Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1991(32)ECC310; 1991LC433(SC); 1991(52)ELT341(SC); JT1991(1)SC394; 1991(1)SCALE188; (1991)2SCC229; [1991]1SCR317
S.C. Agrawal, J. 1. These appeals raise for consideration the question as to whether egg trays and other similar products manufactured by the appellant can be regarded as 'containers' under the relevant entries in the Central Excise Tariff.2. Till February 28, 1986 the excise tariff was contained in the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the old Tariff) and with effect from March 1, 1986, the excise tariff is contained in the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the new Tariff). The relevant entry in the old Tariff was Item 17. During the period March 1, 1982 to February, 1983, the said Item 17 read thus:Paper and paper board, all sorts (including paste-board, mill board, straw board, cardboard and corrugated board) and articles thereof specified below, in or in relation to the manufacture of which any process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power-(1) Uncoated and coated printing and wri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 71(1991)CLT722(SC); [1991(62)FLR433]; JT1991(1)SC430; 1991(1)SCALE399; (1991)2SCC295; [1991]1SCR341; 1991(1)LC414(SC)
K. Ramaswamy, J.1. These three appeals are against the judgment of the Orissa High Court in O.J.C. No. 936 of 1979. The Division Bench allowed the writ petition and quashed the gradation lists of Sub-Asstt. Engineers (Electrical) and Sub-Asstt. Engineers (Mechanical), Annexures 5 & 6 before the High Court and the promotions given to the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 therein Annexure 7. The Government and the Corporation were directed to consider the question of promotion treating the writ petitioner and the respondents as belonging to two cadres of Sub-Asstt. Engineer (Electrical) and (Mechanical). These three appeals were filed, one by the Corporation, another by the State Government and the third one by the aggrieved employees.2. The facts are simple. Shri Bidura Charan Mohapatra, the 6th respondent/first appellant in the third appeal, a diploma holder in Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, was appointed as Mechanical Supervisor on August 24, 1962 in the pay scale of Rs. 215-396. Shri ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1991(1)SC433; (1991)2MLJ14(SC); 1991(I)OLR(SC)504; 1991(1)SCALE200; (1991)3SCC67; [1991]1SCR327; 1991(2)LC36(SC)
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 740 of 1978. From the Judgment and Decree dated 18.3.1975 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in C.C.C.A. No. 106 of 1969. G.A. Shah, V.J. Francis and N.M. Popli for the Appellant. S.B. Bhasme, P.K. Pillai and Dilip Pillai for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SAWANT, J. Although the leave granted by this Court is limited to the question whether the plaintiff is entitled to an amount of Rs.75,000 which according to him he had actually advanced and the respondents had received for the purpose of prosecuting their litigation, and, therefore, the issue to be answered lies within a narrow compass, it is necessary to state the relevant facts briefly to understand correctly the significance of the question to be answered. 2. Nawab Salar Jung III, a celebrity of the erstwhile State of Hyderabad expired on March 2, 1949 leaving behind him no issue but a vast estate. As was expected, several persons came forward claiming to b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1991(1)ARBLR397(SC); 1991Supp(2)SCC718
ORDERKuldip Singh, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court.2. Two questions fell for consideration in the appeal before the High Court : (1) whether to the award of the Arbitrator under the Indian Electricity Act of 1910 the substituted provision of Section 7A under the Uttar Pradesh Amendment Act was applicable, and (2) whether the statutory Arbitrator had jurisdiction to award interest or the, amount found due. The High Court found on both the scores against the appellant-Board.3. We have heard Mr. Sen at length in support of the appeal as also Dr. Chitale appearing for the respondent. Indisputably, the award of the arbitrator had been rendered prior to the Uttar Pradesh Amending Act by which Section 7A of the parent Act was substituted and the award was pending before the Court to be made a rule under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act. Tin's Court has taken the view in Satish Kumar v. Surender Kumar : [1969]2SCR244 , that the aw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1991Supp(2)SCC461
N.M. Kasliwal and; K. Ramaswamy, JJ.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against an order of the Gujarat High Court dated September 26, 19742. A suit was filed by the respondents for possession of the suit premises against the appellant on the ground that the appellant was a licensee. The suit was contested by the appellant. On the pleadings of the parties as many as eight issues were framed by the trial court. Both the parties had led oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their case. The trial court decreed the suit. The appellant aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial court filed an appeal before the High Court. The High Court by the impugned order dismissed the appeal by one word "Dismissed."3. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the High Court, the appellant has come in appeal before this Court4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and in our view the High Court was wrong in dismissing the appeal by one word "Dismissed" without goi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1991(32)ECC299; 1991LC439(SC); 1991(54)ELT3(SC); JT1991(1)SC405; 1991(1)SCALE165; (1991)2SCC10; [1991]1SCR288; 1991(1)LC700(SC)
S. Ranganathan J. 1. These two appeals involve a common question and can be disposed of by a common judgment. The question is whether the appellant companies (hereinafter referred to as the 'asses-sees') are entitled to full 'draw back' of the customs duty which they had paid on the import of di-methly-terephthalate (shortly referred to as 'DMT') for manufacture of polyester staple fibre yarn. The asses-sees converted the DMT into polyester staple fibre in their factory at Thane and then sent it to Bhilwara in Rajasthan where the Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills blended it with indigenous viscose staple fibre to spin out certain varieties of blended yarn. It is common ground that the product manufactured by this process was exported by the assessees to Imperial Chemical Industries Pvt. Ltd. Singapore, who had supplied the DMT free of charge to the assessees. The answer to the question revolves around the interpretation of Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with the Customs an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1991(1)SC386; 1991(1)SCALE174; (1991)3SCC358; [1991]1SCR305; 1991(2)LC3(SC)
S. Ranganathan, J.1. The two appeals and the three writ petitions challenge the validity of the provisions of the Mysore Silkworm Seed and Cocoon (Regulation of Production, Supply and Distributions) Act, 1959 (Act No. 5 of 1960), hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned Act'. The challenge was repelled by the Karnataka High Court by its common judgment dated 9.9.1980 in two writ petitions, which is the subject matter of appeals. It is perhaps in view of this judgment that writ petitions No. 5548-5550 of 1980 have been filed directly in this Court raising a similar contention.2. At the outset, it is necessary to clarify two important points. The first is that the validity of the Act above mentioned and certain notifications issued thereunder were challenged in Civil Appeal Nos. 450 and 451 of 1966 and 542 of 1964. These Civil appeals were disposed of by a judgment of this Court dated 6.1.1967 in State of Mysore and Ors. v. Hanumiah. By the said judgment this Court repelled the contentio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1991(5)SC186; 1991(1)SCALE164; (1991)2SCC315; 1991(1)LC398(SC)
Ranganath Misra, C.J.1. Special leave granted. We have heard counsel for the parties. The explanation for delay in presentation of the special leave petition is accepted. Delay condoned. 2. Appellant was a Peon in respondent No. 1 Bank and was removed from service following a disciplinary proceeding. The Board of Revenue-respondent No. 2 after hearing parties came to the finding that termination of service was not justified and by its order dated 20th of August, 1981, held:I heard the arguments of the counsel for the appellant. The counsel for the respondent did not address any argument. I saw the case. After reading the order of the Deputy Registrar it seems that he has discussed and considered only the legal aspects of the case. In the said order there is no discussion on as to how many charges were there against the appellant, what the same were and now the same were found to be proved when mentioning of all these matters in the said order was necessary. Only legal aspects are not a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1991(2)BLJR811; [1991(62)FLR414]; 1991(1)KLT579(SC); (1991)IILLJ409SC; 1991(1)SCALE159; (1991)1SCC725; [1991]1SCR282; 1991(1)LC719(SC); (1991)1UPLBEC338
K.N. Singh, J. 1. Leave granted.2. Whether family pension payable under the service rules could be bequeathed by means of a will by the deceased employee during his life time, is the question involved in this appeal.3. Briefly, the facts giving rise to this appeal are that, Issac Alfred was employed in the Railway Workshop, Jagadhri as a Skilled Mechanic, Tool Shop, he died in harness on 16.10.1984. On his death a dispute arose between Mrs. Violet Issac, widow of the deceased Railway employee, his sons, daughters and Elic Alfred, brother of the deceased regarding family pension, gratuity and other emoluments, payable by the Railway Administration. Smt. Violet Issac, widow of the deceased employee made an application before the competent Railway Authority for the grant of family pension and for payment of gratuity and other dues to her, her four sons and one daughter, who are appellant Nos. 2 to 6. The Railway Authorities did not pay any amount to the appellants as an injunction order h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1991)2SCC282; 1991(1)LC394(SC)
ORDER1. We have today pronounced judgment in State of Kerala and Anr. v. Kanan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 1277 of 1979. For the reasons given in the said appeal this appeal has to be allowed. Mr. Nariman, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-company raised an additional point in this appeal. He contended that Kuttikanam cannot, in any case be charged in respect of such timber which was planted by the grantee in the Concession Area. We do not agree with the contention of the learned Counsel. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was decreed by following the judgment of the Kerala High Court from which Civil Appeal No. 1277 of 1979 arose. This appeal has to be dealt with in the same manner as Civil Appeal No. 1277 of 1979. We allow the appeal with Costs. The suit of the respondent is dismissed with costs. We quantify the costs as Rs. 5,000/-....
Tag this Judgment!