Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-16-2008
Reported in : 2008(121)ECC1; 2008(157)LC1(SC); JT2008(8)SC426; 2008(10)SCALE498; 2008AIRSCW5954.
Ashok Bhan, J.1. The instant appeal has been filed by the Revenue under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the final judgment and order No. 1-1255/KOL/2001 dated 23rd November, 2001 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Eastern Bench, Kolkata (for short 'the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal has set aside the order passed by the Commissioner.2. The three Bills of Entry which are the bone of contentions in the present case are detailed below:(i) Bill of Entry Sl. No. 2256 dated 30th April, 1998, per Vessel X-Press Singapore Voy-257, Rot. No. 258/98 dated 7th April, 1998, Line No. 97, Country of origin - India, Goods 135 cartons 2/64 NM Merino Wool 100% Raw White on paper cone, Assessable Value - Rs. 36,63,829/-. (ii) Bill of Entry Sl. No. 2440 dated 29th May, 1998, per Vessel S.S. Acacia V. 818, Rot No. 370/98, Line No. 154, Country of Origin - India, Goods - 20 pallets Polyester 100% Semi Dull Ring Spun Yarn for weaving NE 24/2, Assessable...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-08-2008
Reported in : JT2008(8)SC650; 2008(11)SCALE233; 2008AIRSCW6322
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Challenging the order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 19.9.2002 in Criminal Appeal No. 812 of 1980 acquitting Kishanpal Singh, Suresh Singh, Mahendra Singh @ Neksey Singh, Jaivir Singh, Sheodan Singh and Bahar Singh (Accused Nos. 2, 4, 7, 8, 9 & 10), the State of Uttar Pradesh has filed this appeal.2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:On 21.6.1978 at 3.30 p.m., the sixteen accused persons gathered at the door of Gyan Singh and made a criminal conspiracy for killing Kaptan Singh and Raj Mahesh as they were harassing them unnecessarily. At about 4.00 P.M., Onkar Singh, Kishanpal Singh, Vijaipal Singh, Suresh Singh, Naresh Singh, Daulat Singh, Mahendra Singh @ Neksey Singh, Jaivir Singh, Sheodan Singh and Bahar Singh (Accused Nos. 1to10) reached at the place of occurrence with firearms. Onkar Singh (Accused No. 1), Naresh Singh (Accused No. 5), Daulat Singh (Accused No. 6) and Sheodan Singh (Accused No. 9) had guns while others had country-ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-12-2008
Reported in : AIR2009SC944; 2009CriLJ7872; 2008(16)SCALE158; 2009AIRSCW1; 2008(6)LHSC4417
S.B. Sinha, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 14.5.2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1472 of 1981 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the appellant herein against a judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.6.1981 passed by Sri R.K. Mishra, III Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur in Sessions Trial No. 418 of 1980 holding that the appellant was guilty for commission of offences under Sections 148, 452 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 18 months, 18 months and life imprisonment respectively, was dismissed.2. Appellant was prosecuted in respect of commission of offences, the incident whereof took place on or about 15.8.1979 at about 9.30 p.m. in the house of one Mewa Ram. Janamashtami festival was being celebrated on that night. Dinesh Kumar and Girish Kumar, the sons of the informant Mewa Ram, Smt. Ramlali, his wife, so...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-26-2008
District of Columbia v. Heller - 07-290 (2008) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2007 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA etal. v . HELLER certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit No. 07290.Argued March 18, 2008Decided June 26, 2008 District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Respondent Heller, a D.C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Apr-28-2008
Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd. - 07-21 (2008) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2007 CRAWFORD V. MARION COUNTY ELECTION BD. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CRAWFORD etal. v . MARION COUNTY ELECTION BOARD etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the seventh circuit No. 0721.Argued January 9, 2008Decided April 28, 2008* After Indiana enacted an election law (SEA 483) requiring citizens voting in person to present government-issued photo identification, petitioners filed separate suits challenging the laws constitutionality. Following discovery, the District Court granted respondents summary judgment, finding the evidence in the record insufficient to support a facial attack on the statutes validity. In affirming, the Seventh Circuit declined to judge the law by the strict standard set for poll taxes in Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections , 383 U. S. 663 , finding the burden on voters offset by the benefit of reducing the risk of fraud. Held: The judgm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-22-2008
Reported in : AIR2008SC3200; 2008(10)SCALE292; (2008)11SCC637
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant questions legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur Bench. The learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur found the accused guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') and sentenced him to undergo RI for life and to pay a fine with default stipulation. He was also convicted for offence punishable under Section 447 IPC and sentenced to undergo 15 days' RI. Additionally, he was convicted for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo 10 years RI and pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. Similarly, in respect of offence punishable under Section 324 IPC he was sentenced to undergo RI for one year. In appeal, by the impugned judgment, High Court confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence.3. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:On 3.8.1999, Vaje Singh (PW-1) lodged a First Information Repo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-16-2008
Reported in : 2008(10)SCALE249
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court holding the appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC.2. The appellant and his father Baldu had filed the appeal before the High Court questioning the correctness of the conviction and imposition of sentence as done by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur in Sessions Trial No. 287 of 1980. The appellant's father Baldu died during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court and, therefore, the appeal stood abated so far as he is concerned.3. The prosecution version as unfolded during trial is essentially as follows:Kali Charan, first informant (PW-1), his father Lachhi Ram (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') and his mother Smt. Ram Kunwar were returning after ploughing the land of Chandra Bhan with their bullocks on 28.7.1980 through th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Sep-18-2008
Reported in : AIR2009SC204; 2009CriLJ378; 2008(12)SCALE604; 2008AIRSCW7139
Altamas Kabir, J.1. These three appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 1st December, 2004, passed by the Uttaranchal High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants herein (Criminal Appeal No. 851/01) against the judgment and order of the Sessions Judge, Almora, in ST No. 36 of 1987, convicting the appellants under Sections 302/34, 201/34 and 394 Indian Penal Code. One of the accused, Ratan Singh, died during the trial which abated against him and continued against the other accused persons.2. According to the prosecution, on 26th February, 1987, the deceased Bhupal Singh @ Joga Singh of village Sain Bagaria, District Almora, Uttaranchal, went to the Mela held at village Dabra on the occasion of Shiv Ratri along with his wife and two children. He had taken an amount of Rs. 3,000/- with him for purchasing two bullocks and a goat. While at the Mela, he met Gusain Singh and remained at the Mela with his wife and children till 4.30 p.m. when he sent them back to their v...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-14-2008
Reported in : AIR2008SC1738; 2008(5)ALLMR(SC)424; 2008BusLR403(SC); [2008]143CompCas97(SC); (2008)2CompLJ496(SC); 2008(3)SCALE650; (2008)6SCC750; [2008]83SCL451(SC); 2008(1)LC583(SC); 2008AIRSCW2402; 2008(2)Supreme502; 2008(4)KCCRSN299
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. M/s. Shree Bhaarathi Cotton Mills Private Limited is a company registered and incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (For short, 'the Act'). Out of the 2,84,000 equity shares in the company of Rs. 10/- each, 2,83,999 shares are held by the first respondent and his son (appellant herein). The remaining one share is held by M/s. Visva Bharathi Textiles Private Limited, shares in which again is held equally by the first respondent and the appellant. Thus, for all intent and purport, all shares of the company are held by the appellant and the first respondent. 3. Whereas the first respondent is the Managing Director of the Company, the appellant is the Director thereof. Indisputably the parties are not on good terms. 4. Respondent No. 1 filed an application purported to be under Sections 397 and 398 of the Act alleging several acts of oppression on the part of appellant herein before the Company Law Board, Additional Principal Bench, Chennai. The said ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-27-2008
Reported in : AIR2008SC2763; 2008(4)ALD11(SC); 2008(4)AWC3426(SC); 2008(56)BLJR2012; (SCSuppl)2008(4)CHN201; 2008(4)CTC355; (2008)7MLJ826(SC); 2008(8)SCALE698; 2008(2)LC733(SC); 2008AIRSCW4595; 2008(3)CivilLJ470; 2008(4)Supreme153; 2008(3)LH(SC)2237
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Whether a disciple attached to a Mahant in one of the establishments run by a Religious Trust will have locus standi to maintain an appeal from an order of the District Judge allowing an application filed by the Trust under Section 92(1)(f) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code') is the short question which arises for consideration in this appeal. 3. One Swami Sarupanand was the founder of the Math. He was disciple of Swami Advaitanand. The latter was a religious preceptor of great learning and had a large following. Swami Sarupanand took his Samadhi at Meerut in March 1936 and according to his wishes Swami Atmavivekanand became the Mahant. He was succeeded by Swami Harsewanand who in turn was succeeded by Swami Harshankaranand. Swami Harshankaranand died on 22.02.1993. He had three disciples; Sarnanand, Premanand and Smt. Tapesara. Premanand died on 10.06.2005. He was succeeded by Swami Shankaranand. Appellant is said to have succ...
Tag this Judgment!