment did not provide specific details about the compensation for trees, jirats, and crops. However, it can be inferred that the Arbitrator's award was considered fair and adequate based on the overall assessment of the land's value and the evidence presented by the claimants.
3. Entitlement to 15% Additional Compensation as Solatium:
The claimants were awarded a 15% additional compensation as solatium for the compulsory acquisition of their lands. The judgment upheld this award, noting that the claimants' modest claim to fix the market value at Rs. 15,000 per bigha justified the solatium.
4. Fairness and Adequacy of Annual Compensation During the Requisition Period:
The Arbitrator awarded annual recurring compensation at Rs. 200 per bigha for the requisitioned period. However, the judgment noted that the Arbitrator made a mistake, referencing the Naren Kalita case, where the award was Rs. 300 per bigha per annum. Despite this error, the judgment upheld the award of Rs. 200 per bigha due to the absence of a cross-appeal by the claimants.
5. Other Reliefs and Entitlements for the Claimants:
The judgment addressed the issue of interest on the compensation amount. It was held that the Arbitrator could award interest from the date of the award until the final payment, aligning with the Naren Kalita case. If the compensation had already been paid, no recovery of interest would be made from the respondents to avoid injustice. The judgment also confirmed that the claimants were entitled to receive the amounts from the Arbitrator if not already paid.
Conclusion:
The appeals were dismissed with costs of Rs. 100 per appeal against the appellant, with minor modifications to the award of interest. The compensation for land acquisition was upheld at Rs. 10,000 per bigha, and the annual recurring compensation for the requisitioned period was upheld at Rs. 200 per bigha per annum. The claimants were entitled to interest at 6% per annum from the date of the Arbitrator's award until the final payment, provided the compensation had not already been paid.
-
1983 (3) TMI 305
Issues:
1. Interpretation of profit computation method for sale of import entitlements.
2. Discrepancies in Tribunal's findings regarding disposal of import entitlements.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Interpretation of profit computation method for sale of import entitlements
The case involves a dispute regarding the computation of profits from the sale of import entitlements by an individual who is a director in an export company. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal adopted a month-to-month basis for computing profits but did not apply the same basis for the sale of import entitlements. The Assessing Officer treated the amounts received from the sale of import entitlements as profits. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the profit should only be considered on the date of sale, not uniformly throughout the accounting year. The Tribunal, in its order, explained that the profit from import entitlements arises only upon sale and not when the entitlement is received. It outlined three possible ways in which the entitlements can be dealt with, emphasizing that profit accrues only upon sale. The Tribunal upheld the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's method of calculation, with a minor adjustment overlooked by the AAC.
Issue 2: Discrepancies in Tribunal's findings regarding disposal of import entitlements
During the hearing, the High Court noted discrepancies in the Tribunal's findings regarding how, when, and in what manner the import entitlements were disposed of by the assessee. The Court found that the Tribunal's order and statement of the case lacked clarity on this crucial aspect. The assessee's counsel referred to the Hand Book of Import Control, specifically clauses 105 and 106, to support the contention that the import entitlements were sold. The Court highlighted the need for a precise understanding of the disposal of import entitlements to satisfactorily answer the questions referred by the Tribunal. Citing a Supreme Court decision related to capital and revenue losses, the High Court emphasized the importance of determining the nature of the amounts involved in the transaction. Consequently, the High Court referred the case back to the Tribunal for a supplementary statement clarifying the disposal of import entitlements, with specific findings and details required for a conclusive resolution.
In conclusion, the High Court's judgment focused on the proper computation of profits from the sale of import entitlements and the necessity for a clear understanding of how the entitlements were disposed of by the assessee. The case highlights the importance of accurate assessment in income tax matters and the need for precise findings to resolve legal questions effectively.
-
1983 (3) TMI 304
Issues Involved:
1. Possession of foreign exchange without authorization.
2. Adjudication and penalties imposed by the Enforcement Director.
3. Appeal against the adjudication order by the respondent.
4. Interpretation of Section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.
5. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal by the State.
6. Burden of proof under Section 71 of the Act.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Possession of Foreign Exchange Without Authorization:
The respondent, a medical practitioner settled in the United States, was found in possession of 3501 U.S. Dollars at Bombay Airport. The respondent claimed that the foreign exchange was entrusted to him by his sister-in-law, Smt. Mehta, to be handed over to her husband. The Customs Officer seized the foreign exchange due to the lack of proper authorization or permission from the Reserve Bank of India.
2. Adjudication and Penalties Imposed by the Enforcement Director:
Adjudication proceedings were initiated, resulting in a personal penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the respondent and Rs. 5,000/- on Smt. Mehta. Additionally, the foreign exchange was confiscated, and the respondent was fined Rs. 8,000/- by the Customs Department, later scaled down to Rs. 1,000/- by the appellate authority. The respondent also faced prosecution under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, where he pleaded guilty and was fined Rs. 10,000/-.
3. Appeal Against the Adjudication Order by the Respondent:
The respondent appealed against the adjudication order, and the Foreign Exchange Appellate Board exonerated him, holding that mere possession does not constitute a contravention of Section 8(1) of the Act. The Board found that the respondent was merely a carrier of the foreign exchange, entrusted by Smt. Mehta, and had no mens rea or intent to contravene the law.
4. Interpretation of Section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973:
The key issue revolved around whether mere possession of foreign exchange without authorization constitutes a contravention under Section 8(1). The appellate board held that possession alone does not equate to acquiring foreign exchange. The court analyzed the terms "purchase," "borrow," "lend," "exchange," and "otherwise acquire" in Section 8(1), concluding that mere physical possession without control or interest does not constitute "acquiring" foreign exchange.
5. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal by the State:
The State's appeal was delayed, and the court considered the application for condonation of delay. The court found the delay satisfactorily explained, citing procedural channels, consultation with the Law Ministry, and the movement of files between offices. The delay was condoned in the interest of justice.
6. Burden of Proof Under Section 71 of the Act:
Section 71(3) shifts the burden of proof to the person found in possession of foreign exchange to prove its lawful acquisition. The court noted that possession alone does not automatically imply contravention unless the person fails to prove lawful possession. The respondent successfully demonstrated that he was merely a carrier, thus not liable under Section 8(1).
Conclusion:
The court upheld the appellate board's decision to exonerate the respondent, emphasizing that mere possession without control or interest does not constitute acquiring foreign exchange under Section 8(1). The State's appeal was dismissed, and the penalty imposed on the respondent was ordered to be refunded. The court's analysis highlighted the distinction between possession and acquisition, ensuring that lawful possession is not penalized without sufficient evidence of contravention.
-
1983 (3) TMI 303
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the orders dispensing with the petitioners' services.
2. Period of probation for the petitioners.
3. Arbitrary and discriminatory nature of the termination orders.
4. Dissolution of the Improvement Trusts as a pretext for termination.
5. Right to reinstatement and compensation.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Orders Dispensing with the Petitioners' Services:
The petitioners challenged the orders dated September 25, 1980, which dispensed with their services as Trust Executive Officers, arguing that these orders were arbitrary, actuated by extraneous considerations, and violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The orders were issued under Rule 9 of the Punjab Trust Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1978, which allowed the termination of probationers if their performance was deemed unsatisfactory. The respondents contended that the petitioners were still on probation and their services were no longer required due to the dissolution of the Improvement Trusts.
2. Period of Probation for the Petitioners:
The core issue was whether the probation period for the petitioners was one year or two years. The appointment orders specified a one-year probation period, which the petitioners argued was valid. The respondents claimed this was a clerical error, asserting that Rule 9(1) prescribed a two-year probation period for direct recruits. The court examined the purpose of probation, concluding that Rule 9(1) was directory, not mandatory, and allowed for a shorter probation period. The court held that the one-year probation period specified in the appointment orders was valid, and the petitioners had completed their probation by May 27, 1980.
3. Arbitrary and Discriminatory Nature of the Termination Orders:
The court found that the reasons provided for terminating the petitioners' services were untenable. The petitioners had completed their probation and had been granted increments, indicating satisfactory performance. The simultaneous termination of all 11 petitioners on the same day, without any specific allegations of unsatisfactory performance, suggested arbitrary action. The court noted that the dissolution of the Trusts did not affect the corporate personality or ongoing functions, and only the petitioners' services were terminated while other staff continued to work.
4. Dissolution of the Improvement Trusts as a Pretext for Termination:
The respondents argued that the services of the petitioners were no longer required due to the dissolution of the Improvement Trusts. The court found that the dissolution merely dissolved the Board of Trustees, not the Trusts themselves, which continued to function with the same staff, except for the petitioners. The court inferred that the dissolution was a device to get rid of the petitioners, highlighting the arbitrary nature of the action.
5. Right to Reinstatement and Compensation:
The court rejected the respondents' contention that the petitioners, as temporary government servants, could not be reinstated. Citing the Manager, Government Branch Press v. D.B. Belliappa, the court held that arbitrary termination smacks of discrimination, violating the guarantee of equality of opportunity in public employment. The court quashed the termination orders, declared that the petitioners continue to be in service, and directed their reinstatement with full salary from the date of the judgment. For the period between the termination and the judgment, the petitioners were awarded half the salary.
Conclusion:
The court allowed the petitions, quashing the termination orders and directing the reinstatement of the petitioners with compensation. The action of dispensing with the petitioners' services was found to be arbitrary and discriminatory, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The court emphasized the directory nature of the probation period rule, validating the one-year probation specified in the appointment orders.
-
1983 (3) TMI 302
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of sub-rule (2) inserted in rule 5 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963.
2. Repugnancy between sub-rule (2) of rule 5 and sections 4 and 7 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
3. Scope of rule-making power conferred by section 21 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
Summary:
1. Validity of sub-rule (2) inserted in rule 5 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963:
The Karnataka High Court struck down sub-rule (2) inserted in rule 5 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1963, by Notification No.HD 16 TMR 73 dated July 7, 1976, as being ultra vires the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act 4 of 1939). The Supreme Court upheld this decision, concluding that the sub-rule was inconsistent with the provisions of the Act.
2. Repugnancy between sub-rule (2) of rule 5 and sections 4 and 7 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939:
The High Court found that sub-rule (2) of rule 5 was repugnant to sections 4 and 7 of the Act. Section 7(7) specifies that the test of competence to drive should be carried out in a vehicle of the type to which the application refers. The Act does not require experience in driving a medium motor vehicle to obtain a licence for a heavy motor vehicle. However, sub-rule (2) of rule 5 required at least two years of experience in driving a medium motor vehicle, which was contrary to the Act's provisions.
3. Scope of rule-making power conferred by section 21 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939:
The appellants argued that the State of Karnataka had the power to prescribe additional qualifications for driving licences under section 21(2)(aa) of the Act. However, the Supreme Court held that the rule-making power does not allow the creation of rules that are inconsistent with or repugnant to the parent Act. The Court emphasized that the rule-making authority cannot prescribe qualifications that contradict the Act's provisions.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court affirmed the Karnataka High Court's decision, declaring sub-rule (2) of rule 5 ultra vires of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and dismissed the appeals with costs.
-
1983 (3) TMI 301
Issues involved: Interpretation of Andhra Pradesh Registration and Subordinate Service Rules regarding the preparation of panels for appointments and promotions, delay in preparing the list of approved candidates, impact of rule amendments on promotions.
Judgment Summary:
Issue 1: Preparation of Panels for Appointments and Promotions
The petitioners, Lower Division Clerks, challenged the delay in preparing the list of approved candidates for promotion as Sub-Registrars Grade II, which affected their chances for promotion. The Administrative Tribunal found that the delay was unjustified and directed the preparation of a fresh panel for the relevant period. The Tribunal held that the actions taken were in violation of the rules and ordered the State of Andhra Pradesh to follow the rules for filling vacancies. The Tribunal's decision was challenged in two sets of appeals.
Issue 2: Impact of Rule Amendments on Promotions
The appellants argued that the list prepared in May 1977 was in accordance with the amended rules, and therefore, the petitioners had no grounds to challenge it. However, the Supreme Court held that under the old rules, a panel should have been prepared annually in September, and promotions should have been made accordingly. Vacancies occurring before the rule amendments should be governed by the old rules, not the amended ones. The Court emphasized that promotions to the post of Sub-Registrar Grade II would follow the new rules on a zonal basis, but vacancies prior to the amendments would be governed by the old rules.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed both sets of appeals, affirming the Tribunal's decision. The Court emphasized that vacancies occurring before the rule amendments should be filled according to the old rules, and promotions should have been made from the panel prepared in 1976. The Court found no merit in the appellants' contentions and ruled in favor of upholding the Tribunal's decision.
-
1983 (3) TMI 300
Issues involved:
The validity of the appointment of the Principal of a minority institution u/s 16-E of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the subsequent appointment made by the Director after the High Court quashed the initial selection.
Judgment Details:
Issue 1: Validity of Director's Appointment
The appellant challenged the appointment made by the Director, contending that it was contrary to the provisions of the Act post an amendment by U.P. Act 26 of 1975. The amendment withdrew the Director's power to appoint in minority institutions. However, the Court held that the amendment did not apply retrospectively to ongoing proceedings under section 16-F of the Act. The selection process had begun in 1973, and the Director's appointment post-amendment was deemed legal as the law had no retrospective effect on prior proceedings. The Court emphasized that statutory provisions should not impair existing rights unless expressly directed to do so.
Issue 2: Disapproval of Selection by Deputy Director
The appellant also argued that the Director could not appoint respondent No. 2 as his selection had been disapproved by the Deputy Director previously. The Court noted that the Act did not prohibit considering a candidate whose selection had been disapproved once. The Director had the authority to appoint a qualified person from the applicant pool, as per section 16-F(4) of the Act. As respondent No. 2 met the criteria, the Court found no disqualification based on the earlier disapproval. Additionally, the Act authorized the Director, not the Deputy Director, to make the appointment of a Principal. Therefore, the Court upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the appeal.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the Director's appointment post-amendment was valid, and there was no disqualification for respondent No. 2 based on the earlier disapproval. The Court found no grounds to interfere with the High Court's judgment, and no costs were awarded.
-
1983 (3) TMI 299
Issues Involved:
1. Discriminatory treatment in granting antedating benefit.
2. Arbitrary choice of date for granting benefits.
3. Violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
4. Impact on seniority and promotional prospects.
5. Retrospective application of benefits.
Summary:
1. Discriminatory treatment in granting antedating benefit:
The petitioners, commissioned officers of the Army Medical Corps (AMC) with postgraduate qualifications, approached the Supreme Court u/s Article 32, alleging discriminatory treatment in the matter of granting antedating benefits, which are linked to seniority and promotional prospects. They contended that the denial of the extended period of antedating benefits introduced by Army Instruction No. 78 of 78, effective from April 1, 1978, to those commissioned prior to this date, was discriminatory. The petitioners argued that officers with postgraduate qualifications, whether commissioned before or after April 1, 1978, form a homogeneous class, and the arbitrary choice of date divided this class without any intelligible differentia.
2. Arbitrary choice of date for granting benefits:
The petitioners argued that the choice of April 1, 1978, as the effective date for the revised antedating benefits was arbitrary and lacked rational nexus to the objects sought to be achieved. They claimed that this arbitrary date selection violated the guarantee of equality in employment opportunities under Article 16 of the Constitution.
3. Violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution:
The petitioners alleged that the denial of the extended antedating benefits to those commissioned before April 1, 1978, was a violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. They argued that the arbitrary choice of date divided a homogeneous class, leading to unequal treatment and denial of equality of opportunity in employment.
4. Impact on seniority and promotional prospects:
The respondents contended that granting the extended antedating benefits to officers commissioned before April 1, 1978, would disturb the seniority and promotional prospects of a large number of officers in the AMC. They argued that the benefit of antedating was granted as an incentive at the time of commissioning and not retrospectively. The respondents presented charts showing that granting the extended benefits to the petitioners would give them an undeserved advantage, allowing them to supersede many senior officers.
5. Retrospective application of benefits:
The Court held that the benefit of antedating the commission was intended to be granted at the time of commissioning as an incentive for attracting better-qualified persons to the AMC. The Court found that the language of the relevant Army Instructions clearly indicated that the benefit was to be granted at the time of appointment and not retrospectively. The Court also noted that extending the benefit retrospectively would lead to unfairness and disrupt the settled seniority list.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the benefit of antedating the commission was an incentive granted at the time of appointment and not retrospectively. The Court found no violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as the choice of date for the revised benefits was not arbitrary and had a rational nexus to the objects sought to be achieved. The Court also noted that extending the benefit retrospectively would disrupt the seniority and promotional prospects of many officers, leading to unfair treatment. The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
1983 (3) TMI 298
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a delay exceeding two years in the execution of a death sentence warrants setting aside that sentence.
2. Whether the death sentence should be vacated due to prolonged delay in execution and other supervening circumstances.
Summary:
1. Delay in Execution of Death Sentence:
The primary issue addressed is whether a delay exceeding two years in the execution of a death sentence must be considered sufficient for setting aside that sentence. The petitioners, convicted u/s 302 read with section 34 of the Penal Code and sentenced to death, argued that the delay in execution entitled them to have their sentences commuted to life imprisonment, relying on the precedent set in T.V. Vatheeswaran v. The State of Tamil Nadu. The court in Vatheeswaran had formulated the question as whether prolonged delay and inhuman treatment post-sentencing could justify commutation of the death sentence.
2. Judicial Precedents and Principles:
The judgment reviewed various precedents, including decisions from the Federal Court of India, Privy Council, and U.S. Supreme Court. It highlighted that while prolonged delay in executing a death sentence is a significant factor, a rigid rule (such as the two-year rule in Vatheeswaran) is impractical. The court emphasized that the delay must be assessed case-by-case, considering factors like the convict's use of legal remedies and the reasons for the delay.
3. Supervening Circumstances:
The court acknowledged that subsequent events and supervening circumstances must be considered to determine if executing the death sentence would be unjust. It noted that the prolonged agony and uncertainty faced by death row inmates could render the execution of the sentence inhuman and degrading, as per Article 21 of the Constitution.
4. Case-Specific Analysis:
In the present case, the petitioners' death sentences were upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court, with delays attributed to various legal proceedings initiated by the petitioners. The court asserted that merely the passage of time does not automatically warrant commutation of the death sentence. The nature of the offense, societal impact, and potential for recurrence are crucial factors in this determination.
5. Executive Responsibility:
The judgment urged the government to expedite the disposal of petitions filed u/s 72 and 161 of the Constitution or u/s 432 and 433 of the Criminal Procedure Code, emphasizing that delays in these processes undermine justice.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the death sentence in this case could not be vacated solely due to the delay in execution. It decided to hear further arguments on whether executing the death sentence would be unjust and unfair in the specific circumstances of the case, and issued a notice to the Government of Punjab for an explanation of the delay.
-
1983 (3) TMI 297
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of the Orissa Cess Act, 1962.
2. Legislative competence of the Orissa Legislature.
3. Alleged colorable legislation.
4. Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
5. Violation of Article 19(1)(f) and Article 301 of the Constitution.
6. Impact on existing mining leases and statutory leases.
7. Nature of the levy (fee vs. tax).
8. Procedural fairness in assessment.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Constitutionality of the Orissa Cess Act, 1962:
The petitioners challenged the vires of the Orissa Cess Act, 1962, arguing that it was unconstitutional as it imposed cess on lands held for carrying on mining operations. The court analyzed the provisions of the Act, including the definitions, charging sections, and amendments, to determine its constitutionality.
2. Legislative Competence of the Orissa Legislature:
The petitioners argued that the Orissa Legislature lacked legislative competence to impose cess on mining lands, as the field had been occupied by the Central Act of 1957. The court examined the legislative entries and the declaration under Section 2 of the Central Act of 1957. It concluded that the Parliament had not taken under its control the field of taxation, and the State Legislature retained the power to impose cess under Entry 49 of List II.
3. Alleged Colorable Legislation:
The petitioners claimed that the Cess Act was a piece of colorable legislation, purporting to impose royalty under the guise of cess. The court referred to the principles of pith and substance and the doctrine of colorable legislation. It held that the Cess Act was a legitimate exercise of the State's taxing power and not a colorable legislation.
4. Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution:
The petitioners argued that the Cess Act violated Article 14 by discriminating against lands held for mining operations. The court applied the test of reasonable classification and found that the classification of lands for different rates of cess was based on intelligible differentia and had a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. The court upheld the Act as not violative of Article 14.
5. Violation of Article 19(1)(f) and Article 301 of the Constitution:
The petitioners contended that the Act was confiscatory in nature and violated Article 19(1)(f). The court noted the lack of necessary averments and evidence to support this claim. It also held that the cess did not impede the free flow of trade and commerce under Article 301, as it did not directly and immediately restrict trade.
6. Impact on Existing Mining Leases and Statutory Leases:
The petitioners argued that the impost of cess violated the terms of existing mining leases. The court held that the State Legislature had the competence to impose cess on lands held for mining operations, and the imposition of cess did not infringe on the terms of mining leases.
7. Nature of the Levy (Fee vs. Tax):
The court distinguished between fee and tax, holding that the cess was a tax and not a fee. It rejected the argument that the Act initially imposed a fee and later a tax, stating that the cess was a compulsory exaction for the general revenue of the State.
8. Procedural Fairness in Assessment:
The petitioners claimed that the Act denied a fair hearing during assessment. The court found that the assessment of cess was linked to the assessment of royalty, and the absence of an independent right of appeal did not prejudice the petitioners. The court noted that the Board of Revenue had revisional powers to address any grievances.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the constitutionality and validity of the Orissa Cess Act, 1962. It held that the Act was within the legislative competence of the Orissa Legislature, did not violate Articles 14, 19(1)(f), or 301 of the Constitution, and was not a piece of colorable legislation. The court also found that the procedural provisions of the Act were fair and did not infringe on the petitioners' rights.
........
|
9911796707
