SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(M.N.VENKATACHALIAH, C.J.I., AND S. MOHAN, J.)
BHAJAN LAL, CHIEF MINISTER, HARYANA
Versus
M/s JINDAL STRIPS LTD. AND OTHERS.
Civil Appeal No. 5525 of 1994 {From the Judgment and Order 6-10-1993 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.M. No. 9909 of 1993 in C.W.P. No. 1898 of 1992} with T.P. (C) No. 880 of 1993, decided on August 8, 1994
Advocates appeared
Kapil Sibal, Senior Advocate (R. Karanjawala and Ms Manik Karanjawala, Advocates, with him) for the Appellant; Shanti Bhushan, Senior Advocate (Jayant Bhushan, Advocate, with him) for the Respondents.
Constitution of India, 1950 - Separate assessment orders - Summer vacation - Consternation and apprehension - Appellant is Chief Minister of Haryana. The first respondent filed a writ petition CWP No. challenging assessment order passed by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner-cum -assessing authority confirming a demand for sales tax - Similar writ petitions have been filed against separate assessment orders by the first respondent for a total amount of payment aggregating to a liability - Writ petitions allegations of personal mala fide have been levelled against the appellant - Writ petition came up for preliminary hearing before a Division Bench consisting of S.S. writ petition was admitted and ex parte ad interim stay was granted - After notice, when the matter came up for hearing before a Bench – Held, Judicial process demands that a judge move within the framework of relevant legal rules and covenanted modes of thought for ascertaining them - He must think dispassionately and submerge private feeling on every aspect of a case - There is a good deal of shallow talk that the judicial robe does not change man within it. It does - Whole judges do lay aside private views in discharging their judicial functions - This is achieved through training, professional habits, self-discipline and fortunate alchemy by which men are loyal to the obligation with which they are entrusted with leave - Civil Appeal No. 5525 of 1994 arising out SLP (C) No. 16577 of 1993 and Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 880 of 1993 are dismissed
Judgment
MOHAN, J.- Leave granted.
2. The appellant is the Chief Minister of Haryana. The first respondent filed a writ petition CWP No. 1898 of 1992 challenging the assessment order passed by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner-cum -assessing authority, Hissar, Haryana confirming a demand for sales tax of Rs 2,04,13,895. Similar writ petitions have been filed against separate assessment orders by the first respondent for a total amount of payment aggregating to a liability of Rs 20 crores. In these writ petitions allegations of personal mala fide have been levelled against the appellant.
3. The writ petition came up for preliminary hearing on 7-2-1992 before a Division Bench consisting of S.S. Sodhi and K.C. Garg, JJ. The writ petition was admitted and ex parte ad interim stay was granted. After notice, when the matter came up for hearing before a Bench consisting of S.S. Sodhi and R.S. Mongia, JJ., it was directed to be listed for final hearing on 3-8-1992. The then Chief Justice Mr Rama Jois proceeded on leave on 1-8-1992. Thereupon, S.S. Sodhi, J. became the Acting Chief Justice.
4. On 3-8-1992, when the writ petition was listed before the Tax Bench comprising of A.P. Choudhary and N.K. Sodhi, JJ., S.S. Sodhi, J. directed the writ petition to be delisted from the Tax Bench before which it was listed and transferred the case presided over by S.S. Sodhi, J. himself. It appears this was the only case which was directed to be delisted from the Tax Bench and transferred to the Division Bench presided over by the then Acting Chief Justice.
5. On 21-8-1992, Chief Justice Mr Rama Jois returned from leave and resumed charge. On 24-8-1992 this Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 7700 of 1992 arising out of a connected Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3864 of 1992 directed the case be remanded to the High Court ordering expeditious disposal along with CWP No. 1898 of 1992. On 1-9-1992, Chief Justice Rama Jois resigned. Thereupon, again, S.S. Sodhi, J. became Acting Chief Justice. He continued in that capacity till 13-11-1992. When the writ petition was pending hearing, G.R. Majithia, J. sought an explanation from the Registrar (Judicial) as to why the case was transferred from the Tax Bench to the Bench presided over by the Acting Chief Justice. On 21-10-1992, S.S. Sodhi, J. delisted the writ petition from his Bench and retransferred it to the Tax Bench comprising of A.L. Bahri and Ashok Bhan, JJ. The case did not reach for hearing before this Bench. On 22-10-1992, G.R. Majithia, J. once again wrote to the Registrar (Judicial) seeking compliance with his earlier order dated 20-10-1992. This letter was forwarded by the Registrar (Judicial) to the Acting Chief Justice soliciting orders in respect thereof. It was directed that the note be placed in the file.
6. On 14-11-1992, Justice S.D. Agarwala was appointed as Chief Justice, As a result, S.S. Sodhi, J. became the seniormost puisne Judge.
7. On the reopening of the High Court after summer vacation, the writ petition along with other connected petitions were placed for hearing before the Tax Bench comprising of S.S. Sodhi and Ashok Bhan, JJ. A request was made for an early hearing of the writ petition on behalf of the first respondent. Accordingly a direction was issued that the writ petitions be placed for final hearing on 13-9-1993. The hearing went on on 13-9-1993. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the State about the maintainability of the writ petition since the alternate statutory remedies available to the first respondent had not been exhausted. The Division Bench did not consider that objection but directed the arguments be addressed on merits. The petitions were adjourned for further orders to 4-10-1993.
8. The records bear out. G.R. Majithia, J. addressed a letter to the learned Chief Justice on 13-9-1993 referring to his earlier communication on the subject and requested to know the circumstances under which the writ petition had been transferred to a Divisi
Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India
M. Y. Shanef v. The Honble Judges of the High court of Nagpur
Gujarat Electricity Board v. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani
Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law Board
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.