Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

Judgments of 1986

216 judgments, newest first — showing 1–200.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPURversusSARAN ENGINEERING CO. LTD.

1986 INSC 15431 July 1986Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether various reserves created by Saran Engineering Co. Ltd. could be treated as "standard deductions" under the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963, and thus be included in the computation of capital for the Companies (Profit) Surtax Act, 1964. The reserves in question included capital reserve, st

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPURversusTIIE ELGIN MILLS LTD., KANPUR

1986 INSC 15331 July 1986

Elgin Mills Ltd., a textile manufacturer, claimed that its investment reserve, rehabilitation reserve and forfeited dividend reserve should be treated as reserves for computing capital under the Companies Profits (Surtax) Act, 1964 for the assessment year 1964-65. The Income‑Tax Officer excluded all three amounts, lead

CANTONMENT BOARD, DEHU ROAD & ANR.versusMAHINDRA OWEN LTD. & ANR.

1986 INSC 5231 March 1986Dismissed

The Bombay Cantonment Board sought octroi duty on trailers and water tankers supplied by Mahindra Owen Ltd. to the Defence Department under a 1959 notification. The Board claimed the items fell within items 3, 11, 14 and 16(b) of the First Schedule of the notification, making them chargeable. The Supreme Court held tha

BASANT ROADWAYSversusSTATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL & ORS.

1986 INSC 20630 September 1986Dismissed

Basant Roadways filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court challenging an interim order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The Supreme Court held that, as the petition was against an interim order, it would not interfere with the High Court's decision and dismissed the petition. While doing so, the Court ex

PANDURANG & ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

1986 INSC 20730 September 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Maharashtra appealed an acquittal of Pandurang and others under Sections 7(1), 16 and 17 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. The appeal, which involved an offence punishable with imprisonment exceeding two years, was required by the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 to be heard by

C.I.T., ANDHRA PRADESHversusTRUSTEES OF H.E.H., THE NIZAM'S FAMILY TRUST

1986 INSC 20830 September 1986Dismissed

The Nizam of Hyderabad created a family trust in 1950, dividing the corpus into a Reserve Fund and a Family Trust Expenses Account, each with distinct purposes. The income of these two funds was assessed separately for 1960‑61 and 1961‑62, but the Income‑Tax Officer later reopened the assessments under section 147 of t

K.R. MUDGAL & ORS.versusR.P. SINGH & ORS.

1986 INSC 21030 September 1986

The case concerned the fixation of seniority among Assistants in the Intelligence Bureau, where various Office Memoranda (1940, 1949, 1959) had successively altered the basis for seniority. Petitioners (direct recruits of 1957) filed a writ in 1976 challenging seniority lists that placed earlier departmental assistants

K. GEORGE THOMASversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, KERALA

1986 INSC 9930 April 1986Dismissed

K. George Thomas, an individual who owned a printing press and a daily newspaper, received Rs.5,85,637 from the United States in his capacity as Vice‑President of the India Gospel Mission. The funds were credited to a bank account in the name of the Mission but were largely used for the newspaper’s operations and Thoma

RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.versusC.N. SAHASRANAMAN & ORS.

1986 INSC 10030 April 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) introduced a promotion scheme for staff officers (Grade II/A) based on centre‑wise seniority and a fixed ratio of candidates to vacancies, as set out in Administrative Circulars No. 8 and 9 of 13 May 1972. Three Grade‑II clerks at the Nagpur branch challenged the clause that limited the

GOPAL & ORS.versusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

1986 INSC 1130 January 1986Dismissed

The case arose from a violent clash between local Harijan labourers and migrant workers hired by mirasdars during a paddy harvest dispute. On 25 December 1968, the deceased Packiriswami Pillai was attacked and fatally cut on the head and neck by the accused Gopal (A‑1) and others, as witnessed by several eye‑witnesses

A.K ROY & ANR.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

1986 INSC 20529 September 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, A.K. Roy and others, were charged under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 after a Food Inspector from Faridkot filed a complaint alleging adulteration of noodles. The Inspector claimed authority to prosecute based on a delegation of power from the State Government to the Food (Health) Author

NANAKRAM ETC.versusKUNDALRAI ETC.

1986 INSC 9629 April 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court considered two civil appeals where landlords sought to declare leases void because they were entered into without complying with clause 22 of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949. The Court held that such a lease, although inconsistent with the statutory proce

VRINDAVAN GOVERDHAN LAL PITTIEversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

1986 INSC 9729 April 1986Dismissed

The petitioner, after being granted a three‑month extension to file his wealth‑tax return, filed it four months later and was levied a penalty of 0.5% of his net wealth for each month of delay under s.18(1)(a) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (as amended by the Finance Act, 1969). He challenged the constitutional validity o

S.P. GRAMOPHONE COMPANYversusC.I.T PATIALA

1986 INSC 929 January 1986Dismissed

The appellant, S.P. Gramophone Co., sought registration of its partnership under Section 26A of the Income Tax Act, 1922 for AY 1961‑62 after a fresh partnership deed added four new partners to the original two, who were disabled. The Income Tax Officer rejected the application, alleging that the new partners were mere

RAM CHAND BHATIAversusHARDYAL

1986 INSC 1029 January 1986Appeal(s) allowed

In the 1982 Himachal Pradesh Assembly election, Ram Chand Bhatia (BJP) was elected over Hardyal (Congress). Hardyal filed an election petition alleging that a poster (Annexure PA) printed by Janata Party candidate Kanshi Ram contained false statements about his personal character and was distributed with Bhatia’s conse

PRABHU DAYAL SESMAversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

1986 INSC 18028 August 1986Dismissed

The Rajasthan Public Service Commission advertised a direct recruitment exam for the Rajasthan Administrative Service in 1983, stipulating that candidates must be at least 21 years old on 1 January 1984 and must not have attained the age of 28 on that same day. The appellant, born on 2 January 1956, was initially allow

OM PARKASH AGARWAL ETC.ETC.versusGIRL RAJ KISHORI & ORS. ETC.ETC.

1986 INSC 828 January 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, dealers in agricultural produce operating in notified market areas of Haryana, challenged the Haryana Rural Development Fund Act, 1983 which imposed a 1% cess on the sale proceeds of agricultural produce and credited the amount to a state‑vested fund for rural development. They contended that the levy w

ATAM PRAKASHversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

1986 INSC 2427 February 1986Case Allowed

The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 (as applied in Haryana), which gave a right of pre-emption based on consanguinity. Petitioners argued that the classification violated Articles 14, 15 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution, while the State defended it on

BINOD SINGHversusDISTRICT MAGISTRATE DHA_NBAD BIHAR & OTHERS

1986 INSC 20026 September 1986Disposed off

Binod Singh, already in custody for several criminal cases, was issued a preventive detention order under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 on 2 January 1986 and the order was served on 11 January while he remained in jail. He challenged the order, contending that preventive detention is justified only wh

RAJ KUMAR SINGHversusSTATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

1986 INSC 20126 September 1986Dismissed

R.K. Singh was detained under section 12(2) of the Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 on the ground that he was an anti‑social element habitually committing offences under Chapters XVI and XVII of the Indian Penal Code. The detention order was based on several incidents, including a raid in which he opened fire on polic

O.P. BHANDARIversusINDIAN TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.& ORS.

1986 INSC 20226 September 1986Appeal(s) allowed

O.P. Bhandari, a manager of a hotel under the Indian Tourism Development Corporation (ITDC), was terminated by a notice‑pay order under Rule 31(v) of the ITDC Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978. He challenged the constitutional validity of the rule, arguing that termination by mere notice or payment in lieu vio

PANIPAT WOOLLEN & GENERAL MILLS CO. LTD. & ANOTHERversusUNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

1986 INSC 20326 September 1986Dismissed

Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd. had two textile mills that were placed under liquidation and closed in May 1972. The mills were listed as "sick textile undertakings" in the First Schedule of the Sick Textile Undertakings (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1972, causing their management to vest in the Central Gov

SURINDER SINGHversusCENTRAL GOVERNMENT & ORS.

1986 INSC 20426 September 1986Case Partly allowed

The case concerned a plot of evacuee land that was auctioned to the appellant under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, but the appellant failed to pay the balance and the sale was cancelled. The Central Government, exercising powers under the Act, set aside the cancellation and granted t

BAL KISHANversusOM PRAKASH & ANR.

1986 INSC 17726 August 1986Dismissed

The landlord Om Prakash leased a commercial premises to Musadi Lal, who later sub‑let it to Med Ram without the landlord's written consent. The landlord filed an eviction petition under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, invoking s.13(2)(ii)(a). After Musadi Lal's death, his heir Bal Kishan was

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ETC.versusS.N GOVINDA PRABHU & BROTHERS AND OTHERS ETC.

1986 INSC 17826 August 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) revised its electricity tariffs in 1980, 1982 and 1984, which the consumers challenged on the ground that the Board exceeded its authority under Section 59 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948 by fixing a price structure that generated a surplus beyond covering only expenses pro

MRS. MARY ROY ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF KERALA & ORS.

1986 INSC 2226 February 1986Case Allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether the Travancore Christian Succession Act, 1092 continued to govern intestate succession for Indian Christians in the former State of Travancore after the Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951 extended the Indian Succession Act, 1925 to that territory. The petitioners challenged sections 24, 2

GIRDHARI LAL & SONSversusBALBIR NATH MATHUR & ORS.

1986 INSC 2326 February 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Giradhari Lal & Sons, occupied premises as sub‑tenants of M/s Om Prakash & Co., which itself was the tenant of the landlord, Balbir Nath Mathur. The landlord obtained an ex parte eviction decree against the tenant, and the appellant sought protection under Sections 17 and 18 of the Delhi Rent Control Act

SURAJ PAL SAHUversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA &ORS.

1986 INSC 19825 September 1986Dismissed

Rampa! Sahu was detained on 17 December 1985 under section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 for allegedly removing railway material and thereby prejudicing the maintenance of essential supplies. The State served the grounds, allowed a representation, referred the matter to the Advisory Board, and confirmed the o

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 GOVERNMENT PENSIONERS' ASSOCIATION & OTHERSversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

1986 INSC 15125 July 1986Dismissed

The State Government Pensioners' Association, representing former government employees who retired before 1 April 1978, challenged the Andhra Pradesh Government Order No. 88 (dated 26 March 1980) which revised the gratuity formula and made it effective from that date. They argued that gratuity is part of pensionary ben

MAJ. GENL. A.S. GAURAYA & ANR.versusS.N. THAKUR AND ANR.

1986 INSC 9325 April 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioners were accused in a complaint under the Mines Act, 1952 and the Metalliferous Mines Regulation, 1961. The Judicial Magistrate dismissed the complaint for default on 6 January 1972, but later restored it on 20 January 1972 upon the complainant's application. The accused argued that the magistrate had becom

AZHAR HUSSAINversusRAJIV GANDHI

1986 INSC 9425 April 1986Dismissed

The respondent was elected to the Lok Sabha from Amethi in the 1984 general election. An elector filed an election petition alleging several corrupt practices, but the petition failed to disclose material facts and particulars required by Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The High Court dismisse

BHAGWATI PRASAD DIXIT 'GHOREWALA'versusRAJEEV GANDHI

1986 INSC 9525 April 1986Dismissed

Bhagwati Prasad Dixit challenged the election of Rajiv Gandhi to the Lok Sabha on three grounds: alleged loss of Indian citizenship due to marriage and property in Italy, holding an office of profit by receiving a parliamentary salary, and the ineligibility of the Chief Election Commissioner. The High Court dismissed t

JAGBIR SINGH & ORS.versusGENERAL MANAGER, PUNJAB ROADWAYS & ORS.

1986 INSC 21824 October 1986Disposed off

A Punjab Roadways bus accident on 13 February 1971 caused the death of three persons, including Balbir Singh. The widow and minor children of the deceased filed a claim before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which awarded Rs 93,600 with 6% interest per annum. Both the claimants and the State appealed; the High Cour

SUMER CHAND SHARMA & ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P AND ANR. ETC.ETC.

1986 INSC 9224 April 1986Dismissed

The petitioners, private stage‑carriage operators, sought renewal of authorisations to ply over common sectors of routes that had been nationalised in the 1950s. Although a "practice" had developed allowing such operators to run over these sectors provided they did not pick up or set down passengers, the Uttar Pradesh

BACHAN SINGH & ANR. ETC.versusCHHOTU RAM & ORS. ETC

1986 INSC 15023 July 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court heard two civil appeals concerning pre-emption rights under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. In Appeal No. 639/85, the plaintiffs claimed a right to pre‑empt a sale on the basis of the "thirdly" clause of s.15(1)(a), but the Court, relying on Alam Prakash v. State of Haryana, held that the first, sec

ONKAR SINGH & OTHERSversusREGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, AGRA & OTHERS

1986 INSC 8923 April 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, private stage‑carriage operators, held temporary permits under section 68‑F(1‑C) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 on the Somna‑Naujheel route. A draft scheme published in 1960 under section 68‑C remained unapproved for more than 25 years, preventing the issuance of permanent permits and leading the Regio

SECRETARY, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS & ORS.versusK.S. MAHALINGAM

1986 INSC 9023 April 1986Appeal(s) allowed

K.S. Mahalingam, a customs examiner, was charged with misconduct and dismissed after an inquiry. He appealed, and the Madras High Court Single Judge quashed the dismissal, holding that no second show‑cause notice was given before the penalty and that the inquiry report was not supplied. The Division Bench agreed and or

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusARUN KUMAR ROY

1986 INSC 723 January 1986Appeal(s) allowed

Arun Kumar Roy was appointed as a temporary Stores Officer in the Zoological Survey of India on 30 July 1975, with a two‑year probation that was later extended by one year. On 27 July 1978 he was terminated during the extended probation, the termination order stating that he was entitled to one month’s salary in lieu o

RAM SINGH & ORS.versusGRAM PANCHAYAT MEHAL KALAN & ORS.

1986 INSC 19722 September 1986Dismissed

The petitioners, Ram Singh and others, filed a civil suit under Order 1 Rule 8 of the CPC seeking a declaration that they were the owners and possessors of certain land and that the Gram Panchayat had no right over it, alleging that revenue records wrongly showed the land as Panchayat property. The Panchayat contended

INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTSversusL.K. RATNA & OTHERS

1986 INSC 21521 October 1986Dismissed

The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India referred three members to its Disciplinary Committee for alleged professional misconduct relating to a management consultancy brochure. The Committee held a hearing, found the members guilty and reported its conclusions to the Council, which recorded a finding of guilt an

LATE NAWAB SIR MIR OSMAN ALI KHANversusCOMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, HYDERABAD

1986 INSC 21621 October 1986Case Partly allowed

The Nizam of Hyderabad (Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan) challenged the inclusion of certain immovable properties and an annual payment of Rs.25 lakhs in his net wealth for wealth‑tax purposes. The Supreme Court held that properties for which full consideration was received and possession handed over, even without a registered

DINESH KUMAR & ORS.versusMOTILAL NEHRU MEDICAL COLLEGE, ALLAHABAD & ORS

1986 INSC 14921 July 1986Modified

The Supreme Court revisited its earlier judgment on reservation in medical colleges, directing that at least 15% of MBBS/BDS seats and 25% of postgraduate seats in each college be filled through an All‑India Entrance Examination conducted in English. It modified the formula for non‑reserved seats, rejecting state deman

SUPDT. & REMEMBRANCER OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, WEST BENGALversusUSHA RANJAN ROY CHOUDHURY & ANR.

1986 INSC 12621 May 1986Dismissed

Three Army officers were charged with offences under Section 52 of the Army Act, 1950, which can be tried either by an ordinary criminal court or a court‑martial. They were tried before a Special Judge of the Fourth Additional Special Court, Calcutta, but the trial judge did not follow the Criminal Courts and Court Mar

STATE OF ASSAMversusMUHIM BARKATAKI & ANR

1986 INSC 21420 October 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Assam charged Muhim Barkataki and Oulu Dutta with murder and arson, alleging they set fire to the deceased Nagen Dey's shop and body after pouring kerosene. The prosecution relied on eye‑witnesses who saw the fire, a dying declaration made by the victim while in severe pain, and statements recorded under S

TARLOK SINGHversusMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF AMRITSAR AND ANOTHER.

1986 INSC 17620 August 1986Dismissed

The appellant, a shopkeeper allotted a shop by the Railways in Amritsar, was ordered by the Municipal Corporation to demolish his shop after the corporation revoked the construction sanction. He appealed the demolition order to the District Judge under Section 269(2) of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, and s

SODHI TRANSPORT CO. & ANR, ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF U.P, & ANR. ETC, ETC.

1986 INSC 5120 March 1986Disposed off

The petitioners, transporters of goods across Uttar Pradesh, challenged Section 28-B of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948 and Rule 87 of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Rules, 1948, arguing that the provisions were beyond the State's legislative competence, infringed Articles 301 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, and i

STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.versusCALCUTTA HARDWARE STORES AND ORS.

1986 INSC 2120 February 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The State seized about 600 metric tonnes of tin plates worth Rs.60 lakh from Calcutta Hardware Stores alleging violations of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the West Bengal Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order, 1977, and also invoked sections 1208 and 420 of the IPC. The respondents a

V. SRIDHARAN NAIRversusSTATE OF KERALA & ORS.

1986 INSC 19419 September 1986Case Allowed

The petitioner, a laboratory attendant deputed to the City Improvement Trust, had his deputation extended until 31-10-66 with a clear notice that no further extension would be granted. He later sought to remain in the Trust, but no order was issued. After the Trust merged with the Kerala State Housing Board, the Direct

RAGHUBIR SINGH & OTHERS ETC.versusSTATE OF BIHAR

1986 INSC 19519 September 1986Dismissed

The petitioners, five accused including Simranjit Singh Mann, were arrested near the Indo‑Nepal border and charged with offences under the Indian Penal Code, while being detained under the National Security Act. They were granted bail under the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, but could not be

DIRECTOR GENERAL, TELECOMMUNICATION & ANR.versusT.N. PEETHAMBARAM

1986 INSC 19619 September 1986

The Supreme Court examined the interpretation of Rule 2 in Appendix III of the Telegraph Engineering Service (Group ‘B’) Recruitment Rules, 1981, which prescribed a minimum pass mark of 50% for general candidates and 45% for SC/ST candidates. The Department argued that this minimum had to be achieved in each of the fou

BHIMRAO TRIMBAKRAO INGLEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

1986 INSC 17519 August 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were convicted under Section 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 for being found in a "common gaming house" and appellant No.6 was also convicted under Section 4 for using a room as such. The Sessions Court, after evaluating the evidence, concluded that the room used for gaming was not a "co

SHITLA PRASAD SHUKLAversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

1986 INSC 12519 May 1986Dismissed

The appellant, a teacher in an upgraded intermediate college, lacked the prescribed Sanskrit degree required for a lecturer post and applied for exemption under Section 16E of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act. The Board granted the exemption only on 23 July 1963, but the appellant contended that the exempti

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX U.P, LUCKNOWversusJ.K. HOSIERY FACTORY, KANPUR

1986 INSC 4819 March 1986Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined whether an unregistered partnership firm that became a registered firm could carry forward unabsorbed depreciation from the year it was unregistered (1949-50) and set it off against the partners' income in the subsequent year (1950-51). The Tribunal had denied the set‑off, holding that regist

NIRANJAN & CO. P. LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WEST BENGAL-I & OTHERS

1986 INSC 4919 March 1986Dismissed

Niranjan & Co. Ltd. filed its 1962 return showing a profit of Rs 2,092 but later discovered that profit from construction work of Rs 10,718.46 had been omitted. The Income‑Tax Officer (ITO) assessed the year‑end tax on 27 Nov 1963, having taken the construction profit into account from the balance‑sheet filed with the

INDRAVADAN SHAHversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

1986 INSC 4719 March 1986Appeal(s) allowed

Indravadan, a Civil Judge (Senior Division) was eligible for promotion to Assistant Judge. His name appeared on the 1982‑83 select list but the list lapsed on 30 April 1983; having turned 48, he was struck off under Rule 6(4)(i) and 6(4)(iii)(a) of the Gujarat Judicial Service Recruitment (Amended) Rules 1979, which ba

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ORISSAversusORISSA CORPORATION (P) LTD.

1986 INSC 5019 March 1986Dismissed

The assessee, Orissa Corporation, claimed a cash credit of Rs 1,50,000 as loans from three individuals, producing confirmation letters and hundis but could not serve notices under s.131 to the alleged lenders. The Income‑Tax Officer deemed the lenders “name‑lenders”, added the amount as unproved cash credit under s.68

PARVATI & ORS.versusFATEHSINHRAO PRATAPSINHRAO GAEKWAD

1986 INSC 19318 September 1986Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined whether a 1958 government notification under section 88(1)(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, which reserved lands within Baroda municipality for non‑agricultural/industrial use, rendered the Act's provisions inapplicable retrospectively, thereby extinguishing rights a

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusM/S MODI RUBBER LIMITED

1986 INSC 17318 August 1986Disposed off

Modi Rubber Ltd, a tyre manufacturer, claimed that two Government notifications (1974 and 1981) exempted it from all forms of excise duty, including special and additional duties levied under various Finance Acts. The Central Government and the Revenue argued that the phrase "duty of excise" in those notifications refe

BHARAT SEVASHRAM SANGH ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT ETC. ETC.

1986 INSC 17418 August 1986Dismissed

The petitioners challenged the Gujarat Secondary Education Act, 1972 on two grounds: that the President had given only a qualified assent, rendering the Act unenforceable, and that sections 33, 34, 35 and 36 infringed constitutional rights such as the freedom to practice any profession (Art. 19(1)(g)) and the reservati

OM PRAKASH SHUKLAversusAKHILESH KUMAR SHUKLA & ORS.

1986 INSC 4318 March 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the validity of a competitive examination held in 1981 for recruitment to Grade III ministerial staff of the Subordinate Civil Courts in Kanpur. The petitioner argued that the examination, conducted under the 1950 Rules, was unauthorised because the 1969 Amending Rules and the 1975 Rules had supersed

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXversusSHIVAKAMI CO. PVT. LTD.

1986 INSC 4418 March 1986Dismissed

Shivakami Co. Pvt. Ltd., a private company, sold unquoted shares of two other companies and claimed a loss. The Income‑Tax Officer, relying on the first proviso to section 12B(2) of the 1922 Income‑Tax Act (now section 52 of the 1961 Act), deemed the break‑up values of the shares and assessed capital gains. The Tribuna

CHUNNI LAL PARSHADI LALversusCOMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, U.P., LUCKNOW

1986 INSC 4518 March 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a dealer in cotton yarn, sold the yarn to registered dealers and obtained Form III‑A certificates indicating the goods were for resale. The Sales Tax Officer later alleged that the purchasers had consumed the yarn, reopened the assessment under s.21 of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act and levied tax on Rs

CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY, A.P., HYDERABADversusSMT. GODAVARI BAI

1986 INSC 2018 February 1986Dismissed

The deceased partner of a banking firm issued a cheque of Rs.3 lakhs to the firm, which was credited to the accounts of his three minor grand‑nephews. After his death, the widow (assesse) omitted this amount from the estate valuation, arguing that it was a gratuitous transfer of an actionable claim governed by s.137 of

NEELIMA SHANGLA PH.D. CANDIDATEversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

1986 INSC 19217 September 1986Case Allowed

Miss Neelima Shangla, ranked 24th in the 1983‑84 Haryana Civil Service (Judicial) examination, claimed that despite 54 qualified candidates, the Haryana Public Service Commission (PSC) recommended only 26 names and withheld the full list from the Government, thereby denying her appointment. The petition under Article 3

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIHAR, PATNAversusAMAR SINGH GOWAMAL & SONS, JHARIA, DHANBAD

1986 INSC 14617 July 1986Dismissed

The firm Amar Singh Gowamal & Sons, originally registered under the Income Tax Act, 1922 up to assessment year 1961‑62, altered its partnership constitution on 8 November 1961. It applied for registration under the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 29 September 1962 (Form UA). The Income‑Tax Officer rejected the application invo

GENERAL RADIO & APPLIANCES CO. LTD. & ORS.versusM.A. KHADER (DEAD) BY LRS.

1986 INSC 8517 April 1986Dismissed

General Radio & Appliances Co. Ltd., the original tenant of a premises in Secunderabad, merged with National Ekco Radio and Engineering Co. Ltd. under a court‑sanctioned scheme of amalgamation under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956. The landlord, M.A. Khader, sought eviction on the grounds that the amalg

R.S. NAYAKversusA.R. ANTULAY & ANR.

1986 INSC 8617 April 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined a criminal appeal by R.S. Nayak against former Maharashtra Chief Minister A.R. Antulay concerning the framing of charges under sections 120B, 161, 165, 384, and 420 of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The trial judge had framed 21 charges and discharged the respondent on 22 other

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF AHMEDABAD & ORS.versusJAN MOHAMMED USMANBHAI & ANR.

1986 INSC 8317 April 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad issued standing orders under Section 466(1)(D)(b) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, closing the municipal slaughter house on seven specified days each year. Jan Mohammed Usmanbhai, a beef dealer, challenged the orders as an unreasonable restriction on his r

HAZI USMANBHAI HASANBHAI QURESHI & ORS.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT

1986 INSC 8417 April 1986Dismissed

The appellants, dealers in beef, challenged the Gujarat amendment to the Bombay Animal Preservation Act, 1954 that prohibited the issuance of slaughter certificates for bulls and bullocks below sixteen years of age. They argued that the ban unreasonably restricted their right to carry on trade under Art.19(1)(g) and wa

PATHUMMAversusMUHAMMAD

1986 INSC 8717 April 1986Disposed off

The appellants, Pathumma and her minor daughter Sulekha, filed an application under section 125 of the CrPC seeking maintenance from Muhammad, alleging that they were his wife and illegitimate child. The trial magistrate held that no marriage existed but that Sulekha was Muhammad’s illegitimate child and ordered mainte

M.C. MEHTA & ANR. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.

1986 INSC 1917 February 1986Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a public‑interest writ petition filed by environmental activist M.C. Mehta on behalf of Delhi residents challenging two orders that prohibited Shriram Foods & Fertiliser Industries from operating its caustic‑chlorine plant in a densely populated area of Delhi. After a series of oleum‑gas leak

LAGDISH SUGAR MILLS LTD.versusTHE C.I.T LUCKNOW

1986 INSC 13616 July 1986Dismissed

Jagdish Sugar Mills, a liquidated public company, was ordered to pay arrears of cane‑cess and its mills were attached and auctioned on 10 November 1955. The sale certificate under Rule 285‑M of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules was issued on 4 July 1956, after objections were resolved. The Income‑Tax

PATNAIK & CO. LTD.versusTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ORISSA

1986 INSC 13716 July 1986Appeal(s) allowed

Patnaik & Co., an automobile dealer, claimed a loss of Rs.53,650 on the sale of its subscription to the Orissa Government Loan 1972, arguing it was a revenue loss deductible against future profits. The Income Tax Officer treated it as a capital loss, but the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held it was a business loss bec

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, U.P.versusLAXMI SUGAR & OIL MILLS LTD.

1986 INSC 13816 July 1986Dismissed

Laxmi Sugar & Oil Mills Ltd. had debited Rs 8,16,000 as a provision for additional cane price payable to cane‑growers under the Sugarcane Price Control Order, 1955, and shown it under "Current liabilities and provisions". The amount was later reversed and no actual payment was made. The Income‑Tax Officer excluded the

MADNANI DEVELOPMENT CORPN. (P) LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ORISSA

1986 INSC 13916 July 1986Dismissed

Madnani Development Corp., a contractor, bought two parcels of land to obtain earth for a railway construction contract and later sold the land at a loss of Rs.45,241. The company treated the loss as a revenue expense (cost of earth) and claimed a deduction of Rs.30,045 for the assessment year 1966-67. The Income‑Tax O

ANCHOR PRESSINGS (P) LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, U.P. & ORS.

1986 INSC 14016 July 1986Dismissed

Anchor Pressings Ltd. was assessed to income‑tax for AY 1963‑64 without claiming the rebate under s.84 of the Income‑Tax Act. After the assessment, the company applied under s.154 for rectification of the order to obtain the s.84 relief, but the Income‑Tax Officer and the Commissioner rejected the application. The comp

KIRTI BHUSAN SINGHversusSTATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

1986 INSC 14116 July 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a clerk in the Bihar Excise Department, faced disciplinary charges and was found guilty of six out of seventeen. While the disciplinary inquiry was pending, a civil surgeon certified him as an invalid, and the Excise Commissioner retired him on invalid pension under Rule 116 of the Bihar Pension Rules, e

MADRAS MARINE & CO.versusSTATE OF MADRAS

1986 INSC 14216 July 1986Dismissed

Madras Marine & Co., a ship‑chandler, imported goods, stored them in a customs‑bonded warehouse in Tamil Nadu and supplied them on board foreign‑going vessels. The State of Madras assessed sales tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, contending the sales occurred within the state. The company argued the

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, KANPUR ETC. ETC.versusCHANDER SEN ETC.

1986 INSC 14316 July 1986Dismissed

Rangi Lal and his son Chander Sen formed a Hindu undivided family (HUF) that later underwent a partial partition, after which Rangi Lal died leaving a credit balance in the firm’s books. Chander Sen, who had his own HUF with his sons, claimed that the balance and its interest were his individual inheritance and exclude

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

HINDUSTAN PAPER CORPORATION LTD.versusGOVERNMENT OF KERALA & OTHERS

1986 INSC 8216 April 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The Kerala Forest Produce (Fixation of Selling Price) Act, 1978 fixed minimum prices for forest produce and prohibited sales below those prices. Section 6 of the Act allowed the State Government, in the public interest, to exempt sales to Central or Kerala Government companies and to co‑operative societies (up to 10 cu

RATTAN ARYA ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.

1986 INSC 8116 April 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Section 30(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, which exempts residential buildings where the rent exceeds Rs 400 from the Act’s protections. They argued that the classification based on rent and residential status was arbitrary and viol

HARI CHAND @ HARISH CHANDRAversusSHRI DAULAT RAM

1986 INSC 21315 October 1986Dismissed

Hari Chand (plaintiff) sued Daulat Ram (defendant) for recovery of possession of a disputed parcel of land, alleging ownership based on a registered sale deed and claiming the defendant had encroached by constructing a mud wall and khaprail in May 1961. The defendant counter‑claimed ownership by adverse possession unde

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DELHIversusMAHALAXMI SUGAR MILLS CO. LTD.

1986 INSC 12915 July 1986Appeal(s) allowed

Mahalaxmi Sugar Mills Ltd., a sugar manufacturer in India, held shares in a Pakistani sugar company and earned substantial dividend income in the assessment years 1956-57 and 1957-58 while incurring large business losses in India. The company claimed that the dividend, which was not taxable in India under the India‑Pak

COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME-TAX, TRIVANDRUMversusKERALA ESTATE MOORIAD CHALAPURAM

1986 INSC 13015 July 1986Dismissed

The assessees, Kerala Estate Mooriad Chalapuram, claimed a deduction of Rs.33,747.09 as interest on a loan under section 5 of the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950, which was allowed. In the subsequent year, the creditor waived the interest, and the amount was credited to the assessees' revenue accounts. The ass

C.I.T (CENTRAL), MADRASversusCANARA WORKSHOPS (P) LTD., KODIALBALL, MANGALORE

1986 INSC 13115 July 1986Dismissed

Canara Workshops Ltd., a company engaged in automobile ancillaries, also commenced an alloy‑steel manufacturing unit, both of which are listed as priority industries under the Fifth Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The company claimed an 8% deduction under section 80E (then s. SOE) on the profits from its automobi

UNION OF INDIAversusRAJESWARI AND CO, & ORS.

1986 INSC 13215 July 1986Dismissed

The Union of India sued Rajeswari & Co. for a declaration that the sale of movable and immovable assets of Krishna Oil Mills and Industries Ltd. to Rajeswari & Co. was void under section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, alleging that the transfer was intended to defeat the Union's tax claim. The company, which was l

BAJRANG GOPILAL GAJABIversusM.N. BALKUNDRI & ORS.

1986 INSC 13315 July 1986Dismissed

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of Bajrang Gopilal Gajabi, who contested the assessment of central excise duty on cloth manufactured in private powerlooms. The lower authorities had found that yarn supplied by an agent on behalf of the appellant was used in powerlooms owned by others who received only labour cha

BANSI LAL & ORS.versusLAXMAN SINGH

1986 INSC 13515 July 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants Bansi Lal and others were acquitted by an Additional Sessions Judge in a murder case. The victim's son filed a criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the Delhi High Court Single Judge set aside the acquittal and ordered a retrial. The appellants appealed to the S

INDO AFGHAN CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE & ANR. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.

1986 INSC 12315 May 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The Indo‑Afghan Chambers of Commerce, a dealers' association for dry fruits, challenged the grant of additional licences to two diamond exporters for importing dry fruits under Article 32 of the Constitution. The exporters argued that the licences, issued under the Import Policy 1978‑79, allowed them to import dry frui

STATE OF GUJARATversusTHAKOR SHRI PRAVINSINHJI BHARATSINHJI & ORS.

1986 INSC 12415 May 1986Dismissed

The former ruler of the erstwhile princely State of Chhota‑Udepur claimed a half‑share of compensation awarded for trees on a jagir that had been abolished under the Bombay Merged Territories and Areas (Jagirs Abolition) Act, 1953. The compensation was determined in a series of proceedings between the Jagirdar (Thakor)

S. GOVINDARAJUversusK.S.R.T.C. & ANR.

1986 INSC 7615 April 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, selected as a conductor for the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, was appointed to a temporary vacancy and worked for more than 240 days. He was terminated under Regulation 10(5) of the Karnataka Road Transport Corporation (Cadre & Recruitment) Regulations 1982 on the ground of being unsuitable

STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.versusSARAL KUMAR SEN GUPTA & ANR.

1986 INSC 7715 April 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The State of West Bengal sought eviction of Saral Kumar Sen Gupta, who had been allotted a government flat under the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976. Clause (7) of the tenancy agreement required the premises to be used exclusively for the residence of the tenant and his family. After marr

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX ETC.ETC.versusA. B. ISMAIL ETC. ETC.

1986 INSC 7415 April 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents purchased live goats and sheep, slaughtered them, and sold the resulting meat. The assessing officer levied purchase tax on the purchase of the animals under s.5‑A(1)(a) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, treating the conversion into meat as manufacture of "other goods". The Sales‑Tax Appellate

KARAN SINGH AND ANR,versusSTATE OF M.P & ORS.

1986 INSC 7815 April 1986Dismissed

The Agricultural Produce Market Committee of Bhind, Madhya Pradesh, passed a resolution under section 32(5) of the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1973, to abolish the "Kachhi Adhat System"—a commission‑agent based marketing arrangement. Two petitioners, a commission agent and an agriculturist, challenged t

RAGHUNANDAN SARAN ASHOK SARAN & ORS. ETC.ETC.versusPEAREY LAL WORKSHOP (P) LTD. ETC.

1986 INSC 7915 April 1986Dismissed

The landlords filed three eviction suits against three tenants for non‑payment of rent under the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952. While the suits were pending, the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 came into force and the tenants paid the arrears, obtaining protection from eviction under section 13(2) of the 1952 Act

MOHAN MEAKIN BREWERIES LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, BIHAR AND ORS.

1986 INSC 8015 April 1986Dismissed

The petitioner, Mohan Meakin Breweries, challenged a fresh demand for the difference of excise duty on its stock of Indian‑made foreign liquor as on 1 Nov 1967. The demand was based on a proviso added by a 1971 ordinance to Section 28 of the Bihar & Orissa Excise Act, 1915, which allowed the State to realise the differ

ATUL KHULLAR & ORS. ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF J & K AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

1986 INSC 7515 April 1986Dismissed

The petitioners challenged the selection of candidates for MBBS, BDS and engineering courses in Jammu & Kashmir, alleging that the State's addition of villages to the backward‑area list was arbitrary, that temporary urban residence disqualified reservation claims, that the 85‑point written test and 15‑point viva voce a

DISTRICT COUNCIL OF THE JOWAIversusDWET SINGH RYMBAI ETC.

1986 INSC 17214 August 1986Dismissed

The District Council of Jowai issued a notification fixing a royalty on timber harvested from private forests within its jurisdiction. Forest contractors challenged the levy, arguing it was a tax that the Council was not empowered to impose under the Constitution’s Sixth Schedule. The Supreme Court examined whether the

UMAJI KESHAO MESHRAM & ORS.versusRADHIKABAI W/O ANANDRAO BANAPURKAR & ANR.

1986 INSC 4114 March 1986Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined whether an intra‑court appeal under clause 15 of the Bombay High Court's Letters Patent is available against a judgment of a Single Judge hearing a petition under Article 227 (or Article 226) of the Constitution. The Division Bench had dismissed the appeal on the basis of a prior Full Bench d

DOBURG LAGER BREWERIES PVT. LTD.versusDHARIWAL BOTTLE TRADING CO. & ANR

1986 INSC 4214 March 1986Appeal(s) allowed

Doburg Lager Breweries Ltd., a private company operating in a backward area of Maharashtra, had borrowed Rs 52.30 lakhs from SICOM and later an additional Rs 15 lakhs from the State Government. Facing winding‑up proceedings, the Maharashtra Government declared the company a "relief undertaking" under section 3 of the B

GENERAL MANAGER, SECURITY PAPER MILL, HOSHANGABADversusR.S. SHARMA & ORS.

1986 INSC 1614 February 1986Dismissed

In 1973 a settlement was reached during conciliation between the management of Security Paper Mill and the SPM Employees Union covering incentive benefits for all workmen and non‑operative staff. The Government later reduced the incentive rates, a decision later held illegal, after which the management entered into a s

STATE BANK OF INDIAversusSAKSARIA SUGAR MILLS LTD. AND ORS.

1986 INSC 1714 February 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The State Bank of India (SBI) extended a cash‑credit facility to Saksaria Sugar Mills Ltd., secured by an equitable mortgage of the mill’s goods and immovable property. When the mill defaulted, SBI sued the mill and its guarantors for Rs 54,89,822.99. During the suit, the Central Government took over the mill under the

SHIVAJI ATMAJI & ANR.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

1986 INSC 1814 February 1986Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the dismissal of two police officers, Shivaji Atmaji Sawant and Namdeo Jairam Velankar, who were terminated under sections 25(1) and 25(2) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, invoking clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The appellants contended that the dismiss

SUDHAN SINGH AND ORS.versusUNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ORS.

1986 INSC 614 January 1986Dismissed

The University of Delhi, a public educational institution, was bequeathed a building and sought to evict its tenants under Section 22(d) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, claiming the premises were needed to provide residential accommodation for its employees. The tenants contested the eviction, arguing that the gro

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADHYA PRADESHversusMAHARAJA BAHADUR SINGH & ORS.

1986 INSC 21213 October 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined two identical trust deeds executed by Sir Hukumchand Seth and his wife, which vested partitioned family properties in their son and grandsons. The beneficiaries initially paid tax on the income in their individual capacity but later claimed the properties were held as Karta of their respectiv

SHEELA BARSE & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

1986 INSC 17113 August 1986Directions issued

The Supreme Court, hearing a writ petition filed by Sheela Barse and others under Article 32, examined the right to a speedy trial for child accused of offences punishable with imprisonment of up to seven years. Relying on the earlier Hussainara Khatoon decision, the Court affirmed that the right to speedy trial is imp

KUMARI SUNEETA RAMCHANDRAversusSTATE OP MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

1986 INSC 3913 March 1986Appeal(s) allowed

Kumari Suneeta, daughter of a Central Government servant transferred to Maharashtra, applied for admission to Nagpur Medical College under Rule C6(ii) which provides a concession for such children. She was denied admission on the ground that the rule limited the concession to two seats in all Government Medical College

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.versusBASANTIBAL MOHANLAL KHETAN & ORS.

1986 INSC 4013 March 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of sub‑sections (3) and (4) of section 44 of the Maharashtra Housing and Development Act, 1976, which prescribe a specific method of calculating compensation for land acquired in municipal areas. The petitioners (the State of Maharashtra and the Housing Authority) appeal

COLLECTOR OF 24 PARGANAS AND ORS.versusLALIT MOHAN MULLICK & ORS.

1986 INSC 1513 February 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The State issued a notification under the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948 to acquire land for the "resettlement of immigrants" and later declared the acquisition. The landowners discovered, through internal letters, that the land was actually intended for a hospital for crippled children run by the

STATE OF U.P. ETC.versusSMT. PISTA DEVI & ORS.

1986 INSC 18812 September 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Uttar Pradesh and the Meerut Development Authority sought to acquire about 412 acres of arable land on the outskirts of Meerut for a housing scheme, invoking section 17(1) and (4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to dispense with the inquiry under section 5‑A. A notification was issued on 29 April 1980, b

C.G. GHANSHAMDAS & ORS.versusCOLLECTOR OF MADRAS

1986 INSC 18912 September 1986Dismissed

The appellants owned property that had been requisitioned by the Government under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, and a compensation award of Rs.21,000 per month was fixed by an arbitrator, which the appellants contested. They appealed to the Madras High Court under section 11 of the

UNION OF INDIAversusM/S. GODREJ SOAPS PVT. LTD. AND ANR.

1986 INSC 19012 September 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The Union of India appealed against the Bombay High Court's order permitting the clearance of 544.86 metric tonnes of palm kernel fatty acid imported by M/s Godrej Soaps Ltd. under an additional licence. The respondents argued that, as export houses holding additional licences, they could import the commodity despite i

STAR DIAMOND CO. INDIAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

1986 INSC 19112 September 1986Disposed off

Star Diamond Co. India, holding additional licences for 1978‑79, sought clearance to import goods under the Import Policy 1985‑88. It argued that the Supreme Court’s earlier order of 18 April 1985, which allowed import of both canalised and non‑canalised items except those specifically banned, did not bind it because i

INDU BHUSAN DE & ORS.versusTHE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

1986 INSC 16912 August 1986Dismissed

Indu Bhusan De and others challenged the Calcutta City Civil Court Act, 1953, which empowered the West Bengal State Government to create a City Civil Court with a pecuniary jurisdiction up to Rs. 1 lakh, arguing that only Parliament could legislate on the jurisdiction of the High Court. The Calcutta High Court dismisse

BAKUL CASHEW CO. & ORS.versusSALES TAX OFFICER QUILON & ANR.

1986 INSC 3412 March 1986Dismissed

The appellants, cashew processors in Kerala, claimed that a 12 Oct 1973 government notification granting a retrospective sales‑tax exemption for purchases of imported raw cashew nuts (Sept 1970‑Sept 1973) could not be withdrawn and that the State was estopped from levying tax because ministers had assured them in 1971

MOHD. SALIMUDDINversusMISRI LAL AND ANOTHER

1986 INSC 3512 March 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The tenant advanced Rs 2,000 to the landlord under an agreement that the amount would be adjusted against future rent, to secure a lease. The landlord sued for eviction on the ground of rent arrears. The lower appellate court held the tenant was not in arrears because the loan covered the rent, but the High Court rever

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

TEJINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER ETC.versusM/S. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER

1986 INSC 18711 September 1986Dismissed

The petitioners, officers of the management staff of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., challenged the company's policy of setting the retirement age at 58 years for management staff while the clerical staff retire at 60 years, alleging discrimination under Articles 12, 14 and 32 of the Constitution. The Court held tha

BIJOE EMMANUEL & ORS.versusSTATE OF KERALA & ORS.

1986 INSC 16711 August 1986Appeal(s) allowed

Three children belonging to the Jehovah's Witnesses sect were expelled from a Kerala school for refusing to sing the National Anthem, though they stood respectfully during its rendition. The petitioners claimed that compulsory singing violated their fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech) and 25(

ANWARversusIST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BULANDSHAHR & ORS.

1986 INSC 16811 August 1986Dismissed

The petitioner, a stage‑carriage permit holder, objected to a scheme published under section 68‑C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 that would grant the State Transport Undertaking exclusive rights on certain routes. Before the hearing authority under section 68‑D could approve the scheme, he filed a civil suit seeking a

NIRANJAN PATNAIKversusSASHIBHUSAN KAR & ANR.

1986 INSC 7311 April 1986Appeal(s) allowed

N. Patnaik, a mine licensee, was a prosecution witness in a case where the senior mining officer was convicted for accepting a bribe under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The Orissa High Court set aside the conviction but harshly described Patnaik and the manager as bribe‑givers and accomplices, even suggesting

SANTOSH KUMAR & ORS.versusCENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION & ANR.

1986 INSC 3311 March 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The Collector, acting under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, awarded compensation for land acquired for the Central Warehousing Corporation. The landowners sought a reference under Section 18 to increase the award, while the Corporation sought a reference to reduce it. The Collector refused the Corporation

NARENDER CHADHA & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

1986 INSC 1411 February 1986Disposed off

The case concerned the Indian Economic Service and Indian Statistical Service, where a large number of officers had been promoted to Grade IV posts on an ad‑hoc basis for 15‑20 years, contrary to the quota provisions of Rule 8 that required 75 % of vacancies to be filled by direct recruitment and at most 25 % by depart

FILTERCO & ANRversusCOMMSSIONER OF SALES TAX, MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR.

1986 INSC 1211 February 1986Dismissed

Filterco manufactures compressed woollen felt and, based on a 1971 letter from the Commissioner of Sales Tax, claimed exemption from tax under Entry 6 of Schedule I of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958. In 1982 the Commissioner reversed this view, citing the Supreme Court’s Gujarat Woollen Mills decision,

STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ANR.versusUMED RAM SHARMA & ORS.

1986 INSC 1311 February 1986Disposed off

The Himachal Pradesh government sanctioned a 5‑km road in 1977 but construction stalled at about 3 km due to obstruction and lack of funds, leaving hill‑area residents without essential road access. The residents wrote to the High Court seeking relief; the High Court, treating the letter as a writ petition, directed th

BASAVANTAPPAversusGANGADHAR NARAYAN DHARWADKAR & ANR.

1986 INSC 18610 September 1986Dismissed

The auction of a judgment-debtor's property was held on 26 July 1985 and the highest bid was accepted. The judgment-debtor deposited the bid amount on 29 August 1985 and filed an application under Order XXI Rule 90 to set aside the sale, followed by another application under Rule 89 on 6 September 1985 with the balance

ATUL GLASS INDUSTRIES (PVT) LTD. ETC.versusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, ETC.

1986 INSC 12710 July 1986Appeal(s) allowed

Atul Glass Industries, a manufacturer of glass mirrors, challenged the classification of its products for excise duty after the 1979 amendment of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The Revenue argued that glass mirrors fell under Tariff Item 23A(4) ('other glass and glass ware') and that glass screens for motor vehicles

COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, U.P.versusAURIAYA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, ALLAHABAD

1986 INSC 6910 April 1986Dismissed

The assessee paid Uttar Pradesh sales tax on forward contracts that were later held ultra vires by the Supreme Court in Sales Tax Officer, Pilibhit v. Budh Prakash Jai Prakash. After the decision, the assessee sought refund of the tax, but the Sales Tax Officer rejected the claim on the ground of limitation under Artic

ROJASARA RAMJIBHAI DAHYABHAIversusJANI NAROTTAMDAS LALLUBHAI (DEAD) BY LRS. & ANR.

1986 INSC 7010 April 1986Dismissed

The appellant, an occupant of two plots of land, had earlier contracted to purchase the land from the former Girasdar, whose agreement required the Girasdar to obtain permission to convert the agricultural land into a village site before a sale deed could be executed. The appellant later entered into a second agreement

MAIKUversusVILAYAT HUSSAIN THROUGH L.RS.

1986 INSC 7110 April 1986Dismissed

The tenant, Maiku, fell into arrears of rent and, after repeated demands, the landlord filed an eviction suit. The tenant claimed he was not a defaulter because the landlord refused to accept his rent tender, prompting him to deposit the arrears in Court under Section 7C of the United Provinces (Temporary) Control of R

SUK DAS & ANR.versusUNION TERRITORY OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

1986 INSC 3110 March 1986Appeal(s) allowed

Suk Das and others were charged under IPC sections 506 and 34 for threatening a public servant. The appellant, being impoverished, could not afford a lawyer and was not informed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner that he was entitled to free legal aid at State expense. He was convicted and sentenced to two years' im

OM PRAKASHversusBHAGWAN DAS

1986 INSC 3210 March 1986Appeal(s) allowed

In Om Prakash v. Bhagwan Das, the landlord (appellant) sought eviction of the tenant under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, claiming a bona‑fide need for the premises and offering the tenant a reasonably suitable alternative accommodation. The Prescribed

MINERVA MILLS LTD. & ORS. ETC. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

1986 INSC 1859 September 1986Dismissed

Minerva Mills Ltd., a loss‑making textile undertaking, was investigated under s.15 of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. The Central Government, finding the mill’s management detrimental to public interest, ordered a takeover under s.18A of the same Act on 19 October 1971. Subsequently, the Sick Tex

OM PRAKASH RANA ETC. ETC.versusSWARUP SINGH TOMAR & ORS. ETC. ETC.

1986 INSC 1189 May 1986Dismissed

The case concerned a vacancy for the post of Principal of Veer Smarak Intermediate College. Om Prakash Rana, a principal of another college, sought to fill the vacancy by transfer under section 16‑G(2)(c) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, which allowed transfer of service. After the U.P. Secondary Education

SMT. DHANWANTIversusD.D. GUPTA

1986 INSC 1199 May 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a land‑lady, owned a house in Vasant Vihar and repeatedly let it out to the respondent, a judicial officer, for limited periods after obtaining permission under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. After the last two‑year tenancy expired in April 1982, the respondent refused to vacate, and the appel

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CALCUTTAversusBIJU PATNAIK

1986 INSC 1209 May 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The assessee, Biju Patnaik, claimed deductions for interest on loans from the Kalinga Foundation Trust and dividends from shares of Kalinga Tubes Ltd. The Income‑Tax Officer treated the cash credits and dividends as income from undisclosed sources, concluding that the trust was a camouflage for the assessee’s unaccount

CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY GUJARAT-I, AHMEDABADversusMRUDULA NARESHCHANDRA

1986 INSC 1219 May 1986Appeal(s) allowed

Nareshchandra Kantilal, a 28% partner in a firm, died and the accountable person filed an estate duty return that omitted the value of his share in the firm's goodwill, citing a partnership deed clause that the deceased had no right in goodwill. The Assistant Controller and Appellate Controller held that the goodwill s

HARMINDER SINGH ARORAversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

1986 INSC 1179 May 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a long‑time supplier of fresh milk, submitted the lowest bid in a tender issued by the Military Farms for fresh buffalo or cow milk. The authority instead awarded the contract to a government agency that had submitted a higher bid for pasteurised milk and also gave it a 10% price preference, contrary to

OM PRAKASH MAURYAversusU.P. COOPERATIVE SUGAR FACTORIES FEDERATION, LUCKNOW & ORS.

1986 INSC 1229 May 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, an employee of Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., was promoted to Commercial Officer on a one‑year probation which was later extended for another year, totalling the maximum two‑year probation allowed under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975. No confirmation order was issued,

CHAITANYA KUMARversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

1986 INSC 689 April 1986Dismissed

The Karnataka government invited applications for bottling arrack and, after receiving 131 applications, the Excise Commissioner recommended eight contractors, many of whom were not eligible under the Karnataka Excise (Bottling of Liquor) Rules. The State awarded the contracts despite the rules restricting licences to

RAJINDER KAURversusPUNJAB STATE & ANR.

1986 INSC 1648 August 1986Appeal(s) allowed

Rajinder Kaur, a temporary lady constable, was discharged under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 on the ground that she was "unlikely to prove an efficient police officer." She contended that the order was a disguise for dismissal on misconduct, based on a secret enquiry conducted without a charge‑sheet, hea

M. NIRMALA & ORS.versusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

1986 INSC 1658 August 1986Dismissed

The petitioners were temporary Group IV employees appointed after April 1974 under a ban on direct recruitment. Special qualifying tests in 1973 and 1976 were held for regularisation, but the petitioners could not appear because they lacked the required two‑years service. The Government later exempted them from any exa

ARYA SAMAJ, SAGAR & ORS.versusPINJAMAL & ANR.

1986 INSC 1668 August 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The Arya Samaj, which runs a girls' school, filed an eviction suit against the tenant occupying its building, claiming the premises were needed for additional school accommodation. The trial court and the appellate court ordered eviction under section 12(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, accepti

FAKIRBHAI FULABHAI SOLANKIversusPRESIDING OFFICER & ANR.

1986 INSC 1128 May 1986Appeal(s) allowed

Fakirbhai Fulabhai Solanki, a protected workman, was found guilty of misconduct and suspended without pay pending the employer's application under Section 33(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for permission to dismiss him. No subsistence allowance was paid during the six‑year pendency of the application, and the

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAYversusH. HOLCK LARSEN

1986 INSC 1138 May 1986Dismissed

The assessee, a former partner of Larsen & Toubro and later Chairman of the company, was allotted a large number of right shares under Section 81 of the Companies Act, 1956. Over several years he bought and sold both right and ordinary shares, making a profit of Rs.1,65,581. The Income Tax Officer and the Appellate Ass

ARUN S/O MAHADEORAO DAMKAversusADDITIONAL INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE & ANR.

1986 INSC 1148 May 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The petitioner, a police inspector with an exemplary service record, was reverted to the rank of sub‑inspector on 4 January 1985, with a note that the reversion would not affect future promotion. He claimed the reversion was punitive and violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution and filed a writ petition under Ar

INDIAN OIL CORPORATIONversusINCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE V, CALCUTTA & ORS.

1986 INSC 1158 May 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The Indian Oil Corporation, a UK‑incorporated company with its principal place of business in India, claimed large deductions for London management expenses incurred by its parent company, Burmah Oil Co. Ltd., in its income‑tax returns for the years 1957‑58 to 1959‑60. The Assessing Officer, relying on a 1963‑64 audito

CHAGANTI SATYANARAYAN & ORS.versusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

1986 INSC 1168 May 1986Dismissed

The appellants were arrested following a deadly riot and were remanded to judicial custody on July 20, 1985, with successive extensions until October 18, 1985. A charge‑sheet was filed on October 17, the 90th day of remand, and the magistrate granted bail, holding that the 90‑day limit in proviso (a) to Section 167(2)

J.P. SHARMAversusVINOD KUMAR JAIN

1986 INSC 678 April 1986

The case arose from a complaint filed by the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports alleging that several directors of Jain Sudh Vanaspati Ltd. conspired to illegally import beef tallow in violation of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and Section 120B of the IPC. The Delhi High Court, invoking Sectio

STATE BANK OF TRAVANCOREversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KERALA

1986 INSC 38 January 1986Dismissed

The State Bank of Travancore, a subsidiary of SBI, maintained its books on a mercantile basis and charged interest on advances it deemed "sticky" (highly doubtful of recovery) by debiting borrowers but crediting the amounts to an "Interest Suspense Account" instead of its profit‑and‑loss account. It claimed that such i

DILHARSHANKAR C. BHACHECHAversusTHE CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY, AHMEDABAD

1986 INSC 48 January 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a grandson and accountable person, paid estate duty on a bungalow that his grandparents had settled by a joint will. After the wife died, duty was paid on her share; when the husband later died, the revenue claimed duty on his half of the property, arguing that he became the full owner and that section 2

HINDUSTAN WIRES PRODUCTS LIMITEDversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PATIALA

1986 INSC 1627 August 1986Dismissed

Hindustan Wires Products Ltd., a manufacturer of insulated copper wires, claimed that its winding wires qualified as "cables" under item 7 of the Fifth/Sixth Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and therefore entitled it to development rebate and priority‑industry deductions under sections 33 and 80‑I for assessment y

SURAJ MAL AND ANOTHERversusRAM SINGH AND OTHERS

1986 INSC 1637 August 1986Dismissed

Suraj Mal and another (appellants) claimed title to a Zamindari parcel sold by Sona Devi, arguing that the sale deed gave them a valid interest. The respondents, Sona Devi's minor sons, sued for declaration that their mother only had a life interest and that the sale was void, seeking possession. The Munsif decreed in

JARNAIL SINGH & ORS. ETC.versusSTATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

1986 INSC 1107 May 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were appointed as ad‑hoc Surveyors in Punjab with a clause allowing termination at any time without notice. After a 1980 circular promised regularisation, their services were terminated on 31‑Jan‑1981 on the ground that the posts were no longer required. They challenged the termination, alleging that the

BIRA KISHORE NAIKversusCOAL INDIA LTD. & ORS.

1986 INSC 1117 May 1986Dismissed

The petition filed by B.K. Naik and 700 workmen sought a writ of mandamus directing the Central Government to declare that Natundihi Pahariabera Colliery had vested in it and to treat the petitioners as its employees with back wages under Section 14 of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act, 1973. The Court examined whet

ASHOK KUMAR MITTALversusMARUTI UDYOG LTD, & ANR.

1986 INSC 307 March 1986Disposed off

The petitioner, Ashok Kumar Mittal, applied for an allotment of a Maruti 800 car but due to a computer error his application was recorded for a Maruti truck; the company agreed to consider his case under the manufacturer's discretionary 5% quota. In the course of correspondence, Maruti Udyog disclosed its existing prac

BHAVARLAL LABHCHAND SHAHversusKANAIYALAL NATHALAL INTAWALA

1986 INSC 17 January 1986Dismissed

The landlord (respondent) leased a shop in Baroda to Bai Maniben Dhirajlal Shah for a monthly rent of Rs. 22. After her death, Maniben bequeathed her tenancy right under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 to Bhavarlal Labhchand Shah (petitioner) by a will, which was probated. The landlord

GANPAT GIRLversusIIND ADDITLONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BALIA & ORS.

1986 INSC 27 January 1986Appeal(s) allowed

Ganpat Giri appealed against a decree-holder who, after a court‑ordered sale of Giri's property, purchased the property without the express permission of the executing court required under Order 21 Rule 72 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The executing court set aside the sale under Rule 72(3) and the District Judge aff

MUMBAI MAZDOOR SABHAversusBENNET COLEMAN & COMPANY LTD. & ORS.

1986 INSC 1096 May 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha applied to the Industrial Court for recognition under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, claiming 67% membership. The rival union (Times of India and Allied Publications Employees Union) raised objections, but after an

NIDAMARTI MAHESHKUMARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

1986 INSC 656 April 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant challenged the Maharashtra Government's Rule B(2), which restricted MBBS admissions to students who had studied within the jurisdiction of a particular university, arguing it violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The High Court had upheld the rule, relying on a deferred Supreme Court order concerning t

G.K. DUDANI & ORS. ETC.versusS.D. SHARMA & ORS.

1986 INSC 646 April 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the inter‑se seniority between direct‑recruits and promotees in the Gujarat Civil Service (Deputy Collectors) after the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960. Direct recruits argued that promotees appointed to ex‑cadre and temporary posts between 1960‑62 were not "regularly appointed" and therefore should

CENTRAL INLAND WATER TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD. & ANR. ETC.versusBROJO NATH GANGULY & ANR.

1986 INSC 666 April 1986Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined whether the Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd., a government‑owned company under section 617 of the Companies Act, qualifies as "the State" under Article 12 of the Constitution and whether clause (i) of Rule 9 in its service rules – which allows termination of a permanent employe

TEJ PAL SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR.

1986 INSC 1565 August 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, an Additional District and Sessions Judge, was ordered to retire prematurely by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh based on the opinion of an Administrative Judge, without a prior recommendation from the High Court or its Administrative Committee as required by Article 235 of the Constitution. The appellant c

SHEELA BARSE & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

1986 INSC 1575 August 1986Directions issued

The petitioner filed a writ under Article 32 seeking release of children under 16 detained in jails, full information on child inmates, and directions for legal aid and inspection of juvenile facilities. The Supreme Court ordered each District Judge, through the High Court, to inspect jails, report on child prisoners,

GOVERNMENT MEDICAL STORE DEPOT, KARNALversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

1986 INSC 1585 August 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The Government Medical Store Depot, Kamal, a central government department that supplies medical stores to government hospitals on a "no profit, no loss" basis, was assessed sales tax for the years 1964-65 to 1968-69 under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. The tax authorities treated the depot as a "dealer" and o

VASUDEO VISHWANATH SARAFversusNEW EDUCATION INSTITUTE & ORS.

1986 INSC 1595 August 1986Appeal(s) allowed

Vasudeo Vishwanath Saraf, a former principal of a school run by New Education Institute, challenged multiple departmental enquiries and termination orders that were passed without hearing or reasons. The High Court repeatedly dismissed his writ petitions with laconic orders such as "rejected" and "dismissed" without re

BRIJ BEHARI SAHAIversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

1986 INSC 1605 August 1986Dismissed

Brij Behari Sahai, a leaseholder of about 42 acres of agricultural land in Allahabad, had his land temporarily occupied by the State for the Kumbh Mela in 1954. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation under Section 35 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the High Court enhanced the award but refused to gran

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusSHIROMANI GURDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITEE & ORS.

1986 INSC 1615 August 1986Case Allowed

The Union of India filed a transfer petition under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to move a suit filed by the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee and Sardar Gurcharan Singh Tohra against the Union and other respondents for Rs 1,000 crore damages arising from the 1984 Operation Blue Star. The suit

ANDHRA RE-ROLLING WORKS, HYDERABADversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

1986 INSC 1085 May 1986Dismissed

Andhra Re‑rolling Works converted 3,000 metric tonnes of untested rails into M.S. rounds under a contract. The Central Excise authorities issued notices demanding excise duty on the rounds under Item 26AA(i) of the First Schedule of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, invoking Rule 10‑A of the Central Excise Rules,

RAJ PRAKASH CHEMICALS LTD. & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

1986 INSC 275 March 1986Dismissed

Raj Prakash Chemicals Ltd., the sole Indian manufacturer of acrylic ester monomers, challenged the grant of Additional Licences to diamond exporters that allowed import of those monomers despite their being placed in the "Limited Permissible" list under the Import Policy 1985‑88. The core issue was the meaning of "spec

D.K. TRIVEDI AND SONS AND ORS. ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

1986 INSC 285 March 1986Dismissed

The petitioners, holders of quarry and mining leases for minor minerals in Gujarat, challenged a series of state notifications and a circular that altered rates of royalty and dead rent and classified building stones. The core issue was whether Section 15(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1

UNION CARBIDE INDIA LIMITEDversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1986 INSC 604 April 1986Appeal(s) allowed

Union Carbide India Ltd, a manufacturer of flashlights, extruded aluminium cans (torch bodies) from aluminium slugs. The Central Excise authorities demanded a price list for levying excise duty under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. The company contended that the cans were intermediate, not marketable articles an

KONKAN TRADING COMPANYversusSURESH GOVIND KAMAT TARKAR & ORS.

1986 INSC 634 April 1986Appeal(s) allowed

Konkan Trading Co. filed a suit which was withdrawn by the trial court on the condition that it pay Rs.100 costs and was given liberty to file a fresh suit under Order XXIII Rule 1(3) of the CPC. The fresh suit was filed before the costs were paid; the plaintiff later deposited the costs after obtaining the trial court

NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.versusSITARAM MILLS LTD. & ORS. ETC.

1986 INSC 614 April 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether the surplus lands owned by Shree Sitaram Mills formed part of the "assets in relation to the textile undertaking" under sub‑section (2) of section 3 of the Textile Undertakings (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1983. The mill, a sick textile undertaking, had been disposing of surplus l

S. THENAPPA CHETTIAR ETC.versusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

1986 INSC 254 March 1986Dismissed

The appellants challenged the Tamil Nadu Inam Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Amendment Act, 1969, which retrospectively brought certain part‑inam villages in the former Pudukkottai territory within the scope of the 1963 Inam Estates Act, thereby nullifying rights accrued under the Minor Inams Act and

DELHI CLOTH & GENERAL MILLS CO. LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

1986 INSC 264 March 1986Appeal(s) allowed

Delhi Cloth Mills, a manufacturer of vegetable oil products, sold its "Panghat" and "Roshni" brands at wholesale prices lower than the maximum prices fixed by a government notification under the Essential Commodities Act due to market depression. The company submitted these actual prices to the Superintendent of Centra

UNIVERSITY OF ALLAHABAD AND ORS.versusAMRIT CHAND TRIPATHI AND ORS.

1986 INSC 1822 September 1986Appeal(s) allowed

The Allahabad University, through its Admissions Committee, resolved on 6 May 1986 to introduce an entrance test for admission to its degree courses in Arts, Science and Commerce. The resolution was challenged in the Allahabad High Court on the ground that the Committee lacked authority and that the Vice‑Chancellor had

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