Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC769; 1978(2)ELT439(SC); (1975)1SCC789; [1975]3SCR418; 1975(7)LC205(SC)
1. This appeal is by special leave from the judgment of the Delhi High Court in a writ application there under Article 226 of the Constitution. The respondent manufactures various other items hot rolled finished steel products in rectangular cross-section of thickness varying between 1.7 mm and 6.55 mm and width varying between 16.2 mm and 311.2 mm and rolled in coils which it supplies to the Indian Tube Company Limited at Jamshedpur for making tubes and also to others. This article is subjected to Central Excise Duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called the Act). The dispute between the respondent and the appellants is that while the former describes the said manufactured product as strip the appellants classify it as skelp. This difference in classifying the product differently results in fiscal misfortune to the respondent since skelp is subjected to a higher Central Excise Duty than strip.2. It may be stated that during the period from April 24, 1962 to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1975)4CTR(SC)40
Goswami, J. - This appeal is by special leave from the judgment of the Delhi High Court in a writ application there under article 226 of the Constitution. The respondent manufactures amongst various other items hot rolled finished steel products in rectangular cross-section of thickness varying between 1.7 mm. and 6.55 mm. and which varying between 16.2 mm. and 311.2 mm. and rolled in coils which it supplies to the Indian Tube Company Limited at Jamshedpur for making tubes and also to others. This article is subjected to Central Excise Duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called the Act). The dispute between the respondent and the appellants is that while the former describes the said manufactured product as strip the applicants classify it as skelp. This difference in classifying the product differently results in fiscal misfortune to the respondent since skelp is subjected to a higher central Excise Duty then strip.2. It may be stated that during the period ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC648; (1975)1SCC339; 1975(7)LC201(SC)
A.C. Gupta, J.1. This appeal, brought on certificate granted by the High Court at Bombay, is directed against an order dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant company challenging an order made under Section 105B of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by which the appellant was asked to vacate the premises in dispute within one month of the date of the service of the order. The validity of the order under Section 105-B was questioned on several grounds including the ground that Chapter V-A of the Act, particularly Section 105-B thereof, was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. This writ petition was heard along with two others filed by other parties in which also the Constitutional validity of Chapter V.A of the Act was questioned. The High Court held that the provisions of Chapter V-A did not contravene Article 14 and dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant on this and two additional grounds The, first of thes...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC773; (1975)1SCC373; 1975(1)SLJ256(SC); 1975(7)LC188(SC)
P.N. Bhagwati, J.1. The appellant is a law graduate having obtained LL.B. Degree from the University of Bombay in October, 1949. He started practice as pleader at Jamkhandi in Bijapur District and after practising for over nine years he applied for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate in the, Bombay Judicial Service, Class II. He was interviewed by the Bombay Public Service Commission and on being selected on the basis of merit, he was appointed as Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate by an order of, the Government of Maharashtra dated 31-10-60. The appointment was initially on probation for a period of two years and it was provided that after the period of probation was over, his service would be liable to be terminated on one month's notice so long as his appointment was temporary.' Pursuant to the order of appointment, the appellant worked as Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate and after watching his performance during ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC763; (1975)1SCC828; [1975]3SCR407; 1975(7)LC190(SC)
1. This is an appeal by the defendant on the basis of a certificate against a decree passed by the High Court of Bombay in appeal from a decree in a suit for recovery of balance of amount due on account of extra construction work carried out by the plaintiff-respondent.2. The State of Bombay prepared a scheme for construction of blocks in Sholapur and invited tenders for the same. The respondent, a firm, submitted its tender on 29-7-1948. The tender was in B-1 form, otherwise known as percentage tender. The tender was accepted on 6-12-1948 by the Labour Department on behalf of the State of Bombay. The Bombay Housing Board came into being with the passing of the Bombay Act 69 of 1948 and under Section 54 of that Act, the above contract shall be deemed to have been entered in to with the Board.3. The order to carry out the work was issued to the respondent by the Housing Commissioner on 15-8-1948. The construction was to be completed within one year from the date of the order. The time w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC757; (1975)3SCC851; 1975(7)LC406(SC)
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. The appellant, Shanker s/o Prem Raj, aged 35 years, and two others, namely, Persoti son of Megha and Uttam son of Lallu were tried and convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Moradabad on charges (under Sections 148, 302 read with 149 and 323/149. Indian Penal Code in respect of the murders of two brothers, Shanker and Keshri. All the three were convicted under Section 302 read with 149, Penal Code. The appellant was sentenced to death, and each of the other- two imprisonment for life. They were also Convicted on the minor charges and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. On appeal, the Allahabad High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant but acquitted Persoti and Uttam. Shanker has come to this Court in appeal after obtaining special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution.2. Prem Raj had three sons, namely, Shanker appellant. Pitam and Megha. Pitam was murdered on 21-6-1970. F.I.R. with regard to that incident was lodged by Meg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC863; 1975CriLJ772; (1975)4SCC56
R.S. Sarkaria, J.1. The petitioner challenges the validity of the Court of his detention made by the District Magistrate of 24 Parganas on 10-12-1973 The Court states that the detention has been made with a view to preventing the petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community.2. The detention Court is founded on two incidents, the facts of which were communicated to the detenu in the grounds of detention as follows:1. That on 19-7-73 at about 02.00 hrs. you along with your associates Mati Lal. Shaw and others of Titagarh cut down and stole away copper wires worth about Rs. 1035-00 from six electric posts from Tittagarh Jute Mill Mazdur Line, P. S. Tittagarh Distt. 24-Parganas, causing serious disruptions to the maintenance of supplies and services of power and light in the area which is essential to the community. You, thus acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC602; (1975)1SCC653; [1975]3SCR394
1. The petitioner, Skq. Salim, challenges by this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution an order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, 24-Parganas, under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. The order was passed on June 13, 1972 avowedly with a view to preventing the. petitioner from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. The particulars furnished to the petitioner refer to two incidents of theft dated January 31 and February 23, 1972. The former relates to a theft of underground copper cables and the latter to a theft of A.C.S.R. ConductOrs. The particulars further mention that on February 24, 1972 the petitioner and two of his named associates were found in possession of 30 K. Gs of stolen A.C.S.R. ConductOrs.2. Section 3(1) of the Act empowers the Central Government and the State Governments to pass orders of detection for the reasons therein mentioned. Section 3(2) confers power on Distri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC638; 1975CriLJ598; (1975)3SCC845; [1975]3SCR401
1. The case of the petitioner, a detenu in West Bengal, has been presented at persistent length by Sri Marwah, appearing as amicus curiae, but some of the many contentions pressed by him merit serious notice which alone we propose to deal with.2. Now, the facts to the extent relevant. The order for detention was made by the District Magistrate, West Dinajpur, on March 19, 1973 pursuant to which he was taken into custody nine days later. The calendar of 'statutory' events discloses no infirmity but the content of the grounds given by the District Magistrate and the order of approval made by the State Government have been the focal points of attack. Straightway we proceed to set out the two criminal involvements of the petitioner which allegedly persuaded the authority to direct detention with a view, hereafter, to inhibit this activities prejudicial to supplies essential to the community. They are :(1) That on 6-3-73 at about 01.30 hours you along with your associate Mangal Soran of Gop...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1975SC865; (1975)4SCC428; [1975]3SCR333
1. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment dated 20 March, 1974 of the learned Single Judge of the High Court at Allahabad, holding that no privilege can be claimed by the Government of Uttar Pradesh under Section 123 of the Evidence Act in respect of what is described for the sake of brevity to be the Blue Book summoned from the Government of Uttar Pradesh and certain documents summoned from the Superintendent of Police, Rae Bareli, Uttar Pradesh.2. Shri Raj Narain, the petitioner in Election Petition No. 5 of 1971 in the High Court of Allahabad, made an application on 27 July, 1973 for summoning certain witnesses along with documents mentioned in the application. The summons was inter alia for the following witnesses along with following documents :3. First, the Secretary, General Administration, State of Uttar Pradesh Lucknow of any officer authorised by him was summoned to produce inter alia (a) circulars received from the Home Ministry and the Defence Ministry of the ...
Tag this Judgment!