Supreme Court Decisions/Judgements Directory

Judges: P B Sawant And G N Ray Jj Act Civil Services Maharashtra Industrial Development Act 1991 Section 64 Resolution Passed In 1988 Promotion To The Post Of Superintending Engineer Resolution Reserving 75 Of Posts Engineering Graduates And 25 To Diploma Holders Validity Of Constitution Of India 1950 Article 14 16 Promotion Officer Holding The Same Post Classification On The Basis Of Qualification Whether Violative Of Headnote The Petitioner A Diploma Holders In Engineering Was Executive Engineer In The Respondent Corporation He Would Have Been Promoted As Superintending Engineer But For A Resolution Passed In 1988 Making 75 Of The Posts Of Superintending Engineers Available To Executive Engineers With Diploma In Engineering Degrees And 25 To Executive Engineers With Diploma In Engineering Respondent No 2 Who Junior To Petitioner But Had Engineering Degree Was Promoted As Superintending Engineer The Petitioner Challenged The Promotion Of Respondent No 2 Before The High Court By Way Of A Writ Petition The High Court Having Dismissed The Same The Petitioner Preferred The Present Special Leave Petition On Behalf Of The Petitioner It Was Contended That Since There Was A Common Seniority List Of Executive Engineers Any Classification On The Basis Of Education Qualification Was Discriminatory And Violative Of Articles 14 And 16 Of The Constitution And That In The Absence Of Any Statutory Rule Or Regulation A Mere Resolution Could Not Effect Such Discrimination Dismissing The Petition This Court Held 1 1 It Is Now Well Settled That For The Purpose Of Promotion A Valid Classification Can Be Made Among The Members Holding The Same Post On The Basis Of Their Qualification Such A Classification Is Permissible And Does Not Violate Articles 14 And 16 Of The Constitution 99 A B 1 2 It Is For The Authorities If They So Desire Taking Into Consideration The Nature Of Work The Requisite Qualification For The Work And The Necessity For Making A Classification To Prescribe Quotas On The Basis Of Educational Qualification 99 D State Of Jammu, Kashmir V Triloki Nath Khosa, Ors 1974 1 Scr 771 Followed H C Sharma, Ors V Municipal Corporation Of Delhi

21 October, 1992·PETITIONER:ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORTCORPORATION Vs. RESPONDENT:M.GURIVI REDDY AND ORS. ETC. ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT19/08/1992 BENCH:RANGNATHAN, S. BENCH:RANGNATHAN, S. SHARMA, L.M. (J) CITATION:1992 AIR 1913 1992 SCR (3) 935 1992 SCC (4) 72 JT 1992 (4) 557 1992 SCALE (2)205 ACT:Motor...

Judges: P B Sawant And G N Ray Jj Act Civil Services Maharashtra Industrial Development Act 1991 Section 64 Resolution Passed In 1988 Promotion To The Post Of Superintending Engineer Resolution Reserving 75 Of Posts Engineering Graduates And 25 To Diploma Holders Validity Of Constitution Of India 1950 Article 14 16 Promotion Officer Holding The Same Post Classification On The Basis Of Qualification Whether Violative Of Headnote The Petitioner A Diploma Holders In Engineering Was Executive Engineer In The Respondent Corporation He Would Have Been Promoted As Superintending Engineer But For A Resolution Passed In 1988 Making 75 Of The Posts Of Superintending Engineers Available To Executive Engineers With Diploma In Engineering Degrees And 25 To Executive Engineers With Diploma In Engineering Respondent No 2 Who Junior To Petitioner But Had Engineering Degree Was Promoted As Superintending Engineer The Petitioner Challenged The Promotion Of Respondent No 2 Before The High Court By Way Of A Writ Petition The High Court Having Dismissed The Same The Petitioner Preferred The Present Special Leave Petition On Behalf Of The Petitioner It Was Contended That Since There Was A Common Seniority List Of Executive Engineers Any Classification On The Basis Of Education Qualification Was Discriminatory And Violative Of Articles 14 And 16 Of The Constitution And That In The Absence Of Any Statutory Rule Or Regulation A Mere Resolution Could Not Effect Such Discrimination Dismissing The Petition This Court Held 1 1 It Is Now Well Settled That For The Purpose Of Promotion A Valid Classification Can Be Made Among The Members Holding The Same Post On The Basis Of Their Qualification Such A Classification Is Permissible And Does Not Violate Articles 14 And 16 Of The Constitution 99 A B 1 2 It Is For The Authorities If They So Desire Taking Into Consideration The Nature Of Work The Requisite Qualification For The Work And The Necessity For Making A Classification To Prescribe Quotas On The Basis Of Educational Qualification 99 D State Of Jammu, Kashmir V Triloki Nath Khosa, Ors 1974 1 Scr 771 Followed H C Sharma, Ors V Municipal Corporation Of Delhi

21 October, 1992·PETITIONER:SHAMKANT NARAYAN DESPANDE Vs. RESPONDENT:MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTCORPORATION AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT21/10/1992 BENCH:[P.B. SAWANT AND G.N. RAY, JJ.] ACT:Civil services :Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1991:Section 64- Resolution passed in 1988- Promotion to the post of...

Judges: P B Sawant And G N Ray Jj Act Civil Services Maharashtra Industrial Development Act 1991 Section 64 Resolution Passed In 1988 Promotion To The Post Of Superintending Engineer Resolution Reserving 75 Of Posts Engineering Graduates And 25 To Diploma Holders Validity Of Constitution Of India 1950 Article 14 16 Promotion Officer Holding The Same Post Classification On The Basis Of Qualification Whether Violative Of Headnote The Petitioner A Diploma Holders In Engineering Was Executive Engineer In The Respondent Corporation He Would Have Been Promoted As Superintending Engineer But For A Resolution Passed In 1988 Making 75 Of The Posts Of Superintending Engineers Available To Executive Engineers With Diploma In Engineering Degrees And 25 To Executive Engineers With Diploma In Engineering Respondent No 2 Who Junior To Petitioner But Had Engineering Degree Was Promoted As Superintending Engineer The Petitioner Challenged The Promotion Of Respondent No 2 Before The High Court By Way Of A Writ Petition The High Court Having Dismissed The Same The Petitioner Preferred The Present Special Leave Petition On Behalf Of The Petitioner It Was Contended That Since There Was A Common Seniority List Of Executive Engineers Any Classification On The Basis Of Education Qualification Was Discriminatory And Violative Of Articles 14 And 16 Of The Constitution And That In The Absence Of Any Statutory Rule Or Regulation A Mere Resolution Could Not Effect Such Discrimination Dismissing The Petition This Court Held 1 1 It Is Now Well Settled That For The Purpose Of Promotion A Valid Classification Can Be Made Among The Members Holding The Same Post On The Basis Of Their Qualification Such A Classification Is Permissible And Does Not Violate Articles 14 And 16 Of The Constitution 99 A B 1 2 It Is For The Authorities If They So Desire Taking Into Consideration The Nature Of Work The Requisite Qualification For The Work And The Necessity For Making A Classification To Prescribe Quotas On The Basis Of Educational Qualification 99 D State Of Jammu, Kashmir V Triloki Nath Khosa, Ors 1974 1 Scr 771 Followed H C Sharma, Ors V Municipal Corporation Of Delhi

21 October, 1992·PETITIONER:PRANTIYA VIDHUT MANDAL MAZDOORFEDERATION ETC. ETC.Vs. RESPONDENT:RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARDAND ORS. ETC.ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT23/04/1992 BENCH:KULDIP SINGH (J) BENCH:KULDIP SINGH (J) YOGESHWAR DAYAL (J) CITATION:1992 AIR 1737 1992 SCR (2) 757 1992 SCC (2) 723 JT 1992 (3) 51 ...

Judges: S Ranganathan And B P Jeevan Reddy, Jj Act Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1956 Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 Sections 2 H And J Sections 2 P, G And 3 1 Rule 6 Sales Tax Assessment Of Taxable Turn Over Computation Of Freight Charges, Packing Charges And Excise Duty On Packing Materials Whether Includible In Sale Price For Purpose Of Both Central Sales Tax And Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Headnote The Appellants Assessees In The First Set Of Appeals Were Selling Agents Of Appellants In The Second Set Of Appeals For The Assessment Year 1996 70, They Were Assessed To Sales Tax On Taxable Turn Over Of Rs 2, 37, 66, 245 Which Included An Amount Of Rs 29, 71, 527 Representing Freight Charges The Assessee Claimed Exclusion Of Freight Charges In Computing The Taxable Turnover On The Ground That Freight Had Been Independently Charged In The Invoices This Was Rejected By The Assessing Authority, The Appellate Authority As Well As Tribunal Aggrieved, The Assessee Preferred Revisions To The High Court The High Court Held That In Cases Arising Under The Central Sales Tax Act, The Freight, Packing Charges And Excise Duty On Packing Materials Had To Be Included In The Sale Price For The Computation Of Sales Tax, That In Cases Arising Under The Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act And Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act, Freight, Packing Charges And Excise Duty On Packing Materials Were Not Liable To Be Included In The Sale Price For The Computation Of The Sale Price, And That The Assessees Were Not Liable To Pay Additional Sales Tax On Freight, Packing Materials And Excise Duty On Packing Materials In The Cases Arising Under The Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act Aggrieved, Both The As Well As Well As The State Government Filed Appeals Before This Court On Behalf Of The State It Was Contended That The High Court, Having Held That The Amounts In Question Were Liable To The Included In The Turnover For Purposes Of Central Sales Tax Act, Ought To Have Also Held That These Amounts Were Liable To Be Included In The Taxable Turnover For Purposes Of Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act And The Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act Also, And Relief Granted For Purposes Of The Local Sales Tax Was Erroneous On Behalf Of The Assessees, It Was Contended That, Even For The Purpose Of C S T, The Freight Charges, The Cost Of Packing Materials And The Excise Duty On The Packing Materials Should Have Been Excluded In The Computation O

20 October, 1992·PETITIONER:DR. LAKSHMANSINGH HIMATSINGH VAGHELE Vs. RESPONDENT:NARESH KUMAR CHANDRASHANKAR JHA AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT24/07/1990 BENCH:FATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J) BENCH:FATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J) THOMMEN, T.K. (J) KULDIP SINGH (J) CITATION:1990 AIR 1976 1990 SCR (3) 511 1990 SCC (4) 169 JT 1990 (3) 2...

Judges: J S Verma And S P Bharucha, Jj Act Terrorist And Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 Sections 5, 12 Offence Under Section 25 Of The Arms Act Conviction Under Section 12 Of The T D A Act By Designated Court Legality Sentence Modification Of Arms Act 1959 Section 25 1 B A Offence Under Conviction By Designated Court U S 12 Of The T D A Act Legality Of Sentence Modification Of Interpretation Of Statutes Terrorist And Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 Section 5 Arms And Ammunition Construction Headnote On 7 4 1988, The Police Apprehended The Appellant On The G T Road On Suspicion, And He Was Found Carrying A 12 Bore Country Made Pistol Without Licence Or Permit The District Magistrate Issued Sanction For Prosecuting The Appellant For An Offence Under Section 25 Of The Arms Act, 1959 The Judicial Magistrate, First Class Ordered That As The Case Should Be Tried By The Designated Court Under Section 5 Of The Terrorist And Distruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 The Case Was Transferred To The Additional Judge, The Designated Court, For Trial, Charging The Appellant For The Offence Punishable Under Section 5 Of The T D A Act, 1987 The Appellant Pleaded Not Guilty The Designated Judge Found That The Prosecution Had Brought Home The Offence To The Appellant Beyond Reasonable Doubt And The Appellant Was Convicted Of An Offence Punishable Under Section 5 Of The T D A Act And Sentenced To Undergo Rigorous Imprisonment For Five Years And To Pay A Fine Of Rs 200 Or, In Default, To Undergo Rigorous Imprisonment For A Further Period Of Three Months Against The Judgment And Order Of The Designated Court, The Present Appeal Was Filed The Appellant Contended That The Prosecution Itself Did Not Consider The Case Against Him To Be A Fit Case To Frame A Charge And Proceed Under The T A D A Act, 1987 And That It Was, Therefore, Not Proper To Try And Convict Thereunder That A Country Made Pistol Fell Outside The Ambit Of The Category Iii A, Of Schedule I To The Arms Rules, 1962 That Section 5 Of The T A D A Act, 1987 Applied Only When A Person Was In Possession Arms And Ammunition And That The Provisions Of Section 5 Of The T A D A Act Did Not Apply To The Appellant The Respondent State Submitted That The Prosecution Ha

20 October, 1992·PETITIONER:SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT AND ORS.Vs. RESPONDENT:WEST BENGAL REGISTRATION SERVICE ASSOCIATION ANDORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT20/02/1992 BENCH:AHMADI, A.M. (J) BENCH:AHMADI, A.M. (J) PUNCHHI, M.M.CITATION:1992 AIR 1203 1992 SCR (1) 897 1993 SCC Supl. (1) 153 JT 1992 (2) 27 1992 SCALE (1)...

Judges: A S Anand, Jj Act Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 S 113 Levy Of Octroi Indian Oil Corporation Petroleum Products Transportation To Depot Within Municipal Limits For Export Therefrom To Dealers Outside Municipal Limits At Risk Of Ioc Held Transaction Of Re Export Octroi Duty Not Chargeable On Such Transaction Constitution Of India, 1950 Article 246, Seventh Schedule, List Ii, Entry 52 Tax On Entry Of Goods Into Local Area For Consumption Use Or Sale Therein State Legislature Power To Legislate Held Municipal Corporation Cannot Have Authority More Extensive Than That Of State Legislature Words And Phrases Imported Into The City S 113 Of Punjab Municipal Corporation Act Meaning Of Headnote The Appellant, Indian Oil Corporation Ioc, Had A Depot, Comprising A Pipeline Terminal And Lpg Bottling Plant, Within The Limits Of Municipal Corporation, Jullundhar The Ioc Transported Various Petroleum Products To The Depot Through Underground Pipelines The Respondent Municipal Corporation Raised A Demand On The Ioc For Octroi The Ioc Deposited The Octroi Duty But Filed Appeals Before The Appellate Authority Challenging The Demand Notice So Far As It Related To The Petroleum Products Imported To The Depot For Export By The Ioc Therefrom To Its Dealers For The Sale, Use And Consumption By Persons Other Than Ioc, Outside The Octroi Limits The Appeals Were Dismissed In The Writ Petition Before The High Court The Ioc, Besides Impugning The Judgment Of The Appellate Authority, Challenged The Validity Of S 113 Of The Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 Authorising Levy Of Octroi On Articles And Animals Imported Within The Municipal Limits Of The Respondent Corporation Without Any Reference To The Use, Consumption Or Sale Of The Said Goods, As Being Beyond The Power Of The State Legislature In View Of Entry 52 Of List Ii Of Schedule Vii To The Constitution Of India It Was Contended That The Municipal Corporation Could Not Impose And Demand Octroi Duty On The Petroleum Products Imported By The Ioc To Its Depot For Being Exported At The Risk Of The Ioc To Its Dealers At Their Sale Points Situated Outside The Area Of The Municipal

20 October, 1992·PETITIONER:INDIAN OIL CORPORATION Vs. RESPONDENT:MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, JULLUNDHAR AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT20/10/1992 BENCH:[J.S. VERMA AND DR. A.S. ANAND, JJ.] ACT:Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976:S.113-Levy of octroi-Indian Oil Corporation-Petroleum Products-Transportation to depot withi...

Judges: S Ranganathan And B P Jeevan Reddy, Jj Act Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1956 Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 Sections 2 H And J Sections 2 P, G And 3 1 Rule 6 Sales Tax Assessment Of Taxable Turn Over Computation Of Freight Charges, Packing Charges And Excise Duty On Packing Materials Whether Includible In Sale Price For Purpose Of Both Central Sales Tax And Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Headnote The Appellants Assessees In The First Set Of Appeals Were Selling Agents Of Appellants In The Second Set Of Appeals For The Assessment Year 1996 70, They Were Assessed To Sales Tax On Taxable Turn Over Of Rs 2, 37, 66, 245 Which Included An Amount Of Rs 29, 71, 527 Representing Freight Charges The Assessee Claimed Exclusion Of Freight Charges In Computing The Taxable Turnover On The Ground That Freight Had Been Independently Charged In The Invoices This Was Rejected By The Assessing Authority, The Appellate Authority As Well As Tribunal Aggrieved, The Assessee Preferred Revisions To The High Court The High Court Held That In Cases Arising Under The Central Sales Tax Act, The Freight, Packing Charges And Excise Duty On Packing Materials Had To Be Included In The Sale Price For The Computation Of Sales Tax, That In Cases Arising Under The Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act And Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act, Freight, Packing Charges And Excise Duty On Packing Materials Were Not Liable To Be Included In The Sale Price For The Computation Of The Sale Price, And That The Assessees Were Not Liable To Pay Additional Sales Tax On Freight, Packing Materials And Excise Duty On Packing Materials In The Cases Arising Under The Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act Aggrieved, Both The As Well As Well As The State Government Filed Appeals Before This Court On Behalf Of The State It Was Contended That The High Court, Having Held That The Amounts In Question Were Liable To The Included In The Turnover For Purposes Of Central Sales Tax Act, Ought To Have Also Held That These Amounts Were Liable To Be Included In The Taxable Turnover For Purposes Of Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act And The Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act Also, And Relief Granted For Purposes Of The Local Sales Tax Was Erroneous On Behalf Of The Assessees, It Was Contended That, Even For The Purpose Of C S T, The Freight Charges, The Cost Of Packing Materials And The Excise Duty On The Packing Materials Should Have Been Excluded In The Computation O

20 October, 1992·PETITIONER:CHANDRIKA SINGH AND ORS.Vs. RESPONDENT:RAJA VISHWANATH PRATAP SINGH AND ANR DATE OF JUDGMENT22/04/1992 BENCH:AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) BENCH:AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) FATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J) CITATION:1992 AIR 1318 1992 SCR (2) 640 1992 SCC (3) 90 JT 1992 (3) 55 1992 SCALE (1)883 ACT:U..P.Zamindari ...

Judges: S Ranganathan And B P Jeevan Reddy, Jj Act Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1956 Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 Sections 2 H And J Sections 2 P, G And 3 1 Rule 6 Sales Tax Assessment Of Taxable Turn Over Computation Of Freight Charges, Packing Charges And Excise Duty On Packing Materials Whether Includible In Sale Price For Purpose Of Both Central Sales Tax And Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Headnote The Appellants Assessees In The First Set Of Appeals Were Selling Agents Of Appellants In The Second Set Of Appeals For The Assessment Year 1996 70, They Were Assessed To Sales Tax On Taxable Turn Over Of Rs 2, 37, 66, 245 Which Included An Amount Of Rs 29, 71, 527 Representing Freight Charges The Assessee Claimed Exclusion Of Freight Charges In Computing The Taxable Turnover On The Ground That Freight Had Been Independently Charged In The Invoices This Was Rejected By The Assessing Authority, The Appellate Authority As Well As Tribunal Aggrieved, The Assessee Preferred Revisions To The High Court The High Court Held That In Cases Arising Under The Central Sales Tax Act, The Freight, Packing Charges And Excise Duty On Packing Materials Had To Be Included In The Sale Price For The Computation Of Sales Tax, That In Cases Arising Under The Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act And Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act, Freight, Packing Charges And Excise Duty On Packing Materials Were Not Liable To Be Included In The Sale Price For The Computation Of The Sale Price, And That The Assessees Were Not Liable To Pay Additional Sales Tax On Freight, Packing Materials And Excise Duty On Packing Materials In The Cases Arising Under The Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act Aggrieved, Both The As Well As Well As The State Government Filed Appeals Before This Court On Behalf Of The State It Was Contended That The High Court, Having Held That The Amounts In Question Were Liable To The Included In The Turnover For Purposes Of Central Sales Tax Act, Ought To Have Also Held That These Amounts Were Liable To Be Included In The Taxable Turnover For Purposes Of Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act And The Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act Also, And Relief Granted For Purposes Of The Local Sales Tax Was Erroneous On Behalf Of The Assessees, It Was Contended That, Even For The Purpose Of C S T, The Freight Charges, The Cost Of Packing Materials And The Excise Duty On The Packing Materials Should Have Been Excluded In The Computation O

20 October, 1992·PETITIONER:DR. A.K. SABHAPATHY Vs. RESPONDENT:STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT22/04/1992 BENCH:AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) BENCH:AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) FATHIMA BEEVI, M. (J) CITATION:1992 AIR 1310 1992 SCR (2) 653 1992 SCC Supl. (3) 147 JT 1992 (3) 66 1992 SCALE (1)843 ACT:Constitution of India, 1950...

Judges: S Ranganathan And B P Jeevan Reddy, Jj Act Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1956 Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Rules, 1959 Sections 2 H And J Sections 2 P, G And 3 1 Rule 6 Sales Tax Assessment Of Taxable Turn Over Computation Of Freight Charges, Packing Charges And Excise Duty On Packing Materials Whether Includible In Sale Price For Purpose Of Both Central Sales Tax And Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Headnote The Appellants Assessees In The First Set Of Appeals Were Selling Agents Of Appellants In The Second Set Of Appeals For The Assessment Year 1996 70, They Were Assessed To Sales Tax On Taxable Turn Over Of Rs 2, 37, 66, 245 Which Included An Amount Of Rs 29, 71, 527 Representing Freight Charges The Assessee Claimed Exclusion Of Freight Charges In Computing The Taxable Turnover On The Ground That Freight Had Been Independently Charged In The Invoices This Was Rejected By The Assessing Authority, The Appellate Authority As Well As Tribunal Aggrieved, The Assessee Preferred Revisions To The High Court The High Court Held That In Cases Arising Under The Central Sales Tax Act, The Freight, Packing Charges And Excise Duty On Packing Materials Had To Be Included In The Sale Price For The Computation Of Sales Tax, That In Cases Arising Under The Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act And Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act, Freight, Packing Charges And Excise Duty On Packing Materials Were Not Liable To Be Included In The Sale Price For The Computation Of The Sale Price, And That The Assessees Were Not Liable To Pay Additional Sales Tax On Freight, Packing Materials And Excise Duty On Packing Materials In The Cases Arising Under The Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act Aggrieved, Both The As Well As Well As The State Government Filed Appeals Before This Court On Behalf Of The State It Was Contended That The High Court, Having Held That The Amounts In Question Were Liable To The Included In The Turnover For Purposes Of Central Sales Tax Act, Ought To Have Also Held That These Amounts Were Liable To Be Included In The Taxable Turnover For Purposes Of Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act And The Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act Also, And Relief Granted For Purposes Of The Local Sales Tax Was Erroneous On Behalf Of The Assessees, It Was Contended That, Even For The Purpose Of C S T, The Freight Charges, The Cost Of Packing Materials And The Excise Duty On The Packing Materials Should Have Been Excluded In The Computation O

20 October, 1992·PETITIONER:WORKMEN OF MEENAKSHI MILLS LTD. ETC. ETC.Vs. RESPONDENT:MEENAKSHI MILLS LTD. AND ANR. ETC. ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT15/05/1992 BENCH:AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) BENCH:AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J) REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J) RAY, G.N. (J) PATNAIK, R.C. (J) CITATION:1994 AIR 2696 1992 SCR...

Judges: Lalit Mohan Sharma, S Mohan And N Venkatachala, Jj Act Civil Services Central Health Service Rules, 1982 Rule 4 10 Ii And Iii Scope Of Newly Created Floating Common Posts In Super Time Grade Selection Post Suitability Of Candidates Meaning Of Promotion To Such Post Basis Of Not On Mere Seniority But On Merit Headnote 35 Posts In Super Time Grade Of Central Health Services Were Sanctioned And Proposals Were Sent To The Union Public Service Commission Upsc For Convening Departmental Promotion Committee Dpc Meetings For Selection Of Candidates Upsc Approved To Amend Rule 4 6 Of Central Health Service Rules Of 1982 It Also Approved The Method Recruitment, Field Of Selection And Principles Of Seniority To Fill Up The 35 Posts As One Time Measure In The Absence Of Notified Recruitment Rules The Commission Also Stipulated That These 35 Posts Were To Be Treated As Common Posts To Be Included In The Category Of Floating Posts For The Teaching And Non Teaching Sub Cadres Mentioned In Rule 4 6 Of Central Health Services Rules, 1982 The Eligibility Condition Stipulated Was Three Years As Professor Failing Which 17 Years Of Regular Service In Group A The Communication Of Upsc Together With The Eligibility List Of Professors Was Circulated And Errors Objections Etc Were To Be Intimated To The Ministry Within One Month The Dpc Met And Selected Candidates Respondent No 1 Was Assigned 14 Th Rank And Respondent No 3 Was Assigned 4 Th Rank The Selected Candidates Were Promoted And Appointed Respondent No 1 Filed An Application Before The Central Administrative Tribunal Claiming That He Was Senior To Respondent No 3 And Others Doctors And Since The Promotion Was Only On The Basis Of Seniority And Directed That Respondents Arrayed In The Application Before It Being Aggrieved By The Tribunal S Order, Union Of India Preferred The First Of The Two Appeals Respondent No 3 In That Appeal Has Preferred The Other Appeal On Behalf Of The Appellants Respondent No 3, It Was Contended That Rule 4 10 Ii And Iii As Amended Merely Prescribed The Procedure For Preparation Of Eligibility Test That The Procedure Has Not Been Prescribed In Any Other Rule As The Posts Were Created As Floating Posts That The Posts Did Not Pertain To Any Particular Super Speciality Or Sub Cadre If Professor Director And So The Criteria For Preparation Of Eligibility List Gad To Be Prescribed For Determining Inter Se Ranking Between The Sub Cadres Tha

20 October, 1992·PETITIONER:P.A. OOMMEN Vs. RESPONDENT:MORAN MAR BASELIUS MARTHOMA DATE OF JUDGMENT17/07/1992 BENCH:KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) BENCH:KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) RAMASWAMY, K.CITATION:1992 AIR 1977 1992 SCR (3) 548 1992 SCC (3) 503 JT 1992 (4) 141 1992 SCALE (2)40 ACT:Limitatior, Act 1963 :S. 12-Exclusion of t...