Know Your 23rd CJI: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Madhukar Hiralal Kania Admin KNOW YOUR JUSTICE Sun, Jun 30, 2019, at ,02:23 PM Hon’ble Mr. Justice Madhukar Hiralal Kania Brief Profile: Term of Office (Supreme Court): (DoA) 5th January, 1987 to (DoR) 17th November, 1992 In Office as CJI: 13th Dec, 1991 to 17th Nov, 1992 (23rd CJI) Preceded by: Justice Kamal Narain Singh Succeeded by: Lalit Mohan Sharma Madhukar Hiralal Kania, son of Hiralal J. Kania & Bhanumati. He was born on 18th November, 1927 at Bombaym He had a education qualification of B.A. (Hons), LL.B. He was a Fellow, of Govt. Law College, Bombay from 1949-1950. He also served as the Part-time Professor from 1956-1962. He was also Assistance Government Pleader for State of Maharashtra in the Bombay City Civil Court, from the tenure of 1964-67 Then was Government Pleader in the Bombay City Civil Court, from the year of 1967-69. He was also Additional Judge, at Bombay High Court, on November 4, 1969. He then elevated to the Judge, of Bombay High Court, in 1971. He was the acting Chief Justice, of Bombay High Court, in October, 1985. He was also the Chief Justice, of Bombay High Court, June 1986. He was elevated to the Judge, of Supreme Court of India, on 1st May, 1987. He was the appointed as the Chief Justice of India on 13th December, 1991. Cases: Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Bazpur Co-Operative Sugar, 1988 AIR 1263 Whether a Co-operative Society registered under Co-operative Societies Act, 1912 has power to amend its bye-laws with retrospective effect? Whether the amended bye-law is operative during period previous to accounting year? Whether deposits made by members of the society by way of deductions contemplated under bye-law 50 of the Society were in the nature of permanent liabilities and were capital receipts not liable to be included in taxable income of assessee-Society? Whether the deductions were revenue receipts liable to tax? The court held that the respondent society had no authority in law to amend its bye-law 50 with retrospective effect. The amendment of bye-law 50 could not have any retrospective effect. There shall be established a Loss Equalisation and Capital Redemption Reserve Fund in the Society. Every producer share holder shall deposit every year a sum not less than 32 paise and not more than 48 paise per quintal of the sugarcane supplied by him to the society as may be terminated by the Board, until the shares to be subscribed by a member are fully paid up. The amounts standing to the credit of this fund presently or to be credited in future shall be used for making the partly paid shares fully paid up. The balance of the said account shall be refunded to the members concerned soon after the present loan from the Industrial Finance Corporation of India is repaid, whereafter the fund shall cease to exist. This amended bye-law shall be deemed to have come into force from 1st July, 1958." Union Of India & Ors vs Madhumilan Syntex Pvt. Ltd. & Anr, 1988 AIR 1236 <>i) The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KANIA, J. This is an appeal against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur (Indore Bench) in M. Petition No. 104 of 1984. Under Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act, the notice can relate only to a period of six months prior to the issue of that notice except in cases where it is alleged the short levy or short payment has occurred by reason of fraud, collusion or wilful misrepresentation or suppression of facts or contravention of the provisions of the said Act or rules made by the period concerned, as contemplated in the proviso to sub- Section (1) of Section 11-A. No such case has been sought to be made here in the said show cause notice. A.H. Satranjiwala vs The State Of Maharashtra, (1972) 74 BOMLR 742 The interpretation of Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The judgement lays down that under S. 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure or otherwise there is no inherent power in the High Court to review or reconsider a previous judgment of the High Court in a criminal matter except where the previous judgment was pronounced without jurisdiction or in violation of the principles of natural justice or, possible, in a case where it was obtained by an abuse of the process of the Court. Assistant Commissioner Of... vs Dharnendra Trading Company, Etc., 1988 AIR 1247 Whether Government has power to notify exemptions and reductions in levy of tax on sale or purchase of goods under section 8A of the Karnataka Sales Act, 1957? Whether Government can withdraw concessions in sales tax granted by its earlier order on ground of alleged misuse of concessions without proof thereof-Against the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel? As there was no provision in the Karnataka Sales Tax Act ("the said Act") under which any refund could be granted, and the State Government had no authority to provide for refunds. Though the benefit regarding sales tax granted to the new industries was by way of refunds of sales tax paid to the extent provided in the order, in effect, the benefit granted was in the nature of an exemption from the payment of the sales tax or reduction in the sales tax liability to the extent stated in the Order. Smt. Isabella Johnson vs M.A. Susai, 1991 AIR 993 Evidence, Act, 1872: Section 115 Estoppel Applicability of in regard to jurisdiction of Courts? Andhra Pradesh Rent Control Act, 1960: Section 3, Eviction suit, Jurisdiction of Courts, Res judicata and Estoppel, whether applicable? A court which has no jurisdiction in law cannot be conferred with the jurisdiction by applying principles of res judicata. It is well settled that there can be no estoppel on a pure question of law. In the instant case, the question of jurisdiction is a pure question of law. The High Court was right in its conclusions that in matters of jurisdiction to entertain the suit, doctrine of estoppel could not be invoked; and that the City Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, as it lay exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. Tata Tea Ltd. & Anr. Etc vs State Of West Bengal & Ors. 1988 AIR 1435 Constitutional validity of section 3 & 5 of Bengal Agricultural Income tax (Amendment) Act, 1980? Whether entire income of assessee from sale of tea grown & manufactured by, is subject to levy of agricultural income tax? A perusal of Entry 82 of the List I in the Seventh Schedule and Entry 46 in the List II makes it clear that the Legislatures of the States of West Bengal and Kerala can pass laws imposing taxes only in respect of agricultural income, and in respect of income other than the agricultural income, it is only the Parliament which has the power to legislate in respect of taxes on such income. Sub-article (1) of Article 366 of the Constitution states that "agricultural income" means such income as is defined as "agricultural income" for the purposes of the enactments relating to Indian income-tax. It is significant that the words used are not "as defined by the enactments relating Indian Income-tax" but are "as defined for the purposes of the enactments relating to Indian Income-tax"(emphasis supplied) . Article 366(1) of the Constitution provides that the term "agricultural income" has the same meaning as attributed to it for the purposes of enactments relating to Indian income-tax, and Rule 8 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 as well as Rule 24 of the Income-tax Rules 1922, pertain to and are bound up with the definition of the term "agricultural income" for the purposes of laws or enactments pertaining to Indian Income-tax and the provisions of those rules have to be taken into account in considering the meaning of the term "agricultural income" under sub-article (1) of Article 366 of the Constitution. The validity of the amendments to the Bengal Agricultural Income-tax Act made in 1980 and the deletion of the Explanation in Section 2(a)(2) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act were challenged as being ultra vires and invalid in law on several other grounds but the Court did not go into those grounds in view of what it held as set out above. S.B. Mathur And Others vs Hon'Ble The Chief Justice Of Delhi ... 1988 SCR Supl. (2) 772 Issues: Whether the treatment of posts of Superintendents, Court Masters or Readers and Private Secretaries to Judges as equal status posts, being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution? Challenging joint seniority list of Superintendents, Court Masters and Private Secretaries for purposes of promotion to the post of Assistant Registrars and claiming better rights of promotion? Where an employer has a large number of employees, performing diverse duties, he must enjoy some discretion in treating different categories of his employees as holding equal status posts or equated posts, as questions of promotion or transfer of employees inter se will necessarily arise for the purpose of maintaining the efficiency of the organisation. There is nothing inherently wrong in an employer treating certain posts as equal posts or equal status posts, provided that in doing so he exercises his discretion reasonably and does not violate the principles of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Union Of India And Another Etc. Etc vs Zora Singh Etc. 1991 SCR, Supl. (2) 478 1992 SCC (1) 673 Applicability of Section 23(1-A) read with Section 30(1)(a) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984?\ Land Acquisition Act, 1894--Section 23(1-A)--Benefit under--Entitlement of Land Acquisition Act, 1894--Section 23(1-A) "Award"---Construction--"Award" whether `decree ', "Court" whether "Collector ". A perusal of the provisions of sub-section(1-A) of section 23 makes it clear that the said sub-section deals with substantive rights and it confers a substantive right to claim the additional amount calculated as set out in the said sub-section in the circumstances set out therein. Similarly, sub-section (2) of Section 23 also confers a substantive right on the claimant to a higher solatium. The expression "award" used in section 23(1-A) suggests that the intention of the legislature was to make the provisions of the said sub-section applicable to cases where the Collector had yet to make his award or the Trial Court hearing the Reference under Section 18 of the Land acquisition Act has still to make its award after the coming into force of the said sub-section on September 30, 1984. In the present case as the Reference court has made its award after September 24, 1984 the benefit of the provisions of Section 23(1-A) was clearly available to the claimant.