Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-19-2002
Reported in : 102(2003)DLT868; 2003(66)DRJ569; 2003(87)ECC105
R.C. Chopra, J. 1. This application for suspension of sentence during the pendency of the appeal has been moved on behalf of the appellant who stands convicted under Section 20(B)(ii) and Section 23 read with Section 28 of the NDPS Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' only). The appellant was sentenced by the Trial Court to undergo RI for 10 years and pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, in default of which he was ordered to undergo further RI for six months.2. The appellant who is a foreign national was a transit passenger from Nepal to Amsterdam. On the intervening night of 26th and 27th June, 1997, he was searched at IGI Airport New Delhi and was found to be in possession of 13.476 kgs. Charas. The appellant was put to trial. Learned Trial Judge after considering the prosecution evidence and the defense of the appellant convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. His appeal against conviction and sentence is pending disposal before this Court.3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-19-2002
Reported in : 2004ACJ727; (2003)1MLJ268
P. Sathasivam, J.1. United India Insurance Company, Madras-2 aggrieved by the Award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (VI Small Causes Court), Madras dated 23-8-1995 made in M.C.O.P. No. 2428 of 1992, has preferred the above appeal.2. In respect of injuries sustained in a motor accident on 02-08-92, the claimant/first respondent herein made a claim for Rs. 43,000/- before the Tribunal. According to the claimant, on 02-08-92 at about 12.10 Hours, when he was riding a bicycle along with Selliamman Koil Street from north to south, an autorickshaw bearing registration No. TSK.2563 coming from behind in the same direction, driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit against his bicycle, causing grievous injuries to him and damaging his bicycle. It is further stated that the first respondent therein, as owner of the autorickshaw and the second respondent therein, as insurer of the same are liable to pay compensation. Before the Tribunal, the owner of the autorickshaw, first respondent th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Dec-19-2002
Reported in : (2003)(153)ELT104TriDel
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Priya Holding Pvt.Ltd., is whether the customs duty is separately leviable on stores and bunkers or these goods are to be included in LDT of the ship brought for breaking.2. Shri A.D. Maru, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants imported one old ship M.V. BORROVICHI; that they paid the customs duty of Rs. 50,52,210/-; that subsequently the Assistant Commissioner, under Adjudication Order No. 4/99, dated 30-3-99, dropped the demand on movable gears but confirmed the demand on bunker and food-stuff in terms of Board's Circular No. 37/96 Cus., dated 3-7-1996; that on appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), under the impugned order dated 14-12-2001, rejected their appeal holding that the fuel kept in the engine room could not be treated as a part of engine and machinery and ship stores were classifiable separately in their own appropriate Heading of the Customs Tariff and not to be classified along with the ship. The learned Advocat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on : Dec-19-2002
Reported in : (2003)(86)ECC88
1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Priya Holding Pvt.Ltd., is whether the customs duty is separately leviable on stores and bunkers or these goods are to be included in LDT of the ship brought for breaking.2. Shri A.D. Maru, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants imported one old ship M.V. BQRROVICHI: that they paid the customs duty of Rs. 50,52,210; that subsequently the Assistant Commissioner, under Adjudication Order No. 4/99 dated 30.3.99, dropped the demand on movable gears but confirmed the demand on bunker and food stuff in terms of Board's Circular No. 37/96/Cus. dated 3.7.1996; that on appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals), under the impugned order dated 14.12.2001, rejected their appeal holding that the fuel kept in the engine room could not be treated as a part of engine and machinery and ship stores were classifiable separately in their own appropriate Heading of the Customs Tariff and not to be classified alongwith the ship. The learned Advocate, fu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-19-2002
Reported in : 2003CriLJ3160
Y.R. Tripathi, J.1. This criminal appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence recorded by Sri Usha Kant Verma, the then IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge, Kanpur in S.T. No. 8 of 1980 State v. Ram Narain Singh, whereby he having convicted the appellant-Ram Narain Singh S/o Ayodha Singh r/o village Fattepur Gohi P.S. Bidhuna District Kanpur of the charge under Section 302. I.P.C. has sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.2. The appellant and the deceased are residents of village Fattepur Gohi, which lies within police station Bidhuna District Kanpur at a distance of 8 miles to the northwest of the Police Station, To the south of the house of the deceased there is 2-2 1/2 paces wide path way running from east to west. To the south-west of the house 'of the deceased after the said path way existed the house of one Toothi Chamar. The house of Toothi Chamar opened in his sahan to the west. There existed two cattle troughs adjacent to the south of the path way lying to the south...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC
Decided on : Dec-20-2002
Reported in : II(2003)CPJ61MRTP
1. On a complaint received from one Shri Naval Kishore Singh against the respondent i.e. Me Dowell & Company Limited that the respondent has been allowing differential discounts to wholesalers, the Commission directed the Director General (Investigation and Registration) (hereinafter referred to as DG) to investigate into the complaint and to submit its preliminary investigation report. The DG after obtaining information on certain points from the respondent recommended institution of inquiry against the respondent for the reasons given in its PIR filed on 10.12.1997. As per the report, "the respondent has allowed differential incentives by way of credit notes amounting to manipulation of prices imposing unjustified cost on the unfavoured customers which tends to impair competition". The enquiry was recommended under Section 37(1) read with Sections 2(o)(ii) and 33(1)(e) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).2. A Notice of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-20-2002
Reported in : 2003(3)AWC2288(SC); 2003(51)BLJR682; (SCSuppl)2003(2)CHN116; I(2003)DMC1SC; JT2002(10)SC571; 2003(1)KLT348(SC); (2003)1SCC730; [2002]SUPP5SCR689; 2003(1)LC215(SC)
D. Raju, J.1. The plaintiff (1st respondent herein) filed the suit claiming for 1/6th share in Schedules A to D properties and 1/3rd share in Schedule E properties. From the indisputable facts on record, the ancestral properties have to be divided firstly between Sahadeo Manjhi, his brother Mahadeo Manjhi (defendants Nos. 1 & 2) and their mother Dukhani Keotain (defendant No.7) each one getting 1/3rd share. Out of the 1/3rd share of Sahadeo Manjhi, the properties again will be equally divided in four parts each one of the sharers getting 1/4th share. Defendants 8 to 11 are said to be not entitled to any share on account of the fact that the marriage of the 1st defendant with the 8th defendant was void for the reason that his first wife, Smt. Kamli Devi, was alive and the first marriage still subsisting. The second marriage - remarriage, of 1st defendant with the 8th defendant after the coming into force of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 cannot be valid. The learned 2nd Additional Subordi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Decided on : Dec-23-2002
Lokeshwar Prasad, President: 1. The complainant, Shri Jai Prakash Saini, has filed the present complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), averring therein that the complainant, an ex-serviceman, re-employed with the Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi as a Clerk-cum-Coin Note Examiner, in August, 1997 suffered stomach ailment, consulted the Medical Officer of the Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi, for treatment, who, after examining the complainant, gave treatment which provided only temporary relief to the complainant and gradually two glands on the neck and one gland on the left side of the face of the complainant appeared. The Medical Officer of the Reserve Bank of India, under whose treatment the complainant was, after a few days of medication advised the complainant to consult some surgical specialist. On the advice of the Medical Officer of the Reserve Bank of India, the complainant approached the doctor at the Armed Forces C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Decided on : Dec-27-2002
Reported in : (2004)90ITD493(Hyd.)
..... , signed by mr. vardhan, it was stated that mr. vardhan met the representative of charity international, nepal, an n.g.o. which was contemplating starting a medical college to help nepalies and that during the discussion it was decided that sidur would come forward to render financial aid to facilitate setting up of the college and repayment would be made once ..... the college was established. that in this context he gave rs. 32 lakhs to k.m.c. this explanation is indeed specious. helping set-up a medical college for nepalies is hardly a charitable purpose which was further not put across to the executive committee of sidur. in his deposition mr. vardhan admitted that it was not as if sidur .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-17-2002
S.N. Variava, J.1) All these Petitions raise the question whether lawyers have a right to strike and/or give a call for boycotts of Court/s. In all these Petitions a declaration is sought that such strikes and/or calls for boycott are illegal. As the questions vitally concerned the legal profession, public notices were issued to Bar Associations and Bar Councils all over the country. Pursuant to those notices some Bar Associations and Bar Councils have filed their responses and have appeared and made submissions before us.2) In Writ Petition (C) No. 821 of 1990, an interim order came to be passed. This Order is reported in (1995) 1 Scale p.6. The circumstances under which it is passed and the nature of the interim order are set out in the Order. The relevant portion reads as under:"2. The Officiating Secretary, Bar Council of India, Mr. C. R. Balaram filed an affidavit on behalf of the Bar Council of India wherein he states that a 'National Conference' of members of the Bar Council of ...
Tag this Judgment!