Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-31-2008
Reported in : 2008AIRSCW8078; AIR2009SC792; JT2008(6)SC177; 2008(6)SCALE275; 2008(1)LC611(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. What are the factors which are required to be taken into consideration by the Central Government for determining the price of levy sugar in exercise of its power under Section 3(3C) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (the Act) is the question involved herein.3. Before us, there are various owners of sugar mills who purchased sugarcane from the farmers. 4. Section 3(2)(f) of the Act empowers the Central Government to fix compulsory quota of sugar produced by a sugar producer in the manner prescribed by the Central Government including the price thereof at which the same is to be sold. It is known as 'levy sugar'. The rest of the sugar, however, can be sold by the producers in free market. It is known as 'free sugar'. 5. The factors which are relevant to be taken into consideration by Central Government is contained in Section 3(3C) of the Act which includes:(a) The minimum price, if any fixed for Sugarcane by the Central Government.(b) The manufactu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-06-2008
Reported in : 2008BusLR469(SC); (2008)216CTR(SC)289; [2008]301ITR309(SC); 2008(8)SCALE223; 2008AIRSCW4096
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Interpretation and/or application of the provisions of Section 115WB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') providing for imposition of tax on 'fringe benefits' is in question herein.3. Before embarking upon the said question, however, we may notice the basic fact of the matter.Appellant is incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of Australia. It is engaged in the business of providing Mobile Offshore Drilling Rig (MODR) along with crew on a day rate charter hire basis to drill offshore wells. The MODR operates offshore (upto 200 nautical miles off the coast of India). Allegedly, having regard to the harsh working environment and purported to be in line with global practices typical to such industry, the employees who may be residents of various countries including Australia, USA, UK, France etc. work on the MODR on a 'commuter basis'. They come to India, stay in the Rig for 28 days and go back to their own country being their place...
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!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-10-2008
Reported in : 2008(56)BLJR2300; JT2008(7)SC614; 2008(9)SCALE787; (2008)8SCC708; 2008AIRSCW6034; 2008(8)SCC708; 2008(3)Crimes160
C.K. Thakker, J.1. Leave granted.2. The present appeals have been instituted by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 19th July, 2007 passed by the High Court of Kerala in Criminal Revision Petition No. 4126 of 2006 and companion matters. By the impugned order, the High Court dismissed revision petitions filed by the appellants herein as also by the State of Kerala.3. To understand the issue raised in the present appeals, few relevant facts may be stated:4. The appellants are partners of M/s LIS, Ernakulam, a partnership firm engaged in the business of sale of lotteries and magazines after collecting advance money. They floated a scheme known as 'LIS Deepasthambham Scheme'. The scheme was simple in its conception. A person has to pay Rs. 625/- and purchase one unit of lotteries from the promoters. The promoters will make use of Rs. 350/- to purchase 35 lottery tickets of the Kerala State Government each of Rs. 10/- for the unit holder for the next 35 weeks. If the unit ho...
Tag this Judgment!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-20-2008
Reported in : 2008(11)SCALE504; 2008(2)LC1133(SC); 2008AIRSCW5914
Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. These appeals, which are filed by the complainant, are against an order of acquittal passed by the Patna High Court on 9th August, 2000, whereby the Division Bench acquitted the respondents while allowing the appeals filed by them questioning the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Additional Sessions Judge II, Gaya on 22nd December, 1997 in Sessions Tr. Nos. 177/1995 and 134/1995.2. Satendra Sharma, respondent No. 1 in Crl. Appeal 553/2001 was tried for offences punishable under Section 364, Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 while Pankaj Sharma and Ramakant Sharma, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively in Crl. Appeal 554/2001 were tried for offences punishable under Section 364, Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for murder of one Ajay Sharma (hereinafter referred to as the `deceased'). The trial court found that all the three respondents are guilty and sentenced ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-20-2008
Reported in : 2008(6)ALT46(SC); 2008(2)CTLJ479(SC); [2009(1)JCR110(SC)]; JT2008(12)SC371; 2008(14)SCALE476:2008AIRSCW94
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Since common points are involved in these appeals, they are disposed of by this common judgment.2. Writ Petitions were filed by the appellants before the Andhra Pradesh High Court praying for quashing the order passed by the State Government in Memorandum No. 8817/M.II(1)/2001-6, dated 4.2.2002 and the consequent demand notice issued by the Director of Mines and Geology and the proceedings of the Deputy Director, Mines and Geology. The appellant in each case is engaged in the business of construction, engineering and civil works. In each case the appellant had participated in the tenders invited by the Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (in short `BHEL') for the purpose of executing their part of the contract which is with NTPC for levelling and grading. BHEL had awarded the contract to the appellant- company for execution of the work. According to the appellant, the material required for the purpose of execution of the contract in terms of the specifications prescribed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-06-2008
Reported in : 2008(4)AWC4009(SC); 2008BusLR22(SC); (2009)1MLJ953(SC); 2008(13)SCALE717; (2009)1SCC91
C.K. Thakker, J.1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') praying to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India to appoint third Arbitrator as Presiding Arbitrator or to appoint Sole Arbitrator as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.2. It is the case of the applicant that it is a Company known as M/s Comed Chemicals Ltd. registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. Mr. Ashwani Kapil is the authorized signatory who has approached this Court. It is stated in the application that the Company is doing business in chemicals in the field of bio-technology. To expand the business, the Company floated a subsidiary company in the name and style of Comed Biotech Ltd. For the said purpose, it entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (`MoU' for short) and appointed Dr. C.N. Ramchand (respondent herein) on September 4, 2003 for the development of products in the field of bi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-08-2008
Reported in : 2008(3)ALD41(SC); [2008(116)FLR540]; (2008)2MLJ761(SC); 2008(1)SCALE293; (2008)2SCC99; 2008AIRSCW530; 2008LABIC766
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants. Challenge before the High Court was to the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (in short the Tribunal'). By its order dated 18.2.1999 the Tribunal had directed that seniority list of Store keepers was to be prepared on the principle that; (1) the OM dated 7.2.1986 is prospective in nature and not retrospective; (2) the employees recruited after 1.3.1986, even though they were not empanelled and selected earlier to 1.3.1986, their seniority will be in accordance with the aforesaid OM as they were appointed to the service after 1.3.1986 and the impugned seniority list was to be amended with consequential benefits in terms of these principles.2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:On 8.7.1983 notice for recruitment was issued for Store keepers, Class-III in the materials organization of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-07-2008
Reported in : AIR2008SC1661; JT2008(13)SC648; 2008(3)SCALE416; 2008AIRSCW1882
S.B. Sinha, J.1. These Appeals arising out of a common judgment.2. We would, at the outset, place on record that three trials were held one after the other and the judgments therein were delivered also one after the other in relation to an incident which took place one after the other but wherefor only one First Information Report had been lodged.3. On or about 30th June, 1999 at 2.30 p.m., Rachhpal Singh along with Sawinder Singh and Hardev Singh had an altercation with one Resham Singh S/o Subeg Singh. Rachhpal Singh inflicted a knife injury on the right wrist and chest of Resham Singh. He picked up the knife from which was with Pargat Singh II S/o Shangara Singh who was accompanying him. Resham Singh fell down. Hardev Singh and Sawinder Singh also allegedly inflicted 'dang' blows on Resham Singh. An alarm was raised by Resham Singh's father Subeg Singh. Resham Singh died on the spot.The said incident is the subject matter of Criminal Appeal No. 326 of 2007.4. As an off shoot to the ...
Tag this Judgment!