Facts:

The Entry Tax Authority conducted a raid on a cold storage facility, revealing discrepancies in the records of deposited dry fruits.

The respondent challenged the notice issued under Section 14(3) of the Entry Tax Act, claiming he purchased goods locally and the tax was already paid by another party.

The Tribunal, relying on the lack of evidence, set aside the demand for entry tax and penalty.

Issues:

Whether the burden of proof regarding the entry of specified goods without payment of tax lies with the Authority, and if the respondent can be taxed in the absence of providing particulars of local purchases.

Held:

The Tribunal held that the burden of proof rests on the Authority to establish that the goods were brought from outside the Calcutta Metropolitan Area by the respondent.

The absence of a provision placing the burden on the possessor of goods to prove their origin from outside was emphasized.

The Tribunal concluded that the Authority failed to provide evidence that the goods were brought from outside the Calcutta Metropolitan Area by the respondent.

The application of the respondent was allowed, and the demand for entry tax and penalty was set aside.

Facts:

The case involves the dismissal of S.L.P. (C) No. 7406 of 2000 in S.A. (W.P.) No. 149 (SB) of 1998. The appellants, represented by [Advocate's Name], challenged the decision based on the principles laid down in the aforementioned case.

Issues:

The central issues revolved around the criteria for the regular appointment of apprentices, specifically governed by the Apprentices Act, 1961. The principles outlined in the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation case formed the basis of the argument.

Held:

After hearing the counsel for the petitioner, the bench held that the decision in Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation case established clear criteria for the appointment of apprentices. The key principles included preferences for trained apprentices over direct recruits, sponsorship through employment exchange, relaxation of age barriers, and seniority based on training completion.

Decision: The Special Leave Petition (SLP) was dismissed, affirming the principles outlined in the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation case. The bench emphasized adherence to service regulations with exceptions, such as the exemption of trainees from written examinations. The relaxation of age requirements was also confirmed.

Facts:

Appeals filed by Delhi Administration against the High Court's judgment on amendments to land revenue rules.

High Court held amendments ultra vires of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954.

Amendments included changes to Rules 49, 63, 65, and 67, and Form P5.

Issues:

Validity of amendments to land revenue rules.

Whether possession of land adequately recorded in "Excluded Areas" as per the amended rules.

Classification of different land categories under Rule 63 considered contrary to the provisions of the Act.

Held:

High Court's view upheld that actual possession crucial for tenant's rights.

Amendments quashed as they could deprive individuals of possession rights in excluded areas.

Rule making authority acted beyond its power by classifying and excluding areas.

Section 20 requires the preparation of a record-of-rights specifying cultivation and occupation details.

Amendments affecting the rights of tenure holders and sub-tenure holders contrary to Land Reforms Act.

Facts:

The Port Haj Committees Act, 1932 was amended due to constitutional changes, continuing only with the Bombay and Calcutta Committees.

The Bill for the present Haj Committee Act, 1959, aimed to centralize and modernize the management of Haj pilgrims, replacing the old legislation.

The composition of the Haj Committee, outlined in Section 4, included various ex-officio members and nominated representatives from different authorities.

Issues:

The legislative framework and composition were designed when pilgrims were primarily transported by ship from the port of Bombay.

Pilgrims have been exclusively using air travel since 1993, concentrating more on Delhi than Bombay.

The ex-officio members, as outlined in Section 4(1)(a) to (f), continued to be part of the Haj Committee even though their roles became obsolete.

Held:

Given the shift in transportation mode for Haj pilgrims, the existing Haj Committee Act, 1959, was considered obsolete.

The Court suggested the appointment of a new Patron for the Haj Committee until a new Act or Ordinance was enacted.

The Foreign Secretary (at that time, Mr. Lalit Mansingh) was designated to control and supervise the current Haj Committee until new arrangements were made.

The Foreign Secretary had the discretion to nominate individuals in place of the ex-officio members, ensuring the efficient management of Haj affairs.

The Committee, under the direct supervision of the Foreign Secretary, was mandated to operate effectively, and decisions required approval from the Foreign Secretary.

Decision: All Transfer Cases were dismissed as infructuous. The Writ Petition and the SLP were disposed of finally.

Facts:

Two cases involving dependents of deceased employees.

Employees sought compassionate appointments after the death of the breadwinners.

Introduction of the Family Benefit Scheme in the NJSC Tripartite Agreement of 1989.

The High Court held that the Family Benefit Scheme precludes compassionate appointments.

Issues:

Interpretation of the Family Benefit Scheme in the NJSC Tripartite Agreement.

Constitutional obligation of the Steel Authority of India regarding compassionate appointments.

Impact of the 1989 Agreement on existing welfare measures.

Held:

The High Court's reliance on the Family Benefit Scheme to deny compassionate appointments was not justified.

The Steel Authority of India, as an authority under Article 12, is obligated to act in accordance with constitutional principles of social and economic justice.

The concept of social justice is crucial, and denial of compassionate employment opportunities goes against constitutional philosophy.

The introduction of the Family Benefit Scheme does not negate the existing obligation for compassionate appointments.

The Court directs the Steel Authority of India to provide compassionate employment to the appellants.

Facts:

Appellant and respondent were brothers involved in a dispute over a flat leased by MHADA.

MHADA evicted unauthorized occupants, and appellant's claim was later regularized.

Respondent challenged eviction order, leading to a writ petition (Writ Petition No. 5072/98).

Conciliator (Justice H. Suresh) appointed to resolve the dispute.

Issues:

Legality of the conciliator's actions in drawing up a settlement agreement without party signatures.

The Court's consideration of the settlement agreement as final without adherence to statutory procedures.

Held:

The court found that the conciliator failed to follow proper procedures and that the settlement agreement, not signed by the parties, should not have been considered final and binding. The order confirming the settlement agreement was set aside, and the court directed a fresh consideration of the writ petition.

Decision: The appeal was allowed, setting aside the order dated 6.10.1999. The settlement agreement dated 31.8.1999 filed by Justice H. Suresh before the High Court was also set aside. The High Court was directed to dispose of the Writ Petition afresh on merit in accordance with the law. Parties to bear their own costs.

Facts:

The case involves a dispute over land originally recorded in the name of Nanda Oraon, a Scheduled Tribe member.

Nanda Oraon executed a registered surrender deed in 1942, leading to the landlord obtaining possession.

The land was settled permanently in favor of Satish Chandra Baul.

Part of the land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, and the rest was sold to various individuals.

Appellant claims adoption by Sukhi Oraon, succeeding to the property rights.

Issues:

Validity of the surrender deed executed in 1942.

Appellant's claim as the adopted son of Sukhi Oraon.

Applicability of Section 71A of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act.

Held:

The Special Officer, after an inquiry, ordered the first respondent to restore possession to the appellant.

High Court allowed the first respondent's writ petition, stating that Section 71A did not apply unless there was a transfer of raiyati interest by a Scheduled Tribe member.

High Court held that the surrender in 1942 was valid, and previous permission from the Deputy Commissioner was not required.

The High Court rejected the appellant's claim of forcible dispossession and adoption.

The Court dismissed the appeals, considering subsequent developments, including criminal proceedings against the appellant, as serious concerns undermining his claims.

Facts:

The Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration and possession, which was dismissed.

An appeal against the decree's dismissal was also unsuccessful.

The Plaintiff then filed a second appeal before the High Court.

The High Court, without framing substantial questions of law, allowed the second appeal and decreed the suit.

Issues:

Whether the High Court, in a second appeal, is required to frame substantial questions of law under Section 100(4) of the CPC.

The adequacy of legal grounds for setting aside the High Court's judgment.

Held:

The court acknowledges that, as established in previous rulings, the High Court must frame substantial questions of law under Section 100(4) of the CPC to gain jurisdiction for deciding a second appeal on merits.

The High Court's failure to frame any substantial question of law is deemed a sufficient ground to set aside the judgment under appeal.

The matter is remanded to the High Court, with instructions to decide the appeal only after framing a substantial question of law relevant to the case.

Final Result : Allowed

Facts:

Appellants are inhabitants of Khajuri, Tehsil Jagadari, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana.

"Charand" land vested in the Gram Panchayat.

Appellants filed a writ petition opposing leasing out of Charand land by Gram Panchayat.

Issues:

Whether the reservation of Charand land for Gram Panchayat income violates Article 31A.

Whether the land could vest in Gram Panchayat without compensating proprietors.

Legality of Charand land reservation under Section 5 of the Act.

Alleged contravention of grazing rights of proprietors and non-proprietors.

Held:

The High Court, relying on precedent (Khushi Puri's case), held Charand land falls under "Shamilat deh" as defined in the Act.

Gram Panchayat empowered to use the land for specified purposes, including leasing out for cultivation, as per Rule 3(2).

Distinction between Charand land and shamilat deh rejected. The High Court's decision affirmed, stating no violation of Article 31A.

Appellants' delay in legal action noted. The court finds the appeal without merit and dismisses it without costs.