Court : Allahabad
1. Heard Sri B.K. Saxena, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri R.N. Trivedi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Akhilesh Kalra, on behalf of the respondent.2. Before coming to the merits and demerits of the appeal, it would be useful to mention certain relevant background of the case. The parties entered into a contract in March, 1981. On account of dispute, the matter was referred to Arbitrators appointed by the parties. As there was disagreement between the Arbitrators on certain points, the matter was referred to the Umpire, who delivered the Award on 20.3.1998. Thereafter the matter went to the Civil Court. The orders passed by the Civil Court were assailed before this Court in the instant appeal.3. On 18.12.2008, a Division Bench of this Court while hearing the matter came to the conclusion that as the factual dispute is involved it can be adjudicated by the mediator. On the agreement of the parties, the matter was relegated to mediator for amicable settlement. Later on Justice...
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 : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (1991)LC301Tri(Delhi)
1. The Misc. application is for seeking to amplify and to amend certain grounds of appeal, and on a consideration of the proposed amplification and amendment, and on hearing both the parties in the matter, the Misc.application was allowed.2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30-9-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi by which he demanded duty of Rs. 10,93,638.60 in respect of steel tabular poles/electric poles for the period 1-4-1985 to 30-9-1985. The appellants herein manufacture steel tabular poles falling under Item 68 of Central Excise Tariff. The goods were considered to be falling under Item 26AA(iv) of Central Excise Tariff and are exempted from duty under Notification 69/73 till 1982 when doubt was expressed about the classification of the item and the department initiated adjudication proceedings by issue of show cause notice dated 18-12-1982 seeking to classify the item under Tariff Item 68 and raising a demand for short levy for the period ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC2456; 1998(3)BLJR1608; [1998]94CompCas64(SC); (1998)3CompLJ385(SC); 2000(69)ECC247; 1999(113)ELT761(SC); JT1998(4)SC631; 1998LabIC2735; (1998)IILLJ604SC; 1998(4)SC
ORDERNanavati, J.1. Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. A short but an interesting question of law arises for consideration in these appeals. The question is : who is to be deemed 'occupier' of a factory of a government company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act? If the government company is to be treated like any other company then according to Clause (ii) of the first provision to Section 2(n) of the Factories Act, 1948 any one of the directors of that company is deemed to be the occupier; but, if its factory is considered as a factory owned or controlled by the Government as provided by Clause (iii) of the proviso the person appointed to manage the affairs of the factory by the Government is to be deemed the occupier.3. The appellant, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, is a government company as defined by Section 617 of the Companies Act. It is almost wholly owned and controlled by the Government. It is, inter alia, engaged in the supply and distribution o...
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 : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1957Cal234
ORDERP.B. Mukharji, J.1. This is an application by the Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. seeking the Court's confirmation of the alteration of the Memorandum of Association of the company effected by the Special Resolution passed on 7th' December, 1956 at a general meeting of its shareholders. The Special Resolution is carried by the requisite majority.2. The Special Resolution reads as follows : ''That Sub-clause 3 (16) of the Memorandum of Association of the company be deleted and substituted by the following two sub-clauses.16(a) To subscribe, contribute or guarantee money for any national, charitable, benevolent, political, public, general or useful object or funds or for any exhibition.16(b) To establish and support or aid in the establishment and in support of associations, institutions, funds, trusts and conveniences calculated 'to benefit persons who 'are or have been employed by or who are serving or have served the company or its predecessors-in-business or the dependents, connect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. The question involved in these Writ Petitions is whether the sales made and subject matter of the order of assessment in the first Petition are within the State of Maharashtra so as to be taxable under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 (for short the MVAT Act?) and therefore the action of the Respondents treating it as such can be said to be ex-facie illegal. Since the point involved and summed up above is common to all the Petitions, for the purpose of the present Judgment, we take the facts from Writ Petition No. 4552 of 2015. It is undisputed that since the controversy involved in these Writ Petitions is similar, common arguments have been canvassed. Hence, we dispose of all the Writ Petitions by this common Judgment. 3. The facts in Writ Petition No. 4552 of 2015 are as under: The Petitioner is registered dealer under the provisions of the MVAT Act and the Central Sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.5926 of 2019 (@SLP (C) No.4016 of 2019) Appellants Versus Respondents Durgabai Deshmukh Memorial Sr. Sec. School & Anr. J.A.J Vasu Sena & Anr. JUDGMENT Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J1The present appeal arises from a judgment of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dated 7 May 2018 setting aside the judgment of a learned Single Judge in a Letters Patent Appeal.1 The Division Bench accepted the deemed confirmation of the services of the first respondent who was a probationer in the school of the appellants. 1 LPA No.86/2018 1 2 Allowing the appeal filed by the first respondent, the Division Bench held that under Rule 105(1) read with the first proviso of the Delhi School Education Rules 1973,2 the maximum period of probation permissible is two years. The High Court held that there is a deemed confirmation of the services of a probationer who is continued in service beyond the maximum period of proba...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Reported in : (2000)LC387Tri(Delhi)
1. The above appeals have been referred to this Larger Bench vide separate reference orders. In all the cases, the issue involved is eligibility or otherwise to the benefit of Modvat credit in terms of Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules.2. The stand of the revenue is that the items in dispute namely welding electrodes, wires and cables etc. are not capital goods within the meaning of the explanation to Rule 57Q which covers goods used only in production, processing or bringing about any change in substance for manufacture of the final product and that the goods in question are not such goods. The Revenue is also of the view that the amendment in Rule 57Q which was made on 16-3-1995 is prospective and not retrospective in operation.3. In the case of Jawahar Mills Ltd., Modvat credit has been denied on power cables and capacitors; the period of dispute is March 1994 to October 1994. This case has been referred to the Larger Bench by Misc.Order No. 52/98, dated 27-1-1998 1998 (100) E.L...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2008)150PLR439
Hemant Gupta, J.1. The petitioner is a former Judge of this Court, now represented by his wife andhter. The challenge in the present writ petition is to declare the proviso to Para 2 (b) of Part III of the First Schedule of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service Act), 1954 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') which fixes the maximum limit of pension of a retired Judge of a High Court, as ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India being arbitrary and discriminatory. 2. The petitioner joined Punjab Civil Services (Judicial) on 25.4.1951. He was promoted as Additional District Judge on 12.11.1969 and elevated as a Judge of this Court on 2.2.1983. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 15.10.1987. 3. The case of the petitioner is that Para 2 (b) of Part III of First Schedule of the Act provides for special additional pension of Rs. 1600/-per annum in respect of each completed year of service for pension but maximum limit is Rs. 8000/-per annum. Apa...
Tag this Judgment!