Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-01-2008
Reported in : 2009(239)ELT427(All)
Satish Chandra, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the Department under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the Order No. 1792-93/04-NB (S) dated 3.12.2004 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in Appeal No. C/85-186/04-NB (S).2. We have heard Sri Rajesh Singh Chauhan for the appellant and Sri Anand Mohan for respondents.3. The brief facts of the case are that the Preventive Officer of the Customs on the basis of specific information, on 24.12.1999, have intercepted a Maruti Gypsy No. UGE-9446 on Lucknow-Barabanki Highway near Safedabad Railway Crossing. There were three persons in the Gypsy. One Raj Kumar Sharma was driving the Gypsy, while two other occupants namely Shambhu Nath and Lal Bahadur, the respondents, were sitting in the vehicle. Both were residents of district Mathura. On enquiry, both respondents have admitted that they were having silver of foreign origin in the vehicle and told that they were travelling from Gorakhpur to Mat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-01-2008
Reported in : 2009(2)AWC1777
Sudhir Agarwal, J.1. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 2.11.2000 of Hon'ble single Judge dismissing petitioner-appellant's (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner') Writ Petition No. 24972 of 1991 this intra Court appeal under the rules of the Court has been preferred by the petitioner. The writ petition was filed challenging the order dated 5.8.1991 whereby the Director, North Central Zone, Cultural Centre, Nyay Marg, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to the 'N.C.Z.C.C.') has terminated petitioner's services giving him one month's salary in lieu of notice.2. The facts in brief giving rise to the present dispute are that the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 11/16.9.1987 as Stenographer (Hindi) attached to Deputy Director (Admin.) on consolidated pay of Rs. 1,581 per month including all allowances. The aforesaid appointment was purely temporary and terminable at any time without prior notice. On 30.7.1991 the Director, N.C.Z.C.C. published an advertisement in daily Hindi newspa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Jharkhand
Decided on : Dec-01-2008
Reported in : [2009(1)JCR363(Jhr)]
M.Y. Eqbal, J.1. In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 19.9.2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, in O.A. No. 34/2006 whereby the tribunal remitted back the matter to the appellate authority for reconsideration.2. The petitioner Kendriya Vidyalya Santaghan is a registered Society fully financed by the Government of India to meet the educational needs of the children of transferable Central Government employees including defence personnel and to run the school. One of such school is running at Chakradharpur. On 1.2.2003 one complaint was made by Sri Rajesh Sarangi, local guardian of Kumari Varsha Tripathi, a student of class VIII in the said school at Chakradharpur, to the Principal about the misbehaviour with his ward by the respondent Muni Lal Prasad and demanded action against him. In the complaint i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-02-2008
Reported in : 2009(1)BomCR14; 2008(111)BomLR327
B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 20th November, 2008, passed by Respondent No. 2 - District Deputy Registrar in Appeal preferred by Respondent No. 5 against acceptance of nomination paper of present petitioner for election to the post of Member of Respondent No. 4 A.P.M.C. Khamgaon. Respondent No. 3 is the Election Officer for the said elections which are conducted as per provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development & Regulation) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as APMC Act) and Maharashtra Agricultural Produce (Agricultural Development and Regulation) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as APMC Rules).2. The Respondent No. 1 before this Court is the State Government of Maharashtra. As per the election programme, the elections are scheduled on 14th December, 2008. On 24th November, 2008, it was pointed out to this Court that remedy of filing elect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-02-2008
Reported in : 2009CriLJ942; 2008(15)SCALE400; 2008(6)LHSC4383; AIR2009SC958; 2009AIRSCW25
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.1. Both these appeals arising out of the common judgment and order dated 09.12.2005 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Government Appeal No. 2004 of 1981, were heard together and shall stand disposed of by this common order. By the impugned order, the High Court while setting aside the judgment of acquittal dated June 5, 1981 recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, in Sessions Trial No. 293 of 1980, convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 149 and Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to imprisonment for life and two years' rigorous imprisonment respectively.2. Brief facts of the case are that Subedar Singh (P.W. 1) has got three sons, namely, Jai Karan Singh, Shiv Karan Singh and Ram Karan Singh. P.W. 1 lodged F.I.R. (Ex. Ka.1) on 24.07.1980 at 6:15 a.m. at Police Station, Sumerpur situated at a distance of about 15 kms. from village Patyora, alleging therein that in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-03-2008
Reported in : 2009(4)BomCR258; (2008)220CTR(Bom)649; [2009]311ITR46(Bom)
S. Radhakrishnan and A.V. Nirgude, JJ.1. Mr. Chagla, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner broadly made the following four propositions:I. Assuming the validity of the 2008 amendments and further assuming that the transaction is chargeable to tax then nevertheless it is submitted that the Show Cause Notice is without jurisdiction as both before and after 2008 amendment the Petitioner is not deemed to be an assessee in default.II. The provisions of Section 195 have no extra territorial application. In an offshore transaction involving two non residents in respect of a capital asset (i.e. share capital) and payment outside the country, even assuming that such transaction is chargeable to tax, there is no obligation to withhold tax under Section 195.III. The 2008 amendment to the extent that they purport to be retrospective are unconstitutional. Under the unamended Sections 191 and 201 the Show Cause Notice is clearly without jurisdiction.IV. In any view of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-03-2008
Reported in : 155(2008)DLT407
S. Muralidhar, J.1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of its application IA No. 1910 of 2007 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC in CS (OS) No. 314 of 2007, the Plaintiff Dabur India Limited ('DIL') has filed this appeal. With the consent of parties the appeal is taken up for final hearing.2. The Appellant states that it is the fourth largest fast moving consumer goods company in India engaged in the business of manufacturing pharmaceuticals, toiletries and medicinal preparations and that it has been carrying on its trading activities since 1884. Among its reputed products is Amla Hair Oil which is being marketed under the trade mark Dabur Amla Hair Oil. The Appellant states that besides vast sales in India it has also been exporting Dabur Amla Hair Oil to various countries since 1884. Dabur Amla Hair Oil is marketed in plastic bottles shaped with a semi-circular shoulder with curvaceous back and front panel tapering into each other, thereby providing a novel and original overall appearance and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-04-2008
Reported in : (2009)226CTR(All)606
Satish Chandra, J.1. Heard Sri A.M. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri D.D. Chopra, learned Counsel for the respondents.2. The present writ petition has been preferred against the impugned order dt. 9th March, 2004, passed by the CIT under Section 12A of the IT Act, 1961, where he has cancelled the registration granted earlier on 1st April, 1999, for being a charitable institution.3. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition, are that the petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. 1860, bearing registration No. 290 of 1995. The petitioner, hereinafter known as the assessee, has applied for registration under Section 12A of the IT Act being a charitable institution. The opposite parties have granted registration on 1st April, 1999. Further, the exemption was also granted under Section 80G of the IT Act on 10th May, 1999.4. A survey was conducted at the business premises of the assessee under Section 133A of the Act on 20th Sept....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-04-2008
Reported in : 2009AIRSCW244; AIR2009SC1085; 2009(2)ALT41(SC); 2009(1)AWC391(SC); 2009(1)KLT1(SC); (2009)2MLJ750(SC); 2009(3)MPHT528(SC); RLW2009(2)SC1589; 2008(16)SCALE109; (2009)1SCC714; 2009(1)LHSC68.
Altamas Kabir, J.1. The only question which falls for determination in this Civil Appeal by way of Special Leave is whether a marriage entered into by a Hindu with a Christian is valid under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.2. The appellant, who is a Roman Catholic Christian allegedly married the respondent, who is a Hindu, on 24.10.1996, in a temple only by exchange of `Thali' and in the absence of any representative from either side. Subsequently, the marriage was registered on 2.11.1996 under Section 8 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, hereinafter referred to as the '1955 Act'.3. Soon thereafter, on 13.3.1997, the respondent- wife filed a petition before the Family Court at Vishakapatnam, being O.P. No. 84 of 1997, under Section 12(1)(c) of 1955 Act, for a decree of nullity of the marriage entered into between the parties on 24.10.1996 on the grounds mentioned in the said petition.4. The main ground for declaring the marriage to be a nullity was mainly misrepresentation...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-05-2008
Reported in : 2009(241)ELT338(Mad)
ORDERS. Nagamuthu, J.1. A Notification bearing No. 25 (Re-2007)/2004-2009 dated 29.08.2007 issued by the second respondent / Director General of Foreign Trade and Ex-Officio Additional Secretary to the Government of India in exercise of powers conferred by Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with paragraph 2.1 of the Foreign Trade Policy - 2004 - 09 is under challenge in all these writ petitions. All the writ petitions were heard together and they are disposed of by means of this common order. 2. The petitioners in all these writ petitions are either importers or traders of betel nuts. They claim that they are in the practice of importing betel nuts in substantial quantities every year from South East Asian countries like Indonesia and Thailand. According to them, they can conveniently import the same through anyone of the ports on the Eastern Cost. But, the respondents issued the impugned Notification, there...
Tag this Judgment!