Facts:

Respondent's husband, a railway employee, died in harness.

Respondent received family pension, gratuity, provident fund, and other retirement benefits.

The railways provided compassionate appointment to the respondent.

Respondent received salary as a railway employee and family pension simultaneously until the discovery that she was not entitled to two dearness reliefs.

Issues:

Whether the respondent, now an employee and a pensioner, is entitled to dearness relief on family pension despite receiving a compassionate appointment in the railways.

Held:

The core issue revolves around Rule 21 of the Railways Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, specifically dealing with dearness relief on pension or family pension.

Rule 21(ii) states that a pensioner re-employed under the government shall not be eligible for dearness relief during the period of re-employment.

The Court interprets "re-employed" broadly, including the first regular appointment in the service.

The rationale is that a pensioner cannot draw two dearness reliefs simultaneously - on salary and pension.

The respondent, as a widow, was given employment in the railways on compassionate grounds, technically in substitution of her husband.

Since she is a pensioner receiving family pension, Rule 21 applies, and she is not entitled to two dearness reliefs.

The Court supports the denial of dearness relief on the family pension as legally justified.

The recovery of excess pension paid to the respondent between 26.1.87 to 25.1.94 is deemed unjustified on legal and equitable grounds.

The judgment and order under appeal are set aside, and the appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.

Facts:

The appellants, legal heirs of the landlord, seek eviction of the first respondent (tenant) under Clause (1) of Section 13(1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The respondents, sons of the tenant, had built a house, and the dispute centers around whether this constitutes suitable alternative accommodation.

Issues:

Whether the sons, as landlords, can evict the aged mother (tenant) based on the construction of an alternative residence. The court also considers the moral obligation of the sons to provide for their mother.

Held:

The court emphasizes the legal distinction between moral obligations and enforceable legal duties. While morally obliged to care for the aged mother, the sons are not legally obligated to provide her residence in the newly built house.

The court interprets the term 'acquired vacant possession' as the acquisition of a legally enforceable right to reside in a suitable accommodation, which the mother lacks in the house built by her sons.

Despite the sons' moral obligation to care for the mother, the court asserts that this obligation cannot be enlarged into a legal duty to provide her residence in the house along with their families.

The court concludes that the requirements of Clause (1) of Section 13(1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, are not satisfied, and the High Court's judgment, which denied eviction, is legally sound.

The appeal is dismissed without costs.

Facts:

The case involves four accused persons charged with offenses under Sections 302/34, 498A, and 201 of the IPC, as well as Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The primary allegation is the murder of the deceased Porkodi due to strangulation in her in-law's house, with additional charges related to cruelty and dowry demands.

Issues:

The validity of the conviction under Section 498-A (cruelty) and Section 302 (murder) against the accused. The court also examines the role of each accused, scrutinizing the evidence provided by prosecution witnesses.

Held:

Acquittal of Accused No. 2 (Balasubramaniam): The court scrutinizes the evidence against Accused No. 2 (Balasubramaniam), emphasizing the lack of direct evidence linking him to the crime. The court upholds the Sessions Judge's order of acquittal, stating that the charge of murder was not established beyond reasonable doubt. Conviction under Section 201 IPC is set aside.

Conviction of Accused No. 1 and 3: The court affirms the conviction of Accused Nos. 1 and 3 under Sections 302/34, 498A, and 201 IPC. The court relies on the testimony of prosecution witnesses, including PWs 3 and 4, and rejects the argument that the subsequent version is an exaggeration. The acquittal of Accused No. 3 is not accepted.

Acquittal of Accused No. 4 (Asokan) and Conviction under Section 498-A: The court upholds the High Court's decision to overturn the acquittal of Accused No. 4 (Asokan) under Section 498A IPC. Evidence, including statements from PW7 about dowry demands, supports the conviction.

Cruelty under Section 498-A - Throwing Coffee: The court clarifies that the act of throwing coffee by the accused at the deceased, as the only evidence of ill-treatment, does not amount to cruelty or harassment under Section 498-A.

Benefit of Doubt to Accused No. 2 (Balasubramaniam) - Section 302: The court reiterates that the evidence fails to establish the presence of Accused No. 2 inside the house during the strangulation, leading to the benefit of doubt and acquittal under Section 302.

Inquest Report and Non-Disclosure by Witness - Section 174: The court dismisses the argument that non-disclosure of the assailant's name by a witness during the inquest report should not lead to disbelief of the witness's testimony.

****************************************************

Facts:

The manufacturer availed the procedure for payment of duty under Rule 96ZO(3) but sought to claim the benefit of Section 34(4) for the determination of actual production and re-determination of duty.

Issues:

Whether a manufacturer, having chosen the procedure under Rule 96ZO(3), can later claim the benefit of Section 34(4) for determining actual production.

Held:

The court considered the conflicting views on the matter, particularly the decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the Allahabad High Court.

The court held that Rule 96ZO(3) and Section 34(4) are two alternative procedures at the option of the assessee. The procedures do not clash, and a hybrid procedure cannot be adopted.

Manufacturers who opted for the lumpsum payment under Rule 96ZO(3) cannot claim the benefit of determination of production capacity under Section 34(4), as it is explicitly excluded.

The court overruled the view taken by the Allahabad High Court in Pravesh Castings (P) Ltd. and endorsed the reasoning of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Sathavahana Steels & Alloys (P) Ltd.

The court set aside orders made by the Tribunal in cases where furnace capacity had been wrongly fixed and directed the Tribunal to bring the orders in conformity with the court's view.

The appeals were allowed, and no costs were awarded in the circumstances of the case.

FACTS:

For the assessment periods 1978-79 and 1979-80, the Sales Tax Officer assessed the respondent (M/S. Popular Trading Company, Ujjain) under the Madhya Pradesh Sthaniya Kshetra Me Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar Adhiniyam, 1976. The respondent, a dealer in coconuts, was assessed entry tax on 'watery coconuts' under the Act.

ISSUES:

Whether 'watery coconut' falls within the scope of the entry for taxation under the Act.

HELD:

The appellate authority rejected the claim of the assessee that 'watery coconut' is not liable to payment of entry tax. The matter was carried to the Tribunal and then to the High Court, where the High Court held that 'watery coconut' is not taxable under the relevant entry of the Act.

The appellant contended that 'watery coconut' undergoes a natural process of ripening to become a coconut, falling under the category of 'oil seed.' The High Court's view was criticized for overlooking the essence of the matter.

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the phrase 'that is to say' in the entry, stating that 'watery coconut' does fall under the definition of 'oil seed' and is, therefore, taxable. The court explained that 'watery coconut' does not cease to be an 'oil seed' merely because it yields some watery substance.

Reference was made to the decision in Sri Siddhi Vinayaka Coconut & Co. and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, where it was clarified that 'watery coconuts' are not outside the scope of the relevant provision.

The court rejected the High Court's interpretation, stating that 'watery coconut' is indeed taxable under the relevant entry of the Act. The order of the High Court was set aside, and that of the Tribunal was restored.

In conclusion, no costs were awarded, and the appeals were allowed accordingly.

REFERRED CASES:

Ganpat Lal Lakhotia Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, (1997) 10 SCC 455 : (1997) 104 STC 91

State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Pyare Lal Malhotra and Others, AIR 1976 SC 800 : (1983) 13 ELT 1582 : (1976) 1 SCC 834 : (1976) 3 SCR 168 : (1976) 37 STC 319

Sri Siddhi Vinayaka Coconut and Co. and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, AIR 1974 SC 1111 : (1974) 4 SCC 835 : (1975) 1 SCR 440 : (1974) 34 STC 103 : (1974) 6 UJ 470

Sri Krishna Coconut and Co., Ambajipeta Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Amalapuram, AIR 1966 AP 128 : (1965) 16 STC 511

Facts:

The case revolves around the appointment of Regional Transport Officers in Andhra Pradesh. The recruitment process is governed by the Andhra Pradesh Transport Services Rules, particularly Rule 3(a). The dispute arose when employees from the State Transport Authority and the Secretariat were appointed as Regional Transport Officers through transfer, challenging the validity of these appointments.

Issues:

Whether the appointments of Regional Transport Officers from the State Transport Authority and the Secretariat, through transfer, are in accordance with the Andhra Pradesh Transport Services Rules and the Presidential Order of 1975.

Held:

The court held that the appointments were valid, emphasizing the overriding power of the State Government under para 5(2) of the Presidential Order of 1975. This provision allows the State Government to make provisions contrary to the scheme of local cadres prescribed under para 5(1), giving precedence to public interest and administrative exigencies over promotional interests.

Decision: The court allowed the appeals, setting aside the judgments and orders under appeal. There was no order as to costs.

Facts:

After passing the 12th Examination, appellants sought admission to the B.Ed Course. Despite scoring between 63 to 65%, their attempts were unsuccessful. They approached the High Court under Article 226, challenging the district-wise distribution of seats among four districts—Parbhani, Nanded, Bead, and Later.

Issues:

The challenge centered around the contention that the district-wise allocation of seats, without indicating a nexus to the intended goal, violated Article 14 of the Constitution.

Held:

The appellants argued that the admission process, based on a common admission test, rendered district-wise seat distribution invalid. Citing previous rulings, the Court held that such allocation, without a clear connection to the objective of securing the best possible talent for admission, is violative of Article 14. The Court emphasized that even reasonable classification must have a nexus with the intended objective.

Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal without costs, acknowledging the impracticality of directing admission for the appellants after a five-year lapse. However, if fresh admissions are initiated, the appellants should be given an opportunity to seek admission to the B.Ed course.

Facts:

Respondent No. 1 selected as Ziledar, seeking appointment as Tehsildar.

Recruitment rules specified sources for Tehsildar appointments - direct recruitment, promotion, and transfer.

Government instructions clarified reservation policies for different classes of posts.

Respondent claimed entitlement to Tehsildar post based on seniority and reservation, challenging the non-application of reservation in a prior recruitment.

Issues:

Applicability of reservation policies to appointments by transfer to Class II posts.

Respondent's entitlement to Tehsildar post based on previous promotion to Deputy Collector.

Held:

Class III post of Ziledar and Class II posts of Deputy Collector and Tehsildar examined.

Respondent promoted to Deputy Collector, equivalent to Tehsildar, not entitled to claim reservation benefits.

Recruitment rules and facts establish the respondent's ineligibility for Tehsildar post.

High Court's order set aside, and the writ petition dismissed. No costs awarded.

Facts:

Recruitment for First Fireman: Originally 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion. Later changed to 100% promotion.

Appellants recruited as Apprentice Firemen in 1985, completed training, and appointed as First Firemen in 1990.

Respondents (4 to 143) appointed on ad hoc basis as Fireman 'B' in 1987 due to urgent needs before the change in recruitment rules.

Promotion Process: Selection for promotion to First Fireman took time; respondents were finally selected and regularized in 1992.

Issues:

Dispute over seniority between direct recruits (appellants) and promotees (respondents 4 to 143).

Whether the period of ad hoc service of respondents should be counted towards seniority.

Held:

Recruitment Rules Change: Initially, 50% vacancies by direct recruitment, later changed to 100% promotion for First Fireman.

Ad Hoc Promotion: Ad hoc promotion found permissible under Para 216 of the Railway Establishment Manual.

Seniority Counting: Respondents entitled to count entire period of ad hoc service towards seniority as they were duly selected and regularized.

Appellants' Condition: Appellants' seniority subject to finalization of the promotion selection process, clearly mentioned in their appointment letters.

Decision: Appeals dismissed. Respondents entitled to count ad hoc service for seniority. Appellants' seniority subject to finalization of promotion selection.