Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-07-2008
Reported in : JT2008(13)SC613; 2008(4)SCALE125; (2008)13VST538(SC); 2008AIRSCW2233
S.B. Sinha, J.Leave granted.1. Appellant is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It runs a distillery. It obtained a licence under the trade name of 'Normandy Breweries and Distilleries' for manufacture of liquor under the Kerala Abkari Act (1 of 1077).2. It was registered as a dealer both under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (the Act) as also under the Central Sales Tax Act.3. It demised the factory in favour of one 'Eagle Distillery (P) Ltd.' (Lessee) by a Deed of Lease dated 1st December, 1984, wherefor requisite approval was granted by the Government of Kerala on or about 27th April, 1985.4. The Sales Tax Authorities were intimated thereabout by communications dated 4th May, 1985 and 30th May, 1985.The said letters read as under:'4th May, 1985I am writing this letter to inform you that I have leased out the Distillery unit in Cheemeni, Kasargod District to Eagle Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., having their registered office at Bangalore, Karnataka, for a period of 5 years ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-31-2008
Reported in : 2007AIRSCW3656; AIR2007SC2129; 2007(6)SCC694; 2007-III-LLJ-352(SC); JT2007(8)SC581
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Review Petitioners herein have filed this application for review of this Court's judgment and order dated 18.05.2007 passed in Civil Appeal No. 2739 of 2007.2. Respondent was working with the appellant Bank. Almost immediately prior to his retirement, he was asked to show cause as to why action under the UCO Bank (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979 (for short 'the 1979 Regulations') should not be taken against him by notices dated 24.10.1996 and 30.10.1996.3. Respondent reached his age of superannuation on 30.11.1996. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him immediately thereafter. A charge sheet, however, was issued only on 13.11.1998. He was dismissed from service upon initiating a departmental proceedings. 4. A writ petition filed by him was allowed. Petitioner Bank filed an appeal upon grant of special leave thereagainst. One of the questions which arose for consideration before this Court was whether in absence of any chargesheet having been issued, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-29-2008
Reported in : AIR2008SC2177; 2008(4)ALLMR(SC)408; 2008(3)AWC2772(SC); (SCSuppl)2008(3)CHN86; 2008(4)CTC649; 2008(8)SCALE185; (2008)5SCC194; 2008AIRSCW3344; 2008AIRSCW3344
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Interpretation and application of Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act') is the core question involved herein. 3. Before, however, adverting to the said question, we may notice the basic factual matrix of the matter. Appellant No. 1 is a partnership firm. It was constituted in the year 1973. It established a factory at Kadrabad in the town of Modi Nagar, U.P. A loan of Rs. 3.96 lakhs was applied for but a sum of Rs. 3.14 lakhs was sanctioned in 1974. Appellant No. 1 was in possession of 1100 sq. yards in Khasra Plot No. 397M, Khata No. 80 situated in Village Kadrabad Pargana Jalalabad. The factory is situated on a land measuring 800 sq. yards. The schedule of the land which was the subject matter of mortgage in favour of the respondent - Corporation reads as under:All that piece or parcel of land measuring 800 sq. yards out of Seven Biswas and Five Bigamain, bearing Khasra plot number 397 M Khata No. 80, situate ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-30-2008
Reported in : AIR2008SC3182; 2008(5)CTC554; [2008(118)FLR438]; (2008)IIILLJ584SC; (2008)7MLJ490(SC); 2008(7)SCALE726; 2009(1)SLJ129(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted in both the matters.2. These two appeals arise out of a judgment and order dated 20th May, 2005 rendered by the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court at Cuttack in WP No. 2333 of 1991.3. Writ Petitioner (Respondent in appeal arising out of SLP ) No. 18997 of 2005 and Appellant in the connected appeal) was appointed as a Management Trainee in the Punjab National Bank (Bank). She was duly selected by the Banking Service Recruitment Board, Delhi. An offer of appointment was made to her favour on or about 28th July, 1986 inter alia on the following terms and conditions:2. TRAINING/PROBATION/CONFIRMATIONYou will be on training/probation for a period of 2 years from the date of your joining the Bank and you will be considered for confirmation in the service, subject to your satisfactory report on your training, passing Bank's confirmation test and receipt of satisfactory report from the Police authorities about your character and antecedents. You may also be ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-12-2008
Reported in : AIR2008SC2286; 2008(4)AWC3490(SC); (2008)7SCC502; 2008AIRSCW4088; 2008(4)Supreme445
ORDER S.O. No./ 7153 (E), in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-paragraph (1) of Paragraph 25 of the Dugs (Price Control) Order, 1995, the Central Government having regard to the factors specified in the Clause (e) of Sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 25 of the said order and also having been satisfied for the need to do so in the public interest hereby exempts the bulk drug and formulations based thereupon specified in column 2 of the Table bellow which is manufactured by the company specified in the corresponding entry in column 3 from the operation of price control stipulated in Sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 3, Sub paragraph (1) of paragraph 8 and Sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 9 of the said order, upto the period as indicated in column 4 thereof. TABLES.No. Name of the Name of the Period uptowhich theProduct Company exemption isgranted1 2 3 41 Pentazocine and M/s.its formulations Ranbaxy 31-10-1999LaboratoriesLtd.Sd/-(K. MULALIDHARAN)DESK OFFICER20. For issuance of an exemption ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-13-2008
Reported in : (2008)7SCC259; 2008AIRSCW4814; 2008(7)SCC259
S.B. Sinha, J.Leave granted.1. Whether rule of perpetuity would be applicable in respect of a member of a Sikh Judicial Commission (for short 'Commission') constituted under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 (for short 'the Act') is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 13.09.2002 passed by a Five-Judge Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 371 of 1999.2. The Act was applicable to the entire territories of the undivided State of Punjab including PEPSU. By reason of the provisions of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956, the State of Himachal Pradesh was constituted, having been carved out from the State of Punjab.3. Another Parliamentary Act, being Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 (for short 'the 1966 Act') was enacted in terms whereof the State of Punjab was divided into the State of Punjab, the State of Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh.4. The Central Government admittedly is the appropriate authority for passing...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-14-2008
Reported in : 2008(8)SCALE106; 2008AIRSCW6743
S.B. Sinha, J.1. The core question involved in this appeal is the effect of the application of internal circulars issued by the Department of Telecommunications (DOT) in the contracts entered into by and between the parties hereto in respect of as regards inter-connection links provided by it.2. Civil Appeal Nos. 6341-6342 of 2003, 1 of 2004, 537 of 2004 and 2015 of 2004 involve the question of payment of charges. Civil Appeal No. 6375 of 2003 involves the question as to the effect of pre-mature surrender of fifteen leased circuits of 2 MBPS which had been obtained by BPL from DOT during the period January 1997 to June 1998. Civil Appeal No. 3448 of 2006 involves a dispute in relation to minimum guarantee period for 2 MBPS leaded lines.3. Judgments were delivered by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (TDSAT) on various dates, viz., 1.04.2003, 17.02.2003, 8.09.2003 and 3.03.2006.4. Before, however, we consider the views taken by the Tribunal, we may notice...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-16-2008
Reported in : 2008(8)SCALE304; 2008AIRSCW4378; AIR2008SC2611; 2008(5)LH(SC)3119
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Whether the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a composite suit filed by the appellant herein for eviction of the tenant is the question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 28th September, 2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in Second Appeal No. 260 of 2004, whereby and whereunder while allowing the appeal filed by the respondent, the suit filed by the appellant for eviction of the respondent was dismissed.3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.4. The premises in dispute is a shop located on the ground floor of House No. 370-D, Parasi Mohalla, Neemuch Cantt, in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Appellant purchased the property in question on 23rd March, 1996 from Smt. Anntu Jenra w/o Sh. Turab Bhai. Respondent was a tenant under the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant on a monthly rent of Rs. 200/- per month. By a letter dated 29th July, 1996 the appell...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-16-2008
Reported in : AIR2009SC218; JT2008(8)SC184
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Validity of orders of recession of allotment of industrial plots and resumption thereof by the appellants herein is in question in this batch of appeals.3. With a view to appreciate the questions involved herein, the factual matrix of the matter, however, would be noticed from Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 14074 of 2006.4. Appellant - Corporation is a public sector undertaking. Its principal function is allotment of industrial plots belonging to the State of Haryana. It was set up as a catalyst for promoting economic growth and accelerating the pace of industrialization. It not only provides financial assistance to the industrial concerns by way of term loans; it also develops infrastructure for setting up of industrial units. The Corporation also invests money in developing the industrial estates at strategic locations. In exercise of its functions, it also allots industrial plots to entrepreneurs for setting up their industries on 'no profi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-10-2008
Reported in : AIR2008SC3100; RLW2008(4)SC3105; 2008(10)SCALE44; (2008)8SCC139; 2008AIRSCW5200; (2008)3SCC(Cri)433
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, altering the conviction of the respondent for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') to Section 307 IPC. However, the conviction under Sections 458 and 460 IPC were maintained. The substantive sentences in respect of the offences were reduced to the period already undergone.3. The trial Court i.e. learned Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Rajsamand had convicted respondents 1 to 4 for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Sections 460, 458 and 397 of IPC and various other sentences in respect of the other offences.4. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:Sessions case in question arose from the first information report (exhibit P-5) which was presented by the complainant Shri Prakash Chand (PW-4) before the police incharge of Arakshi Kendra, Raj...
Tag this Judgment!