Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007(6)ALLMR726; 2007(6)BomCR48; 2008(1)MhLj929
R.M. Savant, J.1. Rule, with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith and heard.2. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nashik dated 31-5-2007 in Appeals filed by the various respondents herein relating to the execution of the decree which decree is in favour of the petitioners above named. The said Appeals were filed against the order of the Collector, Ahmednagar dated 25-8-2006 by which order the Collector had decided the manner in which the decree was to be executed.3. The petitioners are the heirs of one Mahadu Narayan Pawar. The said Mahadu had purchased some lands from one Chotibee who was the plaintiff in Special Civil Suit No. 13 of 1956 which she had filed for partition and possession of agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos. 46/2, 47/6, 48/6, 53/1B, 133/3, 52/1, 52/2, 131 and 50/4 situated at Chahurana Bk., taluka and district Ahmednagar and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC300; (2005)2CALLT1(SC); 2005(3)ESC358; 2004(9)SCALE404; (2005)1SCC45; (2005)1UPLBEC368
Ashok Bhan, J.1. Delay condoned. Leave granted in SLP(C) 23582-23584 23582-23584 of 2004 (CC No. 2256-2258).2. Interlocutory application in WP (C) No. 604 of 2002 is allowed.3. As the points of law involved in all these cases are the same or similar with little variations which would be indicated in the later part of the judgment, this judgment shall dispose of all the above-mentioned cases by a common judgment.4. Writ Petition (C) No. 604 of 2002, WP(C) No. 25 of 2003 and WP(C) No. 33 of 2003 pertain to the batch of students who joined the course in 1994 whereas the WP(C) No. 616 of 2002, WP(C) No, 634 of 2002, WP(C) No. 11 of 2003, WP(C) No. 14 of 2003, WP(C) No. 16 of 2003, WP(C) No. 26 of 2003, WP(C) No. 25 of 2003, WP(C) No. 27 of 2003, WP(C) No. 34 of 2003, WP(C) No. 404 of 2003, C.A. No. of 7363-7365 of 2004 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 23582-23584 of 2004/CC No. 2256-2258) and IA ....... of 2004 pertain to the students who joined the course in the year 1995; WP(C) No. 391 of 200...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2007(2)SC411; 2007(2)SCALE333; (2007)2SCC468; 2007AIRSCW1093; AIR2007SC1122; 007(2)KCCRSN43.
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. Leave granted.2. The Government of Rajasthan issued a public notice advertising sale by auction of a plot of land measuring 10,490 square metres. The purchaser was to use the plot for construction of a hotel. The auction took place on 14.2.1996. The first respondent, acting through its Director, the second Respondent, entered the highest bid. The said bid was accepted. The bid amount was deposited by the respondent on 4.5.1996. The State of Rajasthan - the appellant herein, executed a sale deed in favour of the second respondent in his capacity as the Director of the first respondent on 26.3.1997. The sale deed stipulated that out of the total extent, an extent of 1,510 square metres will be surrendered by the purchaser free of cost for widening of an existing road and that the purchaser will be given the benefit of the floor area ratio calculated on the basis of the original plot size of 10,490 square metres. The parameters of construction were set out and t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2007(6)ALLMR789; 2008(1)MhLj104
S.J. Vazifdar, J.1. Rule. Rule made returnable and heard forthwith.Respondent No. 1 is impleaded through the Divisional Caste Certificates Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad (hereinafter referred as the Scrutiny Committee). Respondent No. 2 is the Collector, Nanded.2. The petitioner has impugned an order dated 5th June, 2007, passed by the Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad. The petitioner has also sought a Writ of Mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to validate the caste certificate issued in her favour stating her as belonging to the Jangam caste. The petitioner claims to belong to the Jangam caste which was recognised as a Other Backward Class by a Government Resolution of the State of Maharashtra dated 13-10-1967.It is admitted that the petitioner's father was a resident of Andhra Pradesh prior to 13-10-1967; that the petitioner was born and completed her primary education, in Andhra Pradesh and that the petitioner got married and settled in Maharashtra after 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(5)ALLMR(SC)442; 2007(3)ARBLR282(SC); 2007(4)AWC3730(SC); (2008)4CompLJ32(SC); JT2007(10)SC129; (2007)6MLJ719(SC); 2007(10)SCALE9
H.K. Sema, J. 1. Leave granted.2. This appeal preferred by the Union of India is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.5.2006 of the High Court of Delhi in Arbitration Petition No. 213 of 2006. By the aforesaid order the High Court appointed an arbitrator on a petition filed by the respondent under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short 'the Act').3. To answer the question involved in this appeal, it may not be necessary to delve the entire facts leading to the filing of the present appeal. Suffice it say that in response to an invitation to tender inquiry No. A.M-5/RC-14100105/ 072003/ WT/ BTYS/ Defense/ 2003-04/ 75 for supply of battery secondary lead acid, an offer dated 7.10.2002 was submitted which was revised by letter dated 8.4.2003. On the basis of the revised offer dated 8.4.2003 a rate contract No. AM-5/RC-14100105/ 072003/ WT/ BTYS/ DEF/ 2003-04/ 75/ BHARAT/ COAC/ 185 dated 5.5.2003 for the period 5.5.2003 to 16.3.2004 was executed b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(11)SCALE588
Tarun Chatterjee, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29th April, 2005 of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in MJC No. 121 of 2002 by which the High Court had refused the prayer of the appellant for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short 'the Act'). This Court on 5th of January, 2007 made the following directions:Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not averse to an arbitrator being appointed who may adjudicate the disputes between the parties. Counsel for the respondents also is not against the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties, but he submits that the petitioner may move the State of Orissa which shall refer the matter to arbitration by the Arbitration Tribunal, Bhubaneshwar in accordance with Clause 3.39(f) of the General Conditions of Contract. Mr.M.L.Verma, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2007)109BOMLR1604; 2007(121)ECC27; 2007LC27(Bombay); 2007(215)ELT23(Bom)
N.V. Dabholkar, J.1. We have admitted the appeal on following substantial questions of law:(1) Whether there is any discretion with the authorities to exempt penalty under Section 11AC and interest under Section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944, while confirming the demand for evaded excise duty? (2) Whether such exemption can be justified merely because the evaded excise duty is paid before issuance of show cause notice by the department ?2. Respondent -assessee is engaged in the manufacture of excisable goods i.e. denatured spirit. According to department, respondent had undervalued the excisable goods to the extent of Rs.55,28,417/ and evaded the excise duty to the tune of Rs.8,84,547/-for the period from June 2000 to June 2001. Respondent - assessee admittedly paid the said duty in two instalments, amount of Rs.8,37,728/-on 28.5.2004 itself upon deficit being pointed out by the audit party. They had assured to pay the balance and accordingly paid the balance Rs.46,819/- on 5.8.2004...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC709; JT1995(8)SC328; 1995(6)SCALE506; (1996)1SCC88; [1995]Supp5SCR173; 1996(1)LC348(SC)
ORDER1. Sri Mehta, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that Notification under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') was published on 3.10.1969 and the award under Section 11 was made in the case of his clients on August 2, 1972 determining compensation under Section 23(1) at Rs. 1.25 per sq. mt. for plot No. 23 admeasuring 24721 sq. mts. Subsequently, successive awards for other lands acquired under the same notification were made, on June 4, 1985 at Rs. 5 per sq. mt., on October 14, 1985 at Rs. 9 per sq. mt. and another judgment and decree on August 31, 1987 by the High Court in Appeal No. 11/86 uniformly fixing the compensation at Rs. 5 per sq. mt. Yet another reference under Section 18 was decided on July 27, 1989 by the Reference Court at Rs. 5 per sq. mt. Though he filed the application on 13.5.1987, in view of the decision of this Court in Union of India and Anr. v. Pradeep Kumari and Ors. : [1995]2SCR703 , any one of the awards or ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(3)JKJ62[SC]; 2007(3)SCALE454; 2007AIRSCW7628; ; 2008(1)KCCRSN24
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is by the Union of India and its functionaries to the judgment dated 27.09.2004 rendered by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh holding that the services of the respondent-herein are governed by the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (in short 'the Act') and Rule 24 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 does not govern the service conditions is without jurisdiction. 3. The factual position in a nutshell is as follows:The respondent herein was enrolled as Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force on 28.02.1968. At the time of enrolment, he had submitted a certificate regarding his qualification. After completion of 29 years and 7 months of service, in order to verify the service rendered by him to determine the qualifying service with regard to pension, it has been observed by the Pay and Accounts Office that his date of birth has been amended in the School Leavi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC290; I(2008)BC233; 2008(1)BomCR105; JT2007(12)SC233; (2008)1SCC439; 2007AIRSCW6774
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. Delay condoned.2. Admit.3. The above two civil appeals are directed against the decisions dated 18.5.2006 and 4.5.2007 delivered by the Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai in appeal Nos. 267/04 and 245/04 respectively.4. The short question that arises for our consideration in these civil appeals filed under Section 15Z of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (for short the '1992 Act') is whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of fee continuity under para 7 of Circular dated 30.9.2002 issued by SEBI.5. For the sake of convenience, we may mention hereinafter the facts in the case of Ratnabali Capital Markets Ltd. ('RCML') which are as under.6. In 1995 Ratnabali Securities Ltd. ('RSL') was registered as a broker with National Stock Exchange ('NSE'). In terms of Schedule III of SEBI (Stock-brokers and Sub-brokers) Regulations, 1992 ('the Regulations'), RSL had paid initial registration fees for the first year and thereafter it had paid fees...
Tag this Judgment!