Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Sep-21-1995
Reported in : (1995)(80)ELT680TriDel
1. This appeal arises from order-in-Appeal No. 5/93, dated 31-3-1994 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Hyderabad. The Revenue is aggrieved with the order-in-original passed by the Assistant Collector, who by his order dropped the proceedings initiated by the issue of L.C. Demand Notice dated 28-1-1987. The Asstt. Collector has held that Bill of Entry 280/31-10-1986 was correctly assessed to nil rate of duty by the Customs Department in terms of Notification No. 262/58, dated 11-10-1958 in respect of imported one bulk-carrier vessel M.V. MARATHA DEEP in Oct., 19"86 by the importer appellants herein. The facts of the case are that the said bulk carrier was imported by the appellants having been purchased from M/s. Bravo Enterprises Ind. Ltd., Liberia.The said vessel arrived in Visakhapatnam from Australia carrying a bulk consignment of 27,000 M.Ts. of Cocking Coal. The vessel discharged part of cargo (15,000 M.Ts.) at Visakhapatnam and left for Haldia to discharge the balance cargo of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-21-1995
Reported in : AIR1995SC1553; JT1995(4)SC102; 1995(2)SCALE919; (1995)4SCC320; [1995]3SCR684
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. Leave granted. Heard counsel for the Parties.2. The Orissa State Electricity Board is questioning in this appeal the correctness of the judgment of the Orissa High Court declaring the proviso to Regulation 46 of the Orissa State Electricity Board (General Conditions of Supply) Regulations, 1981, (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulations') as unreasonable, arbitrary and illegal. Having struck down the proviso - i.e., the proviso as substituted by Notification dated June 25, 1987 - the High Court has directed the Board to revise the bills issued to the respondent-writ petitioner 'on the basis of proportionate reduction taking into account the actual consumption of energy'.3. The respondent-writ petitioner (M/s. IPI Steel Limited) has a mini steel plant in Orissa. On August 16,1984, it had entered into an agreement with the appellant-Board whereunder the Board undertook to supply power 'up to but not exceeding a maximum demand of 7778 KVA/7000 KW'. The agreemen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Sep-28-1995
Reported in : 1997ACJ1270; (1997)1GLR243
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. A cry for justice of dejected and disheartened, unsuccessful and unfortunate parents, is echoed in this appeal, who lost only young earning son, in a fatal railway accident, on ill-fated day of 18.7.1981 and who also lost the legal battle for compensation for the untimely and premature demise of their beloved only son.A conspectus of few relevant and material facts leading to the rise of this appeal, needs narration, at the outset, which would unfold the untold tragic scenario,2. The appellants are the original plaintiffs, who instituted Special Civil Suit No. 57 of 1983, in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Mehsana, for compensation for the unfortunate and untimely demise of their only earning son, aged about 20, in a cruel railway accident. Deceased Shailesh was travelling in a Delhi Mail train, proceeding from Ahmedabad towards Mehsana, on the ill-fated day as a bona fide passenger.3. The train accident occurred on account of a derailment of train between Dangarva an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Sep-29-1995
Reported in : 1(1998)ACC39
J.N. Bhatt, J.1. A cry for justice of dejected and disheartened, unsuccessful and unfortunate parents, is echoed in this appeal, who lost only young earning son, in a Fatal Railway Accident, on ill-fated day of July 18 of 1981, and who also lost the legal battle for the compensation for the untimely and premature demise of their beloved only son.A conspectus of a few relevant and material facts leading to the rise of this appeal, needs narration, at the outset, which would unfold untold tragic scenario.2. The appellants are the original plaintiffs, who instituted Special Civil Suit No. 57 of 1983, in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Mehsana, for compensation for the unfortunate and untimely demise of their only earning son, aged about 20, in a cruel Railway accident. Deceased Shailesh was travelling in a Delhi Mail train, proceeding from Ahmedabad towards Mehsana side, on the ill-fated day as a bona fide passenger.3. The tram accident occurred, on account of a derailment of train betwe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-13-1995
Reported in : AIR1996All135
ORDERV.N. Khare, J.1. Two Judges of this Court having differed in their opinion on the question of competence of State Legislature to enact U.P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam 1964 (U.P. Act No. XXIV of 1964) (in short, the Adhiniyam) have referred the following point of difference to third Judge for opinion:'Whether by virtue of Section 18G of the Industrial (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, the State Legislature stood denuded of power to legislate regulating supply, distribution and price of molasses-a product of sugar industry, and was conse-qeuntly incompetent to enact Sections 7, 8 and 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam 1964 (U.P. Act No. 24 of 1964)?'Hon'ble the Chief Justice instead of referring the matter to the third Judge, constituted this Full Bench to answer the point of difference between the two Judges and that is how the matter has come up before us. It arises in the context of statement made in the Lok Sabha by the Minister of State in the Ministry of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-31-1995
Reported in : AIR1996SC480; (1996)1CALLT60(SC); [1996]85CompCas479(SC); JT1995(7)SC602; 1995(6)SCALE177; (1995)6SCC714; [1995]Supp4SCR579; 1996(1)LC120(SC)
ORDERJ.S. Verma, J.1. Leave granted.2. The short but ticklish question which arises for decision in the present case is the meaning of the word 'each' in the expression 'if the permission has not been granted by the stock exchange or each such stock exchange' used in Sub-section (1A) of Section 73 of the Companies Act, 1956. This is the real question for decision in the present appeal.3. Section 73 of the Companies Act, 1956 in so far as it is material is as under :73. (1) Every company intending to offer shares or debentures to the public for subscription by the issue of a prospectus shall, before such issue, make an application to one or more recognised stock exchanges for permission for the shares or debentures intending to be so offered to be dealt with in the stock exchange or each such stock exchange.(1A) Where a prospectus, whether issued generally or not, states that an application under Sub-section (1) has been made for permission for the shares or debentures offered thereby t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Jan-13-1995
Reported in : 1995CriLJ2306
ORDER1. In all these actions, I rather feel, there is no need or necessity to advert to the facts of each case, in as much as, what is challenged is the alleged commission of offence by certain Companies, under Section 138 of the Nagotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Act No. XXVI of 1881 as subsequently amended for short 'NI Act') for dishonour of cheques on account of either of the two contingencies or eventualities, as contemplated therein, viz., insufficiency of the amount of money standing to the credit of the account of the person, or it exceeded the amount arranged to be paid from the account of a person by an agreement with that Bank for which, prosecution had been launched by preferring individual complaints before competent Courts' of jurisdiction purely on questions of law relatable to the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the NI Act, by raising the following grounds :- (1) The offence was committed by the Company and not by the petitioner; (2) The prosecution of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-13-1995
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 : Chennai
Decided on : Sep-13-1995
Reported in : II(1996)DMC21; (1996)IMLJ271
S.S. Subramani, J.1. In both these appeals, wife is the appellant.2. O.P. No. 254 of 1991 was filed by the wife on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur, for restitution of conjugal rights. That was filed on 2.8.1991. Counter was filed by the husband on 5.2.1992. Immediately thereafter, husband filed H.M.O.P. No. 19 of 1992, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kumbakonam on 31.3.1992. The wife seems to have filed an application for transfer in view of the pendency of O.P. 254 of 1991 before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Thanjavur as Tr. O.P. No. 61 of 1992. The District Court allowed the petition and H.M.O.P. No. 19 of 1992 was transferred to the Subordinate Judge's Court, Thanjavur, where it was re-numbered as P.P. No. 59 of 1992. It was thereafter the wife filed a counter in O.P. No. 59 of 19.11.19923. I have stated the dates of filing of petitions and counter-affidavits since they have some relevance when I deal with the matter regarding the merits of the case.4. I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Oct-12-1995
Reported in : ILR1995KAR3013; 1996(1)KarLJ92
ORDER IN BEING APPEALED AGAINST: Held:Section 8A is in two parts. The first part provides thatperformance of any contract by the State Government insofar as it provides for reimbursement or indemnification shall be deemed always to have been dispensed with. The second part providesthat any amount due or payable by the State Government by way of such reimbursement or indemnification shall be deemed to bewholly discharged.ON FACTS: The amendment of Section 8A cannot nullify the effect of Writ of Mandamus issued by this Court and the respondents cannot decline to reimburse or indemnify the Company for the period commencing from November 21, 1980 and ending with August 11, 1988 when the Division Bench issued a Writ of Mandamus....The Decision of the Division Bench of this Court issuing Writ of Mandamus directing the State of Karnataka to reimburse the Company in accordance with the provisions of Clause 6(c) of the Tripartite Agreement, is a Judgment inter partes and rendered on the basis o...
Tag this Judgment!