Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2006(201)ELT529(Bom)
S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. In all the above ten Petitions, common issue has been raised with regard to the jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission constituted under Chapter XIV-A of the Customs Act, 1962). The Petitioners in the five Writ Petitions which have been filed by the Union of India representing the Customs Department, have sought to contend that the jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission to entertain any application under Section. 127B of the Customs Act, 1962 is very limited in the sense, such an application can be entertained only in case of short levy on account of misclassification or otherwise. On the contrary, the contentions of the Petitioners in the other five Writ Petitions which have been filed by the private parties is that the jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission constituted under the Customs Act is quite wider and it cannot be restricted in such a narrow manner. On this point of law, the learned Counsel appearing for the Customs Department as well as the le...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(56)BLJR2254; 2008AIRSCW5964; 2008(4)LH(SC)2896
S.B. Sinha, J 1. Leave granted.INTRODUCTION2. Several questions of grave importance including the constitutional validity of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act'), the standard and extent of burden of proof on the prosecution vis-`-vis accused are in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 9.06.2006 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 810-SB of 2000 whereby and whereunder an appeal filed by the applicant against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 7.6.2000 under Section 22 and 23 of the Act has been dismissed.PROSECUTION CASE3. Appellant is an Afghan national.4. He was arrested and later on prosecuted under Sections 22 and 23 of the Act allegedly for carrying 1 kg 400 grams of heroin as a member of crew of Ariana Afghan Airlines.5. Appellant arrived at Raja Sansi Airport at about 6 p.m. on 1.08.1997. He presented himself before the authorities under the Customs Act, 1962 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2006CriLJ1663; 125(2005)DLT191
T.S. Thakur, J.1. The following two precise questions arise for consideration before us :-(i) When the Court directs a statutory authority to pass an appropriate order on a pending application, does the authority concerned commit contempt if the order that it passes is, according to the party aggrieved of the same, legally erroneous?(ii) What is the remedy available to a party aggrieved of any such order. In particular, can the validity of the order be assailed by it by way of a miscellaneous application filed in the proceedings in which the direction for disposal was issued?2. The questions arise in the following factual backdrop :-3. The petitioner is a joint venture constituted to undertake the construction of metro corridor between Central Secretariat to ISBT Kashmere Gate awarded to it by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation. The joint venture is registered under the Delhi Sales Tax on Works Contract Act, 1999. It was for the year 2001-02 assessed under Section 16 of the Act aforement...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR2007(1)KarSN2; 2007(2)KLJ547; 2007(2)KCCRSN69; 2007(2)KCCR1213; 2007(1)AIRKarR497; AIR2007NOC429
Ajit J. Gunjal, J.1. Admit.Mr. Raghavendra Rao, learned Counsel appearing for defendant No. 6 has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration:(i) Whether the Courts below were justified in holding that the plaintiffs are ready and willing to perform, their part of the contract and have satisfied the requirement of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act and(ii) Whether the agreement Ex.P1 is prohibited and hit by Section 80 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.2. To appreciate the substantial questions of law raked by Mr. Raghavendra Rao, certain important facts are required to be noticed. The pleadings of the plaintiffs as well as the defendants can be summarized as follows:The plaintiff is a firm represented by its partners. The suit schedule property is a vacant plot of land Sy. No. 204/1 measuring 2 acres 2 guntas out of 5 acres 29 guntas of Kundavada village. The suit property originally belonged to one Andanur Basappa of Davanagere. The said property was all...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2000(6)ALD720; 2001(1)ALT20
1. In this Batch of writ petitions, this Court is called upon to decide:(1) Whether the Tobacco Board (hereinafter referred as 'the Board') is having the authority to declare crop holiday for the FCV Virginia tobacco that is being grown in the State of Andhra Pradesh for the year 2000-2001. (2) If the answer is 'yes', whether it can be said that it is a 'reasonable restriction' on the tobacco trade as contemplated under Section 19(g) of the Constitution. 2. Having heard the arguments for four days, having perused the provisions of the Act and having entertained a doubt that the decision taken by the Board is too harsh affecting the agriculturists and agricultural labour, as the same being nominated body, but not a democratically elected one, and also in the light of the allegations and counter allegations that are being made in the Court by the persons supporting crop holiday and against crop holiday, with a view to find out whether any workable formula can be arrived at, I passed an i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1982P& H439
Prem Chand Jain, J.1. Shri Hardwari Lal has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Calling in question the legality and constitutional validity of Haryana Ordinance No. 5 of 1980 (hereinafter called the Ordinance) and the Maharshi Dayanand University (Amendment) Act, 1980 (Haryana Act No. 40 of 1980) (hereinafter called the Amendment Act) and has also prayed for issuance of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to renew his term as Vice-Chancellor of the Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak (hereinafter called the University).2. In order to appreciate the controversy, it is generally appropriate to give details of the allegation made in the petition, but so far as the present petition is concerned, I find that it may not be possible to do so at this stage and it would suffice if a few facts are mentioned as a preface, which are to the following effect :--3. Shri Hardwari Lal, petitioner, was appointed as Vice-Chancellor of the University on Oct., 1977. The pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
N. Kumar, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, granting her a decree for partition holding that she is entitled to 1/20th share in A, B and E Schedule properties and not 1/5th share in the suit properties as claimed by her.2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original suit.3. The subject matter of the suit is five items of immovable properties. Two are urban properties and three are landed properties, which are more particularly described in the Schedule as, A, B, C, D and E schedule properties.4. The case of the plaintiff is that her father, Sri D.N. Vasantha Kumar was the owner of all the suit schedule properties having acquired the same under the registered partition deed dated 29.03.1967. He died on 31.12.1984, inte state. He left behind him, his wife V. Padma - the first defendant herein, the plaintiff and second defendant, the daughters and defendants-3 and 4, sons, as the le...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2468; JT1999(5)SC42; 1999(5)SCALE155a; (1999)6SCC464; [1999]3SCR1066; (1999)3UPLBEC1818
ORDERTaken on board.The learned Counsel for the appellant seeks leave to withdraw the appeals and states that Mr. S.V. Deshpande who appears for the other side has no objection to the withdrawal. The appeals will, therefore, stand disposed of as withdrawn with no order as to costs, Sd...CJINew Delhi, Sd February 6, 1997 ...J.3. Mahapalika also cancelled the building plans. This action of the Mahapalika was subject matter of criticism by the appellant as to how a duly sanctioned plan could be revoked without any notice to the appellant. We may, at this stage, itself reproduce the relevant portion of the resolution dated August 6, 1996 of the Mahapalika for withdrawal of its appeals which is as under:The Lucknow Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad has declared the agreement dated 4.11.1993 executed between the Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow and M.I. Builders, Karamat Market Lucknow in respect of construction of underground Palika Bazar and Multistoreyal parking on Jhandewala Park Aminaba...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1990AP20
ORDER1. In the elections held to the Legislative Assembly of the Stale of Andhra Pradesh in early 1983, and again in late 1984, the Telugu Desam Party, headed by Sri N. T. Rama Rao (hereinafter referred to as 'the Respondent'), captured a majority of seats. Sri N. T. Rama Rao became the Chief Minister. The term of the Legislative Assembly is coming to an end in or about Dec., 1989/March, 1990.2. In Jan., 1987, the respondent made a statement that he is going to act in a Telugu movie, styled 'Brahmarishi Viswamithra' as 'Viswamithra'. Immediately thereupon, W.P. No. 310/1987 was filed seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus 'restraining the respondent herein from enacting in any films including'Brahmarishi Viswamithra'while in office as the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh as he is a 'public servant' of State of Andhra Pradesh .......'. The petitioner is a practising advocate at Narasarao-pet. He is an elector and also the Organizing Secretary of District Youth Congress, Guntur D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 2005(3)AWC2631; 2005(2)ESC1125
B.S. Chauhan, J.1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned suspension order dated 17.02.2005 (Annex. 1) passed by the respondent No. 2.2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioner, an Executive Engineer in Construction Division (Maintenance), U.P. Jal Nigam, had been working as the Executive Engineer in the respondent-Department. There had been a direction at district level to repair the hand pumps at the instance of Members of Parliament as well as Members of Legislative Assembly. The spare parts for repairing the hand pumps had been purchased at local level. However, on the allegations of irregularity, illegality, financial loss to the Department in purchasing the material in contravention of the order issued by the Head Office, and maligning the image of the Department against the petitioner, the impugned suspension order has been passed.3. Shri U.N. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that ...
Tag this Judgment!