Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-11-2006
Reported in : 2007CriLJ20; II(2006)DMC757SC; [2007(1)JCR293(SC)]; JT2006(9)SC50; 2006(10)SCALE190; (2006)10SCC681; [2006]148STC638(SC)
G.P. Mathur, J.1. Trimukh Maroti Kirkan has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 27.7.2005 of Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court by which the appeal filed by State of Maharashtra was allowed and the order dated 21.4.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded was set aside and the appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to undergo six months RI. By the same judgment and order, the appeal filed by the appellant challenging his conviction under Section 498A IPC and the sentence of two years RI and a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo RI for three months was dismissed.2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the deceased Revata @ Tai daughter of Dattarao resident of village Umatwadi was married to the appellant Trimukh Maroti Kirkan (for short 'Trimukh') nearly seven years before the incident which took place on 4.11.1996 in village Kikki. Marot...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-10-2006
Reported in : JT2006(10)SC8; RLW2007(1)SC774; 2006(11)SCALE391; (2007)1SCC355
S.B. Sinha, J.1. The respondent herein is an Ayurvedacharya. He operates from two clinics known as : (1) Neeraj Clinic Pvt. Ltd. (NCPL) and (2) Dr. B.S. Gupta Medical Charitable Society (BSGMCS). Advertisements were, allegedly, being issued by him in various newspapers claiming that medicines used by him were prepared from herbal plants collected from the Banks of Ganges and by application thereof patients suffering from epilepsy can be cured. The State, however, on the allegation that in his medicine, he had been using unlabelled tablets containing psychotropic substances making the unsuspecting patients addicted to the drugs, raided the premises of the said clinics. 70 kgs. pure phenobarbitone were recovered. It is alleged that through NCPL 336.88 kgs., 524 kgs., 537.32 kgs. and 117 kgs. of drugs (phenobarbitone) were sold in the years 2001-2002, 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 (April to July) respectively and through BSGMCS 398.65 kgs., 406.88 kgs., 519.95 kgs. and 235.12 kgs. of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-29-2006
Reported in : 2006(3)ARBLR340(SC); 2006(6)BomCR309; [2006]134CompCas119(SC); JT2006(8)SC230; 2006(8)SCALE668; (2005)11SCC521; 2006AIRSCW5130
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Leave granted.2. The above appeal was filed by the appellant seeking special leave to appeal against the final order dated 02.03.2006 passed by the High Court of Bombay in Arbitration Petition No. 459 of 2004. By the said order, the High Court, according to the appellant, has wrongly assumed jurisdiction to entertain petitions under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') despite holding that the entire cause of action has arisen outside its territorial jurisdiction.In other words, the appellant seek to impugn the judgment dated 02.03.2006 whereby the High Court has held that jurisdiction of the Court under the provisions of the Arbitration Act may be assumed by a Court exercising jurisdiction in a place where no part of the cause of action has arisen, if the respondent being a Company has a Corporate Office at the place where the Court is moved.3. The facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are as foll...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-09-2006
Reported in : 2006(3)ARBLR201(SC); JT2006(5)SC507; 2006(5)SCALE535; (2006)11SCC245
S.B. SINHA, J : Leave granted. Interpretation of an agreement containing a two tier arbitration vis-`- vis the applicability of Part I or Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, "the 1996 Act") is in question in these appeals which arise out of a judgment and order dated 28.07.2004 passed by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in A.P.O.T. No. 182 of 2004. FACTS : M/s. Centrotrade Minerals and Metal Inc. (for short, "Centrotrade"), Appellant in SLP (C) No. 18611 of 2004 and the Hindustan Copper Limited (for short "HCL"), Appellant in SLP (C) No. 21340 of 2004 entered into a contract for sale of 15,500 DMT of Copper Concentrate to be delivered at Kandla Port in the State of Gujarat in two separate consignments. The said goods were ultimately required to be used at the Khetri Plant of HCL situated in the State of Rajasthan. The seller in terms of the contract was required to submit a quality certificate from an internationally reputed assayer, mutually ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-12-2006
Reported in : 2006(5)ALD84(SC); 2006(2)ARBLR498(SC); (2007)1CALLT36(SC); (2007)3CompLJ213(SC); (2006)4MLJ456(SC); 2006(6)SCALE220; (2006)11SCC181; 2005(10)SCC353
S.B. Sinha, J.INTRODUCTION1. Oil was discovered in the Bombay High Region in 1974 whereupon a plan of rapid development of off-shore oil and gas production was embarked by the Government of India through Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC). With a view to achieve exploration of production programme, ONGC appointed contractors to fulfill substantial portions of its off-shore construction requirements. Burn Standard Company Limited (for short 'BSCL') was interested in the second stage of platform construction of ONGC, i.e., structural and progress fabrication and material procurement. Four contracts were thereafter awarded in favour of BSCL for fabrication, transportation and installation of six platforms bearing No. ED, EE, WI-8, WI-9, WI-10 and N3 and associated pipelines. They were to be installed in ONGC's Bombay High Sea. CONTRACT2. The said contracts covered:(i) Material procurement and fabrication of the ED and EE jackets, piles and decks. (ii) Transportation and installation of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-03-2006
Reported in : AIR2006SC1194; 2006(2)AWC1580(SC); (SCSuppl)2006(2)CHN173; 2006(2)CTC146; [2006(3)JCR200(SC)]; JT2006(2)SC278; (2006)2MLJ312(SC); 2006(2)SCALE203; (2006)2SCC777
Altamas Kabir, J.1. The submissions advanced in this appeal by way of special leave necessitates a brief glance into the historical origin of the Calcutta High Court. 2. In August 1861, the British Parliament passed the Indian High Courts Act which empowered the Crown to establish, by Letters Patent, High Courts of Judicature at Calcutta, Madras and Bombay. Consequent to such authority, the Letters Patent dated 14th May, 1862 was issued establishing the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta. By subsequent Letters Patent dated 26th June, 1862, the High Court at Bombay and Madras were also established.3. The Letters Patent empowered the High Court of Calcutta to exercise Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction within the local limits of the Presidency town of Calcutta as might be prescribed by a competent Legislative Authority for India. Within such local limits, the High Court was authorized to try and determine suits of every description, except those falling within the jurisdiction of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-13-2006
Reported in : AIR2006SC2550; [2006]283ITR1(SC); JT2006(4)SC611; 2006(4)SCALE300; (2006)7SCC241; [2006]145STC544(SC)
ORDER:5. In Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd. etc. v. State of Assam and Ors. : [1961]1SCR809 , it was held that taxing laws are not excluded from the operation of Article 301, which means that tax laws can and do amount to restrictions on the freedoms guaranteed to trade under Part-XIII of the Constitution. However, the prohibition of restrictions on free trade is not an absolute one. Statutes restrictive of trade can avoid invalidation if they comply with Article 304(a) or (b).6. In Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan 0065/1962 : [1963]1SCR491 , it was held that only such taxes as directly and immediately restrict trade would fall within the purview of Article 301 and that any restriction in the form of taxes imposed on the carriage of goods or their movement by the State Legislature can only be done after satisfying the requirements of Article 304(b). The statute which was challenged in Atiabari Tea Co. : [1961]1SCR809 was the Assam Taxation (on goods carried by Roads an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-18-2006
Reported in : JT2006(9)SC111; 2006(10)SCALE271; (2006)8SCC487; 2006(2)LC1375(SC)
G.P. Mathur, J.1. Leave granted.2. These appeals have been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 1.3.2006 passed by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court by which Letters Patent Appeals were allowed and the judgment and order of the learned single Judge disposing of four writ petitions was set aside. The learned single Judge had allowed the writ petitions and countermanded the election of the members of the Executive Board of Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee, which was held on 19.12.2005 and had issued a further direction that fresh election be held on 14.2.2006.3. The controversy raised in all the four appeals is identical and for the sake of convenience we will refer to the facts of Civil Appeal Nos._____ of 2006 (arising out SLP (C) Nos. 5188 of 2006) (Avtar Singh Hit v. Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee and Ors.). The principal issue raised is regarding the validity of the election held on 19.12.2005 for electing the members of the Executive Board of Delhi ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-10-2006
Reported in : 2006(4)ARBLR241(SC); 2007(1)AWC555(SC); [2007(2)JCR271(SC)]; 2006(11)SCALE644
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court holding that the appeal filed by it was not maintainable as the same does not fall within the ambit of Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the 'Act'). 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appeal is clearly maintainable under Section 37(1)(b) of the Act. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the case is covered by the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Popular Construction Co. : AIR2001SC4010 and State of Goa v. Western Builders : AIR2006SC2525 , and the High Court was justified in holding that the appeal was not maintainable. Therefore, it is submitted that certain aspects which have not been raised specifically in the grounds raised before this Court but submitted during the course of arguments cannot be taken note of. Section 37(1)(b) of the Act is in pari materia ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-08-2006
Reported in : AIR2006SC1561; 2006(196)ELT3(SC); JT2006(3)SC354; 2006(3)SCALE141; (2006)3SCC266; [2006]145STC200(SC)
Arun Kumar, J. 1. The appellant claims to be a manufacturer of Ayurvedic products which are intended to cure certain ailments of the human body. A question has arisen as to whether the products manufactured by the appellant fall within the category of medicaments or cosmetics. Answer to this question determines as to whether the goods are classifiable under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as cosmetics under Chapter 33 or as medicaments under Chapter 30. As cosmetics the rate of excise duty is quite high while as medicament the products attract nil duty. The following products manufactured by the appellant are under consideration:1. (xvii)Puma Neem Facial Pack (Neemal)2. (xviii)Puma Anti-Pimple Herbal Powder (Pimplex)3. (xix) Puma Herbal Facial Pack (Herbaucare)4. (xx) Puma Herbal remedy for Facial Blemishes5. (xxi) Puma Herbal Massage Oil6. (xxii) Puma Herbal Massage Oil for Women7. (xxiii) Puma Hair Tonic Powder (Sukeshi)8. (xxiv) Puma Scalp Tonic Powder (Scalpton)9. (xxv) Puma An...
Tag this Judgment!