Simmonds Marshall Ltd. Vs. H.R. Bareliker and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
.....within entry 52 of schedule to central excises and salt act, 1944 - nut was metallic fastener - nylon content cannot be permitted to overpower basic content of nut being metal - held, nut covered by entry 52 of act. - madhya pradesh accommodation control act (41 of 1961)section 12(1)(e) :[markandey katju & asok kumar ganguly,jj] eviction on ground of bona fide need of landlord - premises required for landlords son to start new business held, fact that son had no experience no ground to hold that requirement of landlord is not bona fide. section 13(6): [markandey katju & asok kumar ganguly,jj] eviction suit - tenant defaulting in paying rent - striking down of defence held, provision applies only to statutory appeals. where s.l.p. was filed by landlord and the tenant defaulted..........improve the quality, but basically the nut remained a metallic fastener, having the special property of holding fast. we have been taken through the judgment of the high court under appeal and we find it well reasoned and with which we entirely agree. the nylon content in the nut is so insignificant that it cannot be permitted to over-power the basic content of the nylon nut being a metal. we therefore have no hesitation in dismissing these appeals. ordered accordingly.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. The controversy which fell for determination was whether the nut manufactured by the appellants in these connected appeals was such a nut which could fall within the compass of Entry 52 of the Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The appellants were successful in hammering their point that the nuts manufactured by them were not so covered in the lower hierarchy. The Central Government in revision, however, upturned those decisions and on appreciation of all evidence adduced, came to the conclusion that the nut manufactured by the appellants known as 'nylon nut' was basically a nut used for fastening and therefore fell under Entry 52. The challenge of the appellants before the High Court goaded the said court to treat the writ petition before it almost as appeals and it consciously went through the entire evidence led by the parties on record. It is thereafter that the High Court recorded a positive finding that the said 'nylon nut' was such a nut which was covered under Entry 52. It was viewed that the nylon ring at the top of the nut even though not metallic in nature, only catered to improve the quality, but basically the nut remained a metallic fastener, having the special property of holding fast. We have been taken through the judgment of the High Court under appeal and we find it well reasoned and with which we entirely agree. The nylon content in the nut is so insignificant that it cannot be permitted to over-power the basic content of the nylon nut being a metal. We therefore have no hesitation in dismissing these appeals. Ordered accordingly.