Parwati Devi and ors. Vs. Manager, Ore Mining Company and ors.

Parwati Devi and ors. vs Manager, Ore Mining Company and ors.

Disposition Appeal allowed Court Madhya Pradesh Decided May 04, 2000

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/510735

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/510735
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: V.K. Agarwal, J.
Decided On: May 04, 2000
Case Number: M.A. No. 377 of 1998
Subject: Motor Vehicles
Disposition: Appeal allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- Section 2(f): [Dipak Misra, K.K. Lahoti & Rajendra Menon, JJ] Service Tax - Packaging and bottling of liquor whether amounts to manufacture within meaning of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act 1944? Finance Act 932 of 1994), Section 65 (76 b) (as amended on 16.6.2005) - Held, The first limb of the inclusive defi...

Key legal issue: Motor Vehicles
Outcome / disposition: Appeal allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Parwati Devi and ors.

Advocate P. Diwakar, Adv.

Respondent

Manager, Ore Mining Company and ors.

Advocate M.S. Ruprah, Adv.

Legal References

Reported In: 2002ACJ913

Excerpt

- section 2(f): [dipak misra, k.k. lahoti & rajendra menon, jj] service tax - packaging and bottling of liquor whether amounts to manufacture within meaning of section 2(f) of central excise act 1944? finance act 932 of 1994), section 65 (76 b) (as amended on 16.6.2005) - held, the first limb of the inclusive definition of the manufacture under section 2(f) of central excise act has a very wide connotation. as the definition clause lays down an inclusive facet, the term manufacture has to be construed in a natural and plain manner and would include any process incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product. keeping in view the context in which the term manufacture has been used, it would take in its fold incidental and ancillary process in the manufacture or finishing of any manufactured product. it does not leave any room for doubt that an allied process should be integral and inextricable part of manufacture of completeness and presentability of the manufactured product. section 65(76b) of finance act used the words but it does not include. thus it is a definition which has the inclusive as well as exclusive facet. by virtue of the same it may include certain things and exclude others. it is well settled principle of law that a definition is not to be read in isolation and has to read in context of phrase which it defines, releasing that function of a definition is to give precision and certainty to the word or phrase which would otherwise be vague and uncertain. regard being had to the exclusionary fact in the finance act, though a limited one it would exclude the manufacturing process as defined under section 2(f) of the 1944 act. keeping in view the aforesaid dictionary clauses and circulars issued by the c.b.e.c. it is quite luminescent that would manufacture has to be understood in a broader sense and not to be confined or restricted to the excisable product in the act. it would include all processes which amount to manufacture..........of civil procedure code was filed by the claimantsappellants. that application for restoration has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 11.2.1998.3. while dismissing the application for restoration, the learned tribunal has taken note of the fact that the appellants-claimants have shown negligence and have been unable to establish sufficient cause for their non-appearance. it has also been pointed out that the claim petition was earlier also dismissed on 5.3.1990 and it was ordered to be restored by order dated 10.8.1994. however, even thereafter, the claimants-appellants did not actively participate in the proceedings of the suit and on 23.3.96, the appellant's counsel pleaded no instructions resulting in dismissal of the claim petition again.4. the learned counsel for appellants has submitted that the appellants are destitute and illiterate villagers. they have little means to prosecute the claim petition and that they are ignorant of the procedure of the court. it has been submitted that some of the claimants-appellants are minors. it has been urged that the dismissal of the claim petition as above would result in great injustice to them. it has been submitted that they depended on their counsel to prosecute the petition, who, however, did not do so. it has further been submitted that the appellants would now take care and attend the hearings of the case, in case the same is restored. the prayer as above has been vehemently opposed by learned counsel for respondent no. 3.5. however, after considering the contentions and also the fact that some of the claimants are minors and would be deprived of their legitimate claim in case of dismissal of the same for want of prosecution, their application for restitution in my opinion deserves to be allowed and they should be permitted an opportunity of hearing as has been prayed by them.6. accordingly, this appeal is allowed. the impugned order is set aside. the application of the claimants-appellants under order 9,.....

Full Judgment

V.K. Agarwal, J.

1. It appears that the appellants-claimants have filed an application claiming compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg, on account of death of Chaturi Chouhan.

2. The claimants are L.Rs. of deceased Chaturi Chouhan. The appellant No. 1 is his widow while the remaining appellants, some of whom are minors, are his children. It also appears that the claim petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 23.3.96. On account of dismissal as above a restoration application under Order 9, Rule 9 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code was filed by the claimantsappellants. That application for restoration has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 11.2.1998.

3. While dismissing the application for restoration, the learned Tribunal has taken note of the fact that the appellants-claimants have shown negligence and have been unable to establish sufficient cause for their non-appearance. It has also been pointed out that the claim petition was earlier also dismissed on 5.3.1990 and it was ordered to be restored by order dated 10.8.1994. However, even thereafter, the claimants-appellants did not actively participate in the proceedings of the suit and on 23.3.96, the appellant's counsel pleaded no instructions resulting in dismissal of the claim petition again.

4. The learned Counsel for appellants has submitted that the appellants are destitute and illiterate villagers. They have little means to prosecute the claim petition and that they are ignorant of the procedure of the court. It has been submitted that some of the claimants-appellants are minors. It has been urged that the dismissal of the claim petition as above would result in great injustice to them. It has been submitted that they depended on their counsel to prosecute the petition, who, however, did not do so. It has further been submitted that the appellants would now take care and attend the hearings of the case, in case the same is restored. The prayer as above has been vehemently opposed by learned Counsel for respondent No. 3.

5. However, after considering the contentions and also the fact that some of the claimants are minors and would be deprived of their legitimate claim in case of dismissal of the same for want of prosecution, their application for restitution in my opinion deserves to be allowed and they should be permitted an opportunity of hearing as has been prayed by them.

6. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The application of the claimants-appellants under Order 9, Rule 9 read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code stands allowed. Claim Case No. 10 of 1990 is ordered to be restored. However, in view of the old pendency of the claim petition and its delay basically on the ground of its dismissal twice for want of prosecution, it is directed that the Tribunal shall keep the above facts in consideration while awarding interest to the claimants-appellants. In view of the old pendency of the. matter the Claims Tribunal shall proceed to deal with it firmly and dispose it of expeditiously. It is further directed that the appellants shall be obliged to keep their witnesses present before the Tribunal on the date fixed in that regard by the Tribunal and that the Tribunal may extend the assistance of issuance of summons calling for the witnesses but the appellants-claimants shall make all efforts to keep their witnesses present and will not seek adjournment in that regard.

7. The Claims Tribunal is further directed to dispose of the claim petition after giving due opportunity of hearing to the parties within the upper limit of six months from the next date of appearance, i.e., 10.7.2000. The claimants-appellants shall appear before the Tribunal for partaking in further proceedings of the case on 10.7.2000.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2000 Same Parties Parwati Devi and ors. vs Manager, Ore Mining Company and ors. Same Subject Motor Vehicles Same Judge V.K. Agarwal, J.

Motor Vehicles