Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1706; 2002(81)ECC22; 2002(141)ELT593(SC); JT2002(3)SC551; 2002(3)SCALE349; (2002)4SCC297; [2002]2SCR945; 2002(128)SCT349(SC); [2002]128STC349(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J. 1. In this appeal under Section 130E of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short the 'Act'), the only question that falls for adjudication is whether Karbate Tubes made of artificial graphite impregnated with Phenolic resin which are parts of Heat exchangers are classifiable under Tariff Item: sub-heading 6815.10 in First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (in short 'Tariff Act') as held by the Revenue, or under sub-heading 8419.50 as claimed by the assessee- importer.2. Factual scenario needs to be noted in brief. Orders were placed by the assessee on a foreign manufacturer for supply of 14700 Karbate Tubes which were supplied during April and July, 1992. An order was passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (Appraising Group III) classifying the goods under Chapter heading 68.15 and sub-headings 6815.10, whereby the demand raised by the Appraiser was confirmed. Appeal filed before the Collector (Appeals) did not bring any relief to the assessee. Matter was carried...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004CriLJ3362; (2004)187CTR(SC)97; [2004]266ITR1(SC); JT2004(2)SC510; 2004(2)SCALE512; (2004)9SCC686
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. These appeals revolve round the scope and ambit of Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'), and are directed against a common judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court which rejected the three writ petitions filed by the appellants in these two appeals. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle I, Shimla filed a complaint in terms of Section 276CC of the Act in the Court of the CJM who had issued process of taking cognizance of the offence. In each of the writ applications, challenge was made to legality of the proceedings pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla (in short the 'CJM').2. The factual position is almost undisputed and needs to be noted in brief.3. The three appellants were partners of a firm carrying on business under the name and style of M/s Kailash Nath and Associates. Apart from the three appellants, two other persons were partners and one of them Shri Kailash Nath was t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC3576; [2005]127CompCas787(SC); (2005)6CompLJ227(SC); [2005(107)FLR826]; JT2005(8)SC544; 2005(7)SCALE519; (2005)8SCC104; [2005]63SCL109(SC); 2006(1)SLJ24(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. All these appeals involve identical issues. By judgments rendered by Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, impugned in the appeals held that Directors of Jiyajirao Cotton Mills Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Company') to be personally liable for the payment of wages to the workmen of the company under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (in short the 'Act'). However, the authorities under the Act could proceed against the assets of the company in the hands of the Directors or the assets acquired from income of the company by the Directors. The personal property of the Directors, however, could not be proceeded against if it acquired from the sources other than the income of the company. The Letters Patent Appeals filed against the judgments of the learned Single Judge were dismissed. It is to be noted that learned Single Judge had held that writ petitions were not maintainable as the writ petitioners had an alternative remedy under Section 17 of the Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC809; 2008(2)ALD1(SC); 2008(56)BLJR181; (2008)1CALLT69(SC); (2008)1CompLJ1(SC); 2008(1)JKJ41[SC]; LC2008(1)56; (2008)1MLJ361(SC); 2008(36)PTC1(SC); 2007(14)SCALE1; 2008AIRSCW49; AIR2008SC809; 2008(1)SCC1; 2008(1)LH(SC)179; 2008(2)ICC206; 2008(4)KCCRSN237
1. These appeals by special leave have been preferred against the common judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi involving the analogous question and are, therefore, decided together by this judgment. 2. Appellant No. 1 Eastern Book Company is a registered partnership firm carrying on the business of publishing law books. Appellant No. 2 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. is a company incorporated and existing under the Companies Act, 1956. The said appellants are involved in the printing and publishing of various books relating to the field of law. One of the well-known publications of appellant No. 1 Eastern Book Company is the law report Supreme Court Cases (hereinafter called SCC ). The appellant publishes all reportable judgments along with non-reportable judgments of the Supreme Court of India. Yet another category included in SCC is short judgments, orders, practice directions and record of proceedings. The law report S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009AIRSCW4319; JT2009(9)SC142; 2009(8)SCALE685; (2009)12SCC110
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. The appellant runs a barge repair workshop on a private land at Oudossim, Cortalim on the banks of river Zuari within the jurisdiction of Panaji Port. According to the appellant, there are two types of barge workshops: one is dry dock workshop, and the second is where the barges anchored in the river along side the workshop are repaired. Appellant's workshop falls under the second category as it undertakes repair of barges only when the barge is floating above the waterline. About 1300 sq. mtrs. of the river area adjoining the workshop is used by the anchored barge under repair. The Zuari being a tidal river, the water level therein recedes during low tide and rises back during high tide. Consequently, the barge under repair moored alongside the river bank, would settle on the riverbed during low tide and rise with the water during high tide.2. Appellant opened its workshop in the year 1983, after securing a NOC dated 25.7.1983 from the Captain of Ports, Governmen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
GANGULY, J. 1. This appeal at the instance of the State has been preferred from the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, dated July 27, 2005 in Criminal Appeal No. 250/1996 whereby High Court gave the appellant the benefit of doubt and acquitted him of the charges framed against him. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondent Dalbir Singh, a constable in 36th Battalion Central Reserve Police Force, at the relevant time was posted at Fatehabad, District Amritsar, Punjab. On April 11th, 1993, Harish Chander, the Battalion Havaldar Major (hereinafter `B.H.M.') in `Company D' of the Battalion, reported to Hari Singh, the Deputy Commandant Quarter Master (hereinafter `Deputy Commandant'), that the accused had refused to carry out the fatigue duty assigned to him. On such report being made, the Deputy Commandant directed the B.H.M. and Sub Inspector Kewal Singh to produce the accused before him. As per these directions, the accu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2012(11)SCALE140
Madan B. Lokur, J.1. In these appeals, this Court issued notice limited to the question of the sentence awarded to the appellants. They were awarded the death penalty, which was confirmed by the High Court. In our opinion, the appellants in these appeals against the order of the High Court should be awarded a life sentence, subject to the faithful implementation of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Code, 1973.The facts:2. In view of the limited notice issued in these appeals, it is not necessary to detail the facts. However, it may be mentioned that as many as six persons (including the appellants) were accused of various offences under the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC) and the Arms Act, 1959. They were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak by his judgment and order dated 13th November, 2009 in Sessions Case No. 47 of 2004/2009 of the offence of murder (Section 302 of the IPC), attempt to murder (Section 307 of the IPC), rioting, armed with a deadly weapon (Se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.1. Leave granted.2. On 7/12/2009, one Prashant Kapil, In-charge, Electronics Cell, P.S. Sadar Bazar, District Saharanpur lodged a First Information Report alleging that one Dhoom Singh in connivance with the appellant was collecting money from people on the pretext that he would get them recruited in the police department. After his arrest, one mobile phone was seized from Dhoom Singh. As the police wanted to verify whether the recorded conversation, which is in their possession, is between accused Dhoom Singh and the appellant, they needed voice sample of the appellant. The police, therefore, filed an application before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Janpad Saharanpur, praying that the appellant be summoned to the court for recording the sample of his voice. On 8/1/2010, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur issued summons to the appellant to appear before the investigating officer and give his voice sample. The appellant approached the Alla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1333 OF2013(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.7002 of 2012) Sunil Dutt Sharma ... Appellant(s) Versus State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) ... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT RANJAN GOGOI, J.1. The accused-appellant was tried for offences under Sections 302 and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter for short the Penal Code) for causing the death of his wife in the night intervening 16/17.05.92. He has been acquitted of the offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code on the benefit of doubt though found guilty for the offence under Section 304-B of the Penal Code following which the sentence of life imprisonment has been imposed. The conviction and sentence has been affirmed by the High Court. Aggrieved, the appellant had moved this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.2. Limited notice on the question of sentence imposed on the accused- appellant having been issued by this Court the scope of the present ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.37 OF1992ABHIRAM SINGH .APPELLANT VERSUS C.D. COMMACHEN (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS. .RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.8339 OF1995NARAYAN SINGH .APPELLANT VERSUS SUNDERLAL PATWA & ORS. .RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, J.1. The foundation for this reference relating to the interpretation of Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 to a Bench of seven judges has its origins in three decisions of this Court.2. In Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen[1]. the election in 1990 of Abhiram Singh to the No.40, Santa Cruz Legislative Assembly Constituency for the Maharashtra State Assembly was successfully challenged by Commachen in the Bombay High Court. While hearing the appeal against the decision of the Bombay High Court, a Bench of three learned Judges expressed the view that the content, scope and what constitutes a corrupt practice under sub- sections (3) or (3A) of Section 123 of the Repres...
Tag this Judgment!