Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC1153; 1989(40)ELT280(SC); [1990]184ITR129(SC); JT1989(1)SC450; 1989(1)SCALE226; (1989)1SCC602; [1989]1SCR382; [1989]73STC145(SC); 1989(1)LC503(SC)
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 35L of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') from the order passed and judgment delivered on 25th April, 1984/4th May, 1984 by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). The question involved is whether the crude PVC film is dutiable. The appellant is, inter alia, a manufacturer of crude PVC films for the purpose of use in final products such as leather cloth and laminate jute mattings and PVC tapes-both insulation and adhesive. The said crude PVC films are manufactured by the appellant in a continuous process in the factory premises of the appellant which are licensed premises under the Act. The appellant filed classification list No, XIV/75 dated 20th November, 1975 in respect of crude PVC films used for lamination with jute and for tapes claiming that the said PVC films were non-excisable on the ground that the same ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC950; 1989(1)Crimes389(SC); JT1989(1)SC155; 1989(1)SCALE204; 1989Supp(2)SCC84
Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. This appeal by Special Leave granted under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is preferred against the correctness of the Judgment dated 12th September 1983 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing the Criminal Appeal preferred by the appellant, Kewal Krishan challenging the Judgment of the Special Judge, Ferozepur in Corruption Case No. 6 of 1982 convicting the appellant under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- for the conviction under each of the charges with the direction that in default of payment of fine in each case, the appellant should suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and with a further direction that the substantive sentences of imprisonment imposed under both the charges are to run concurrently.2. The prosecution version in brief is as follows :The appell...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC939; [1989(58)FLR584]; JT1989(1)SC389; 1989LabIC1355; (1989)IILLJ540SC; 1989(1)SCALE234; 1989Supp(1)SCC748; [1989]1SCR362; 1989(2)SLJ89(SC); 1989(1)LC424(SC)
Murari Mohan Dutt, J.1. In these writ petitions, the petitioners are former officers and employees of the Caltex Oil Refining (India) Ltd., which has since been amalgamated with the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. The complaint of the petitioners is with regard to the inter se fitment of the officers and employees of the Caltex Oil Refining (India) Ltd. and the other two Companies which have also been amalgamated with Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., namely, ESSO Standard Refining Company of India Ltd. and Lube India Ltd.2. In 1974, the Undertakings in India of ESSO Eastern Inc., that is, ESSO Standard Refining Company of India Ltd. (for short ESSO') and Lube India Ltd. (for short 'LIL') were acquired by the ESSO (Acquisition of Undertakings in India) Act, 1974 and vested in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (for short HPCL'), a Government Company. In 1977, the shares of Caltex Oil Refining (India) Ltd. and Undertakings in India of Caltex (India) Ltd. were acquired by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC937; 1989CriLJ1246; 1989(1)Crimes398(SC); JT1989(1)SC158; 1989(1)SCALE199; 1989Supp(1)SCC286
Ratnavel Pandian, J.1. These two appeals by Special Leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India were directed against the Judgment dated 28.11.1985 by the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh challenging the correctness of the judgment made in Criminal Appeal No. 709-SB of 1984 and 48-SB of 1985 of the said High Court.2. The appellants herein alongwith one Ravi Shankar (since acquitted by the High Court) took their trial on the accusations that Ravi Shankar committed rape on the prosecutrix Suman Rani (examined as PW-17 before the Trial Court) in the field at Bhawani Khera on two occasions i.e. firstly on 15.3.1984 and thereafter on 18.3.1984 and that later-on on 31.5.1984 Ravi Shankar abducted Suman Rani from Bhawani Khera and took her to Jammu via Bhiwani, that the two appellants (who were arrayed as accused Nos. 2 and 3 alongwith Ravi Shankar and who were Police officials posted in Police Post Patram Gate, Bhiwani) took Ravi Shankar and Suman Rani when they arrived a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC811; 1989CriLJ998; JT1989(1)SC169; 1989(1)SCALE214; (1989)2SCC470; [1989]1SCR347; 1989(2)SLJ121(SC)
N.D. Ojha, J.1. This appeal by special leave preferred against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 10th March. 1987 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15545 of 1984 raises a question about the interpretation and scope of Regulation 486(1)(3) of the U.P. Police Regulations, hereinafter referred to as the Regulations. The respondent Surinder Pal Singh who was a Station Officer of Police Station Shikohabad was promoted as a Deputy Superintendent of Police on 20th June, 1977. A First Information Report was lodged against him in the Police Station Shikohabad on 8th June, 1980 by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption, Agra Circle under Sections 409/392/203/218/342/120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as also under Sections 4/20 of the Treasure Trove Act. According to this First Information Report while digging some land on 1st March, 1977, one Parsu Ram Jatav and Jaipal Jatav found 20 gold bricks which they failed to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC959; JT1989(1)SC253; 1989(1)SCALE201; (1989)2SCC405; [1989]1SCR375; 1989(1)LC552(SC)
K.N. Singh, J.1. Special leave granted.2. The appellants are engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of Indian made foreign liquor and country liquor, under licence granted to them under the provisions of U.P. Excise Act. The appellants have installed vats in their Breweries' premises for the storage of liquor. The liquor stored in vats is bottled and sold under the supervision of officers of the Excise Department. The Inspector of Weights and Measures issued notices to the appellants calling upon them to get their vats verified, calibrated and stamped in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The appellants preferred appeals against the notice issued by the Inspector on the ground that the provisions of the Act were not applicable to the appellants' undertaking, manufacturing alcohol but the appeal was dismissed by the Controller of Weights and Measures. The appellants made petitions under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1989SC1038; (1989)75CTR(SC)187; [1989]176ITR169(SC); JT1989(1)SC234; 1989(1)SCALE247; (1989)1SCC628; [1989]1SCR335
Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.1. Special leave granted.2. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the Settlement Commission dated 7th August, 1987. The fact that an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution lies against the order of the Settlement Commission is now beyond pale of any controversy in view of the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Calcutta v B.N. Bhattachargee and Anr. (1979) Vol. 118 Income Tax Reports 461). The appellant had applied to the Settlement Commission for settlement of his assessment years 1948-49 to 1975-76 under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). That application had to be proceeded in accordance with Section 245C of the Act which is as follows:245C. (1) An assessee may, at any stage of a case relating to him, make an application in such form and in such manner and containing such particulars as may be prescribed to the Settlement Commission to have the case settled and any such application s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993(1)ALT53(SC); 1993Supp(1)SCC9
G.L. Oza; K.N. Saikia, JJ.1. Special leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The only question involved in this matter is as to whether the High Court was right in holding that a Letters Patent Appeal will not lie against the judgment delivered by a learned Single Judge in a petition which was filed under both the Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Having gone through the judgment of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench and having heard learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, the question about the scope of Letters Patent Appeal under clause 15 has been clearly laid down by this Court in a judgment reported in Umaji Keshao Meshram v. Radhikabai1 wherein it was observed as follows at pages 837-38: (SCC p. 473, para 107)“Petitions are at times filed both under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The case of Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque2 before this Court was of such a type. Rule 18 provides that where such petitions are f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1990Supp(1)SCC70; 1990(Supp)SCC70
L.M. Sharma and; Ranganath Misra, JJ.1. The tenant has appealed by special leave challenging the affirming decisions of the High Court sustaining his eviction.2. The arrears as stated in the application for eviction were confined to the period between October 28, 1960 and December 15, 1961 amounting to Rs 346 and the application instituted on September 5, 1962 was stated to be under the relevant provisions of the Bombay Rent Control Act. Defence plea was that a sum of Rs 250 had been paid towards the municipal taxes for the premises in question by the tenant on January 31, 1962 and this was available to be adjusted against rent. The trial Judge did not allow eviction but made an order for recovery of the arrears. The landlord as also the tenant appealed against the decision of the trial court. During the pendency of the appeals, the Mysore Civil Courts Act came into force and under its provisions, pending matters were transferred from the court of the District Judge to the Civil Judge ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1989)80CTR(SC)83; [1989]176ITR117a(SC)
R.S. Pathak, C.J.1. This appeal by certificate granted by the High. Court of Madras is directed against the judgment of the High Court disposing of a reference in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.2. The respondent-assessee is a co-operative society registered under the Madras Co-operative Societies Act. The assessee entered into an agreement with the State Government during the previous year ending June 30, 1960, relevant to the assessment year 1961-62, whereby the assessee agreed to hold a stock of ammonium sulphate belonging to, and on behalf of, the State Government, and to store it in godowns which, admittedly, belonged to the assessee. Under the agreement, the assessee was required further to take all necessary steps to enable such stocking and storage of the fertiliser, including taking delivery of the stock at the rail-head and transporting it to the godowns. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1961-62, the assessee received a sum of Rs. 31,316...
Tag this Judgment!