Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-16-2015
..... criminal proceedings. pursuant to this, parliament has enacted the supreme court (enlargement of criminal appellate jurisdiction) act, 1970; article 135 enables parliament to make a law with regard to the jurisdiction and power of the supreme court ..... amendments, could be described as actions which the entire nation desired, or represented the will of the people. it was submitted, that what was patently unconstitutional, could not constitute either the desire of the nation, or the will of the people.140. referring to the collegium system of appointing ..... strike down its earlier determination. it was further submitted, that the majesty of the constitution, must be maintained and preserved at all costs, and there should be no hesitation in revisiting any earlier judgment, so as to correct an erroneous decision. with the aforesaid observations ..... unhealthy manipulation of the system. the informal constitution : unwritten criteria in selecting judges for the supreme court of india[150]. records some instances of such manipulations based on news items published in print media of some reputation by commentators ..... act, 1971 adding article 31-c as follows:- 416. section 3 of the twenty-fifth amendment, reads thus:3. after article 31b of the constitution, the following article shall be inserted, namely:31. c. notwithstanding anything contained in article 13, no law giving effect to the policy of the state towards securing the principles specified in clause (b) or clause (c) of article 39 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-26-2015
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2321 OF2009RAJINDER SINGH ...APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT JUDGMENT R.F.Nariman, J.1. The facts of this case raises questions relating to one of the two great social evils practiced against the women of this country for centuries. In the facts presented before us, a young woman consumes pesticide having been driven to do so by repeated demands being made on her for money by the family into which she is supposed to merge her identity. Sati and dowry deaths have plagued this nation for centuries. Sati - the practice of sending a widow to her husband's funeral pyre to burn in it - was first outlawed under British Rule in 1829 and 1830 under the Governor Generalship of Lord William Bentinck in the Bengal, Madras and Bombay Presidencies. General Sir Charles Napier, the Commander-in-Chief of the British Forces in India between 1859 and 1861, is supposed to have said to the Hindu Pries...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-23-2015
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4367 OF2004M.P. STEEL CORPORATION APPELLANT VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE ...RESPONDENT JUDGMENT R.F. Nariman, J.1. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows. The appellant is engaged in ship breaking activity at Alang Ship Breaking Yard. The appellant imported a vessel, namely, M.V. Olinda, for the purpose of breaking the same, and filed a Bill of Entry when the vessel was imported on 7.2.1992. It declared in the said Bill of Entry that the Light Displacement Tonnage of the vessel was 7009 metric tons. On 19.2.1992, the appellant was informed by the Superintendent of Customs and Central Excise Alang that the Light Displacement Tonnage of the ship is actually 8570 tons and that customs duty was to be levied on this tonnage. On 3.3.1992, the appellant cleared the vessel on payment of customs duty on the basis of 7009 metric tons and executed a bank guarantee for Rs.19,90,275/- ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-27-2015
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.554 OF2006|DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE AND |.....APPELLANT(S) | |ANOTHER | | |VERSUS | | |M/S. KANAK EXPORTS AND ANOTHER |.....RESPONDENT(S) | W I T H CIVIL APPEAL No.658 OF2006CIVIL APPEAL No.1587 of 2006 CIVIL APPEAL No.1589 OF2006TRANSFER CASE (CIVIL) No.32 OF2007TRANSFER CASE (CIVIL) No.33 OF2007TRANSFER CASE (CIVIL) No.36 OF2007TRANSFER CASE (CIVIL) No.1 OF2008TRANSFER CASE (CIVIL) No.3 OF2008WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.27 OF2008TRANSFER CASE (CIVIL) No.49 OF2009WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.343 OF2009WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.246 OF2010A N D TRANSFER CASE (CIVIL) No.OF2015(ARISING OUT OF TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) No.568 OF2014 JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.Civil Appeal No.554 of 2006 Civil Appeal No.658 of 2006 Civil Appeal No.1587 of 2006 Civil Appeal No.1589 of 2006 Transfer Case (Civil) No.36 of 2007 Transfer Case (Civil) No.1 of 2008 Transfer Case (Civil) No.3 of 2008 Transfer Case (Civil) No.49 of 20...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-01-2015
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.13940 OF2015[ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) No.28415 OF2011 LALARAM & OTHERS ..APPELLANTS VERSUS JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. ..RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.13941 OF2015[ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) No.29515 OF2011 CHOTU RAM ..APPELLANT VERSUS JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. ..RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.13942 OF2015[ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) No.36111 OF2011 KANA RAM & OTHERS ..APPELLANTS VERSUS JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. ..RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.13943 OF2015[ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) No.36175 OF2011 MADAN LAL & OTHERS ..APPELLANTS VERSUS JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.13944 OF2015[ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) No.36179 OF2011 RUKMANI DEVI & OTHERS ..APPELLANTS VERSUS JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. ..RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT AMITAVA ROY,J.Leave granted.2. A procrastinated legal tussle spanning over three decades has spiralled up the judicial ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-13-2015
"REPORTABLE" IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.117 OF2005Videocon International Ltd. ... Appellant versus Securities & Exchange Board of India ... Respondent JUDGMENT Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.1. The Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as, the SEBI Act) was enacted to protect the interests of investors in securities and to promote the development of, and to regulate, the securities market. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (hereinafter referred to as, the Board) was vested with statutory powers to effectively deal with all matters relating to the capital market.2. The functions of the Board have been depicted in Section 11 of the SEBI Act. Under Section 11 of the SEBI Act, the powers of the Board include, the power to suspend the trading of any security in a recognized stock-exchange; the power to restrain from accessing the securities market and prohibit any person associated with the securities mark...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-24-2015
'REPORTABLE' IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1049 OF2008FORTIS HOSPITAL LTD. ... Appellant VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,IMPORT ... Respondent JUDGMENT A. K. SIKRI, J.The appellant herein, which is the successor of M/s.Wockhardt Hospital and Heart Institute (referred to as the 'Institute' hereinafter) had a hospital at Bangalore. Sometime in the year 1990, the said Institute imported a Cardiac Catherization Laboratory (known as Angiography system) with its spares/accessories valued at Rs.1,14,23,471/-. The said Institute applied for exemption from payment of import duty taking shelter under the Notification No.64/88-cus dated 01.03.1988. This notification provides for exemption on medical equipment imported against Custom Duty Exemption Certificate issued by the Director General of Health Services. Apart from the said certificate, there are certain other conditions which are mentioned in the notification that need to be satisfied to avail the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-25-2015
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1941 OF2006|COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI-IV |.....APPELLANT(S) | |VERSUS | | |HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. |.....RESPONDENT(S) | JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.The issue involved in the present appeal is as to whether Vaseline Intensive Care Heel Guard (for short, 'VHG') is to be treated as merely a skin care preparation or it is a medicament having curing properties. Based on the answer to the aforesaid question, classification of this product will be determined. If it is only a skin care preparation then VHG is classifiable under Chapter Heading 3304.00 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (for short, the 'Act'). On the other hand, if it is to be treated as a medicament, VHG would get covered under Chapter Heading 3003.10 of the First Schedule. The rate at which the excise duty is payable depends on the said classification. Chapter 33 under which the Revenue wants to cover VHG...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-26-2015
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2548 OF2009RADHEY SHYAM & ANR. ...APPELLANTS VERSUS CHHABI NATH & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS WITH SLP (C) NO.25828 OF2013JAGDISH PRASAD ...PETITIONER VERSUS IQBAL KAUR & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT ADARSH KUMAR GOEL J.1. This matter has been placed before the Bench of three Judges in pursuance of an order dated April 15, 2009 passed by the bench of two Hon'ble Judges to consider the correctness of the law laid down by this Court in Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai and others[1]. that an order of civil court was amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The reference order, inter alia, reads:- 30. .........Therefore, this Court unfortunately is in disagreement with the view which has been expressed in Surya Dev Rai insofar as correction of or any interference with judicial orders of civil court by a writ of certiorari is concerned.31. Under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Hig...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-06-2015
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.5983 OF2007Union of India & Anr. ... Appellants VERSUS S.N. Maity & Anr. ...Respondents JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J.In this appeal, by special leave, the justifiability and soundness of the judgment and order dated 18.5.2006 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in W.P.(Service) No.6106 of 2005 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court has overturned the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal ('tribunal' for short), Circuit Bench at Ranchi in O.A. No.215 of 2005, is called in question.2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts which are requisite to be stated are that the 1st respondent was working as a Scientist E-II in the Central Mining Research Institute (Council of Scientific and Industrial Research). On 29.07.2003, he was appointed on deputation to the post of Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks ( (for short, 'CGPDTM'). After serving there for one year, by order F.N...
Tag this Judgment!