Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Aug-20-2002
Reported in : 2003CriLJ205
S.K. Agarwal, J.1. These two criminal appeals, being Criminal Appeal No. 829 of 1996 (filed on behalf of Bansh Bahadur Singh and Jat Pratap Singh alias Ram Pratap Singh) and Criminal Appeal No. 776 of 1996 (filed on behalf of Narendra Singh alias Natey Singh) arise from the judgment and order dated 23-4-1996 passed by the then Sessions Judge, Azamgarh. These three appellants were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life under Sections 302/34, I.P.C. for committing murder of Vinod Singh and Pramod Singh, They were, however, acquitted of the charges under Section 307, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C, and Sections 504/506, I.P.C. for making an attempt on the life of complainant Ram Kesar Singh. The learned Sessions Judge had also acquitted them for the murder of Smt. Usha Devi wife of Ram Kesar Singh, the first murder in the chain. Since the appeals arise from a common judgment we have heard them together and decide them by this common judgment. It may be noteworthy that no Gov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-22-2002
Reported in : (2002)178CTR(Mad)248; [2003]259ITR215(Mad)
V.S. Sirpurkar, J. 1. This judgment shall dispose of both the tax case references as a common question is involved. The following question was referred to us at the instance of the Revenue and under the directions of this court ;'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal's view that the provision of Section 249(4) as amended would not apply to the assessee's case is sustainable in law ?'2. A few facts first : The relevant assessment years for these two tax case references are 1973-74 and 1974-75. The Income-tax Officer levied a penalty of Rs. 1,799 and Rs. 1,902 for these two years, respectively, under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'), as the assessee had failed to file the returns in time. The assessee preferred appeals against these penalties. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, found that the admitted taxes for the assessment years had not been paid up to June 2, 1978, when the appeals were present...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta
Decided on : Aug-23-2002
Reported in : (2003)(160)ELT1022Tri(Kol.)kata
1. The issue involved in all the four appeals is identical and hence all of them are being disposed of by a common order.2. Vide the impugned orders of Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta, has demanded differential duty on the consignment of candles imported by the appellants from Nepal. The said candles were cleared by the appellant on payment of additional duty of customs equivalent to central excise duty @ 4% ad valorem on the CIF value declared in the bills of entries. The candles, classifiable under tariff sub-heading No. 3406.10, when manufactured in India, carry the central excise duty @ 16% ad valorem. However, in terms of Notification No. 85/98-Cus., dated 5-11-98, the imported goods carry concessional rate of additional duty of customs, subject to the conditions stipulated in proviso (2) of the said notification. Further in terms of Notification No.3/2001-C.E., dated 1-3-2001, candles manufactured in India carry concessional rate of duty at 4% ad valorem provided no Cenvat is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Aug-26-2002
A.H. Saikia, J.1. Both these Writ Petitions have been filed under the nomenclature of Public Interest Litigation (hereinafter referred to as PIL) seeking judicial intervention of this Court under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India projecting the grievances against the proposed shifting of the entire establishment of Special Service Bureau (for Short 'SSB') from North Eastern Region (hereinafter called as N.E. Region) by the respondents - Union of India and others, for its deployment to various other places in Indo-Nepal Border in the States of West Bengal and Bihar. Since both the writ Petitions carry a common issue based on similar and identical factual matrix, we propose to hear both the matter analogously and thereby to dispose of the same by this common order.2. The entire pivot of the controversy revolves round the proposed shifting of SSB Unit from N.E. Region especially from Assam and Arunachal Pradesh to other parts of the country.3. The common case, in short compass, o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-26-2002
Reported in : 2003(26)PTC590(Del)
C.K. Mahajan, J.1. By way of present suit, the plaintiff prays for permanent injunction in favor of plaintiff and against the defendants restraining them from manufacturing, selling and offering for sale directly or indirectly dealing in Blankets, Shawls, Lohis and other woollen piece made goods under the trade mark KASHGARI, trade mark Nos. 70, 100, 170, 111, Kailashgari, Vaishali, Alaknanda and Neelgiri and device of a Lamb as well as the mark KASHGIRI as part of their trading style and from any other mark or device which is deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff's trade mark and device.2. The plaintiff is a Government company dealing in manufacturing of woollen goods i.e. Kashgari Lohies, Shawls, Lohies, Blankets, Suiting etc. The plaintiff claims to be the user of marks being No. 70 Lohis, No. 100 Lohis, No. 170 Lohis, No. 111 Lohis, Kailashgiri (No. 3542), Alaknanda Lohis, Neelgiri Lohis and Vishali Lohis since 19.11.1974 to 25.5.1985. The plaintiff is the registered proprie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Aug-26-2002
Reported in : 2003(1)WLC3; 2003(3)WLN339
F.C. Bansal, J.1. The appellant Prem Singh was indicted by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Kota in Session Case No. 36/95 for having committed murder of Deepak. He has been convicted and sentenced under Section 302, IPC vide its judgment dated April 6, 1998 to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. Against this judgment of conviction and sentence the present action for filing the appeal has been resorted to by the appellant.2. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that on 11.6.1995 at 11:05 P.M., P.W. 14 Rajendra Singh Rathore, SHO, P.S. Kunhadi, Kota City recorded 'Parcha Bayan' Ex. P. 1 of Smt. Rekha (P.W. 1) W/o Bheru Lal, by caste-Dhobi, R/o Sakatpura, (Kota City) at her house, wherein she stated that today after around 7:30 P.M., she and her nephew Pappu @ Deepak were ironing clothes. At that time Hansraj and Satya Narain quarrelled each other and Sattu chased Hansraj when ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Aug-29-2002
P.G. Agarwal, J.1. The above three Writ Petitions were heard analogously and disposed of by this common judgment. The Petitioners before us have prayed for stepping up of their pay scales to that of their juniors.2. The Petitioners are all employees of the Tripura Gramin Bank, a Rural Bank established under the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976. Pursuant to the orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Government of India referred the dispute regarding pay scales of the employees of the Regional Rural Banks to the National Industrial Tribunal under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Obul Reddy, Retired Chief Justice, and the Tribunal gave an award on April 30, 1990 and the same was accepted by the Government of India. Thereafter, an Equation Committee was constituted by the Government of India for the purpose of determination of the equation of posts in Rural Banks - vis-a-vis - Sponsored Bank for fixation of pay and allowances.3. The said Equation Committee submitted a report which wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Aug-29-2002
Reported in : 2003CriLJ163
ORDERS.N. Srivastava, J. 1. This reference under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act was registered by the order of Chief Justice dated 1-8-1996 on the request of the then District Magistrate Hamirpur made through letter dated 27th April, 1996.2. In a suit instituted under Sections 229B/209/202 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, an order was passed on 14-12-1991 in exercise of power under Section 229-B which was made absolute on 12-2-1992 in case No. 334/123/35 of 1986-87 Nagar Palika Rath v. Ayodhya Prasad and others. It is alleged in the reference that Bihari Lal, Amar kumar and Arvind have willfully disobeyed the orders dated 14-12-1990 and 12-2-1992 passed by S.D.M. in which they were restrained from using the water of pond in dispute for irrigation or altering the shape of the pond. It transpires from the record, that notices have not yet been issued to the Opp. Parties.3. Heard Sri Satish Chand Rai, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel. In the light of the materials on record and the submi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Aug-29-2002
Reported in : AIR2003Bom178; 2003(2)BomCR148; 2002(4)MhLj615
V.G. Palshikar, J.1. This revision application is directed againstthe order passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 6/95 passed on6-8-1996 below (Exh.114) in Regular Civil Suit No. 56/92whereby the order of status-quo was granted. The learnedappellate Court vacating the order of status-quo grantedinjunction in favour of the appellants before it and,therefore, the unsuccessful respondent has come up inRevision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. When this matter came up for arguments, it wasnoticed that several revisions of such nature are pendingin this Court. All these revisions challenged the orderspassed by the trial Court and the appellate Court eitherwhen they are concurrent or when they are reversing. Thelearned Counsel appearing in the above revisionapplication No. 803/96 desired for some time to argue thematter. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned tilltoday. In the meantime, the office also identified about150 revision applications wherein identical question oflaw arose...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Aug-29-2002
Reported in : 2002CriLJ4779; ILR2002KAR4791; 2003(1)KarLJ265
ORDERChandrashekaraiah, J.1. In all these petitions the petitioners have challenged the Notification Nos. GSR 759 and 760(E), dated 29-9-2000 issued by the Union of India introducing amendment to Rule 42 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules 1955').2. In one of the writ petitions the petitioner has sought for quashing of the communication in letter bearing No. MDBN/L-696380, dated 16-11-2001 issued by the Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, under which the request for retaining the brand name 'Cauvery' has been rejected on the ground that it contravenes the clauses concerning labelling conditions as per IS : 14543 and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1954').3. The case of the petitioners is that whether the Union of India is competent to frame rules regulating the sale of packaged drinking water since the word 'water' is excluded from the definition of the word 'food' under the Act 1954. It is th...
Tag this Judgment!