Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC1769; 1993(65)ELT305(SC); JT1993(3)SC297; 1993(2)SCALE843; (1993)4SCC120; [1993]3SCR802
ordera.m. ahmadi, j.1. we have had the benefit of the industry, erudition and exposition of the constitutional and jurisprudential aspects of law on the various questions urged before us in the judgment of our esteemed brother k. ramaswamy, j. but while concurring with the hereinafter mentioned conclusions recorded by him we would like to say a few words to explain our points of view. since the facts have been set out in detail by our learned brother we would rest content by giving an abridged preface which we consider necessary.2. it nil began with the receipt of a letter dated december 26, 1991, from shri r.k. jain, editor, excise law times, addressed to the then chief justice of india, shri m.h. kania, j., complaining that as the customs, excise and gold control appellate tribunal for, short 'the cegat') was without a president for the last over six months the of functioning of the tribunal was adversely affected, in that, the benches sit for hardly two hours or so, the sittings commence late at about 10.50 a.m., there is a tendency to adjourn cases on one pretext or the other so much so that even passing of interim orders, like stay orders, etc., is postponed and inordinately delayed, and the general tendency is to work for only four days in a week. the work culture is just not there and the environmental degradation that has taken place is reflected in the letter of shri g. sankaran dated june 3, 1991 who prematurely resigned as the president of the cegat. lastly, he .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1978(2)ELT370(SC); [1969]2SCR580
hegde, j. 1. in this appeal by certificate though several contentions were raised in the memo of appeal only two of them were pressed at the time of hearing. they are : (1) under the circumstances of the case the confiscation ordered by the collector, central excise is illegal and (2) under any circumstance he could not have confiscated the entire quantity of tobacco used in the mixture. 2. the appellants are tobacco merchants in dashrath village near baroda in gujarat state. at the relevant time they were holding central excise licence in form l-2 and l-5 for the purpose of storing, selling and processing duty paid and non-dutytoshmi paid tobacco. they had their own duty paid and non-duty paid godowns. in about december 1958 according to their books they possessed the following lots of different varieties of tobacco.variety of tobaccoquantityrate of dutybmds.rs.biri patti'251.81.20 npper lb.stems kandi '287.200.50do.rava'1326.140.50do.stalk kandi'57.200.06do.3. on december 13, 1958 the appellants obtained permission from the local central excise authorities to mix the above lots of tobacco. the percentage of different varieties of tobacco when mixed would have been as under : rava68.97% stems kandi14.86%biri patti13.07% stalk kandi3.00%4. on december 23, 1958 when the process of mixing was still going on the superintendent of central excise, preventive headquarters, baroda and his party raided the duty paid premises of the appellants. there he seized the entire mixture .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC27; (1976)3SCC284; [1976]1SCR884
a. alagiriswami, j.1. this appeal relates to the election to the parliament from the fazilka constituency in punjab held on 5th march, 1971. the parliamentary constituency consisted of eight assembly constituencies of malout, muktsar, gidderbha, fazilka, jalalabad, abohar, lambi and faridkot. the votes were counted on 10th and 11th of march at five different places. the counting of the votes of the malout assembly constituency was held on 10th march by mr. aggarwal, assistant returning officer, of muktsar and gidderbha on 10th and 11th by mr. sayal, of fazilka and jalalabad on the 10th and 11th by mr. mahajan, of lambi and abohar on the 10th and 11th by mr. ram lal and of faridkot on the 11th by mr. carg. 6409 votes were declared invalid and the 1st respondent was declared elected having secured 1,52,677 votes. the appellant obtained 1,47,354 votes. there were six other candidates about whom it is not necessary to refer.2. a number of allegations were made in the election petition about many irregularities that took place on the date of the polling. it is to necessary to refer to them as the issues concerned with them were not pressed even before the high court. only two issues, issues 1 and 4 were considered by the high court and those are the issues urged before us also they are:1. whether the respondent no. 1 is guilty of corrupt practices specified in paras 10, 20, 22 and 23 and 26 to 29 of the election petition as amended? if so, what is the effect?4. whether 15000 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2457; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)939; 2005(3)ALT33(SC); (SCSuppl)2005(3)CHN133; JT2005(11)SC300; (2005)141PLR666; RLW2005(3)SC425
r.c. lahoti, c.j.1. this order disposes of i.a. no. 4 of 2004 filed by the respondents seeking direction to appellants to pay or deposit, month by month, a fixed amount by way of mesne profits, as a condition precedent to the order staying execution of decree for eviction of appellants.2. the suit property is situated in a prime locality of kolkata. there are governor house, high court, assembly, g.p.o., reserve bank of india, income-tax office, writer's building, telephone bhawan etc., situated in the same area and some only at a walking distance from the suit property. admittedly, the respondents are owner-cum-landlords of that part of the property which is held on tenancy by the appellants. the area in possession of the appellants is situated on the third floor and admeasures 6000 sq. ft. according to the respondents but is 5678 sq.ft. according to the appellants. the tenancy was created in the year 1939 at a monthly rent of rs. 853.87p. per month.3. the respondents initiated proceedings for the eviction of the appellants on the ground of the premises having been sublet or parted with possession by the appellants. the eviction was denied by the trial court. the appeal preferred by the respondents has been allowed by the high court and the appellants have been directed to be evicted. the high court has found that the tenancy premises were sublet or parted with possession by the appellants in favour of four companies, the alleged sub-tenants, who were carrying on business in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC2271; 2003(3)ALLMR(SC)282; JT2003(4)SC110; 2003(2)KLT472(SC); 2003(3)SCALE757; (2003)5SCC650; [2003]3SCR511
r.c. lahoti, j.1. unsuccessful as a candidate and also as an election petitioner, theappellant is in appeal, exercising his statutory right of appeal under section116a of the representation of the people act, 1951, (hereinafter 'the act',for short) against the decision of the high court dismissing his electionpetition.2. elections for the kerala legislative assembly seat from no. 125eravipuram legislative assembly constituency were held on 10.5.2001.there were five candidates in the fray including the appellant and therespondent no. 1. the results were announced on 13.5.2001. thecandidates secured the votes as under:-s.no.candidatevotes secured 1.appellant, ahammed kabeer556172.respondent no.1, a a. azeez556383.respondent no.2111084.respondent no.45315.respondent no.527563. the first respondent was declared elected defeating his nearest rival,the appellant, (sic) a margin of 21 votes.4. the poll was held by using electronic voting machines.5. an election petition was filed by the appellant laying challenge tothe election of the respondent no. 1 on very many grounds. the appellantin his election petition submitted, inter alia, that there were three voterswho had voted twice, that there were nine voters who were actually dead,thirty voters were actually aborad and twenty seven voters were actually outof station; and hence these forty voters were not available for voting on thedate of polling and yet ballots in their names were cast by impersonators;that five voters who reached .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1311; JT1993(3)SC561; 1993(3)SCALE927; (1994)1SCC648; [1993]Supp2SCR415
orders. mohan, j.1. all these cases can be dealt with under a common judgment since what is under attack is the fixation of price of levy sugar under orders issued under section 3(3c) of the essential commodities act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the act).2. to highlight the points in issue we will refer to the facts of the case relating to the state of karnataka.3. c.a. nos. 122-123 of 1981 and c.a. nos. 1253-57 of 1977: in these appeals two sugar orders are 1975-76 and 1977-78.4. in exercise of the powers conferred under section 3 of the act, the central government on 15th june, 1972 promulgated the levy sugar supply (control) order of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the levy order). that provides for compulsory supply or sale of sugar from a producer or a recognised dealer of a specified quantity to a person or organisation or to such state government as it may direct from time to time. under the said levy order, the central government issues release orders to the producers or manufacturers against which the manufacturers supply sugar. the central government is required to pay the price. such a price is determined in accordance with section 3(3c) of the act. altogether 5 orders were issued. for the year 1975-76 the following three orders were issued:1. gsr 571(e)/ess.com/sugar dated 29.11.752. gsr 67(e)/ess. com/sugar dated 9.2.763. gsr 67(e)/ess. com/sugar dated 3.8.76for the year 1977-78 the following two orders were issued:1. gsr 76(e)/ess. com/sugar dated 22.12. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC1983; 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)707; 2004(2)ARBLR81(SC); 2004(3)AWC2499(SC); 111(2004)DLT52(SC); 2004(77)DRJ306; JT2004(4)SC519; 2004(4)SCALE443; (2004)5SCC304
s.h. kapadia, j.1. m/s banwari lal & sons (p) ltd. -- respondent herein is the owner of the property situated at 6, ansari road, darya ganj, new delhi bearing municipal nos. 4407-4412 admeasuring total area of 50328 square facts on which there are two bhawans named as gopal krishna bhawan and radha krishna bhawan along with garages, pump-house, godowns, store-room etc. the covered area is 20426.80 square feets whereas the balance area is an open area admeasuring 29901.20 square feets. (see: legend at page 52 of the paper-book). four flats on the first floor in gopal krishna bhawan were requisitioned by delhi administration 27.9.1950 under requisition and acquisition of immoveable property act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said act'). on 13.3.1959, the remaining property was requisitioned under the said act. before the said act lapsed on 10.3.1987, a notification under section 4 of the land acquisition act was issued on 6.3.1987 for acquisition of the entire properly. on 10.3.1987, declaration under sections 6 and 17 of the land acquisition act was published. aggrieved, the respondent herein filed cwp no. 2385 of 1988, which was allowed by the high court by judgment dated 4.2.1991 and shri t.v.r. tatachari, former chief justice of delhi high court was appointed as sole arbitrator to determine the damages w.e.f. 10.3.1987, payable by delhi administration to the respondent in respect of the property. the slp taken out against the said judgment by the appellant was .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1452; 1994CriLJ2123
k. jayachandra reddy, j.1. this is an appeal filed under section 379 of the crpc, 1973, read with section 2(a) of the supreme court enlargement of criminal appellate jurisdiction act, 1970. the five appellants figured as a-1 to a-4 and a-11 in the trial court. a-1 and a-3 are sons of a-2. a-2 and a-4 are real brothers.2. before the trial court the prosecution case was that, these five appellants along with nine others formed an unlawful assembly, on 22-11-71 with the common object of abducting smt. shanti, wife of a-1 and to cause the death of the deceased amrit lal. among them a-1 and a-3 were armed with guns. it is alleged that a-1 shot at the deceased as a result of which he died on the spot. a-3 shot into the air. during the course of the same transaction a-4 is alleged to have caused an injury to one harcharan, a prosecution witness. the plea of the accused was one of denial. they, however, pleaded that they had gone to fetch smt. shanti (d.w. 1 wife of a-1) not forcibly but on her own invitation and that a-1 and a-4 were attacked by deceased amrit lal and his party and, therefore, in scuffle the gun went off killing the deceased. they also took the plea that the act of a-1 even if believed would amount to exercise of the right of self defence. it must be noted that smt. shanti figured as defence witness and gave a version in support of the defence. the prosecution, however, relied on the evidence of other eye-witnesses. the trial court accepted the prosecution evidence .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC504; 1985(33)BLJR140; [1985(50)FLR201]; (1985)2GLR1094; (1985)ILLJ527SC; 1985(1)SCALE101; (1985)2SCC35; [1985]2SCR556; 1985(1)SLJ180(SC); 1985(17)LC508(SC)
d.a.desai, j.1. petitioner is shown to be guilty of suppression of a material fact which would weigh with any employer in giving him employment and therefore, the case of the petitioner does not merit consideration under article 136 of the constitution and his petition for special leave to appeal against the decision of a division bench of the gujarat high court in special application no. 4649 of 1981 dated november 28, 1983 must accordingly fail but this short epistle became a compelling necessity in view of the statement of law appearing in the judgment of the high court which if permitted to go uncorrected some innocent person may suffer in future. that is the only justification for this short order.2. the petitioner on his application was recruited in the sales tax department on september 30, 1950 and at the relevant time he was working as sales tax inspector. by an order dated january 31, 1964 of the commissioner of sales tax, gujarat state, the petitioner who was at the relevant time working as sales tax inspector was charged with misconduct of gross negligence and acted with gross impropriety in demanding illegal gratification, and as these charges were held proved, the commissioner of sales tax imposed a penalty of removal horn service. this is not in dispute and therefore it can be safely stated that the petitioner was removed from the service of the sales tax department on account of the proved misconduct,3. after being removed from the sales tax department, the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1274; 1981(1)SCALE491; (1981)2SCC585; [1981]3SCR239; 1981(13)LC521(SC)
syed m. fazal ali, j.1. this appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment dated december 21, 1978 of the allahabad high court allowing the writ petition filed by the state of u.p. before the court.2. the case arose out of an order passed by the prescribed authority under the u.p. imposition of ceiling on land holdings act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act'), as amended uptodate, by which the said authority rejected the claim of the petitioners on the basis of a gift which had been executed by her grandfather by a registered document dated january 28, 1972. the act was passed as far back as 1960 but by virtue of an amendment, being u.p. act. no. 18 of 1973, section 5 was introduced which placed a ceiling on any tenure holder to hold land in excess of the ceiling area fixed under the act. section 5 contained various sub-sections but in the instant case we are concerned only with sub-section (6) as also clause (b) of the proviso to the said sub-section. by another amendment, being u.p. act no. 2 of 1975, which was given retrospective operation with effect from 8.6.1973 explanation i, alongwith its sub-clauses, was added to sub-section (6) of section 5.3. the decision in the present case turns upon the interpretation of sub-section (6) of section 5 and the proviso therein in order to determine the validity of the deed of gift said to have been executed by chunni lal bhatiya, the grandfather of the petitioner sonia and respondent no. 4 before the district judge .....
Tag this Judgment!