Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC192; JT1992(5)SC144; 1992(2)SCALE231; (1992)4SCC175; [1992]3SCR972; 1992(2)LC724(SC)
ORDERT.K. Thommen, J.1. A common question arises in all these cases. Are lands set apart in the estates in question for growing firewood trees such as eucalyptus or redgum to be used as fuel for the purpose of manufacturing rubber or tea in the smoke-houses or factories or for the personal use of the employees in the estates excluded from the definition of 'private forests' as contained in Section 2(f)(1)(i)(B) of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (Act 26 of 1971) hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')? The Kerala High Court in the three judgments, which are impugned in these appeals, held that such lands fell within the expressions 'private forest' and accordingly vested in the State in terms of the Act. The High Court rejected the contention of the appellants to the contrary.2. We shall now read Section 2(f)(1)(i)(B):- 2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (f) 'private forest' means- (1) in relation to the Malabar district referred to in S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC1188; [1993]76CompCas27(SC); 1993CriLJ197; 1992(61)ELT337(SC); JT1992(4)SC565; 1992(2)SCALE227; 1993Supp(2)SCC724; [1992]3SCR960
ORDERK. Ramaswamy, J. 1. A short but interesting question of law had arisen in this case. The appellant is a firm which owned three vessels, by name M.V Fathel Beri, M.V. Fathel Rehman and M.V. Saad Salam. It carries on export of timber, coir etc. to Gulf countries and imported Euphraes Zabdi Dates on return. Out of the amounts payable in Pounds deducting the price for dates, the appellant had fitted 230 H.P. Gardner engine (second hand) to their vessel Fathel Beri and 240 H.P. Kalvin engine (second hand) to their vessel Fathel Rehman, which were purchased at the cost of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 55,000/- respectively. Out of the amount payable through Nakoda in Basrah, a sum of Rs. 30,000/- was paid. For the third vessel Saad Salam an agreement was entered into to fit in a second hand engine with M/s. Mohd Zasim of Kuwait at a price of 2,100 Kuwaiti Dinars and payable in three annual instalments. The Addl. Director, Enforcement Directorate, Madras adjudicated the proceedings against the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC65; 1992CriLJ3703; 1992(3)Crimes530(SC); JT1992(4)SC594; 1992(2)SCALE246; (1992)4SCC225
ORDERG.N. Ray, J.1. These appeals arise out of a Judgment dated November 18, 1980 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 222 of 1977 Prakash v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Criminal Appeal No. 714 of 1976 State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shibboo alias Shiv Narayan and two Ors.. Criminal Appeal No. 222 of 1977 was preferred by the accused Prakash in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur against his conviction under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentence of life imprisonment in Sessions Trial No. 61/1974 in the Court of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar. Criminal Appeal No. 714 of 1976 was preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh against the accused Shiv Narayan and the other two accused Vishnu Prasad and Raju alias Raja Ram against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in Sessions Trial 61 of 1974. It may be mentioned here that all the four accused persons were committed to sessions trial for the murder of one Vi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC1339; 1993(42)ECC1; 1992(61)ELT352(SC); JT1992(5)SC281; 1992(2)SCALE212; (1992)4SCC440; [1992]3SCR943
ORDERS. Ranganathan, J.1. These two appeals by Thermax (Pvt.) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') raise a question of interpretation of two similar notifications issued under Section 8 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 ('the Act', for short).2. The assessee imported goods described as 'Sanyo Single Effect Chiller' from Japan for the purpose of using the same for refrigeration/air conditioning of the factories of Indian Rayon Corporation at Veraval and Nirlon Synthetics Fibre and Chemicals Ltd. It paid the customs duty leviable thereon at the appropriate rate under the relevant entry of the customs tariff but claimed exemption from the additional duty of customs leviable under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (C.T. Act, in short). The relevant portion of the said section reads thus:3.(1) Any article which is imported into India shall, in addition, be liable to a duty (hereafter in this section referred to as the additional duty) equal to the excise duty ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC70; 1992CriLJ3709; 1992(3)Crimes573(SC); JT1992(5)SC134; 1992(2)SCALE201; (1992)4SCC503
ORDERK. Jayachandra Reddy, J.1. This appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Judge, Special Court, Fcrozcpur. There are two appellants A-1 and A-5 and both of them are convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life. They alongwith five others (Accused Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7) were tried for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. but the trial court acquitted Accused Nos.3, 4, 6 and 7. A-2 was, however, convicted under Section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced to 1-1/2 months R.I, and is not before us.2. The prosecution case is that one Dhan Kaur daughter of Bishan Kaur appointed Jit Singh (A-1) one of the appellants before us, as her attorney to conduct the litigation. The deceased in this case is Pritam Singh who was appointed as attorney by the opposite side namely Sukhdev Singh. The dispute was regarding tenancy. The suit was filed by the accused alongwith others against the said Sukhdev Singh and the matter stood fixed for argum...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC1227; JT1992(4)SC520; 1992(2)SCALE199; 1992Supp(2)SCC554; [1992]3SCR929; 1992(2)LC677(SC)
ORDERKuldip Singh, J. 1. Tej Singh Rao is a lineal male descendant of Pratap Rao Gujar who was one of the Generals of Shivaji the Great. He is holding 294-61 acres of land which is situated in the Bhiwapur Taluk of the erstwhile Nagpur State. He filed return under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (ceiling on holdings) Act, 1961 (the Act) without prejudice to his claim that the lands are covered by a sovereign legislative grant flowing from the sovereign authority of Raghoji II, the Bhonsle Ruler of Nagpur State, and as such did not come within the purview of the Act. The Special Deputy Collector (Land reforms) declared 176-91 acres of the land as surplus. The land owner preferred appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal under Section 33 of the Act. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Tej Singh Rao challenged the order of the Special Deputy Collector and of the Tribunal before the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court by way of writ petition under Article 226/227 of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC1638; 1994LabIC1197; (1994)IILLJ977SC; (2005)5SCC122
1. We have heard Mr. Sehgal for the appellants and Mr. Goel for the respondents. Special leave granted.2. The appeal is by the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, State of U.P., against the judgment dated 11-1-91 by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petitions Nos. 10718/88,11144/88,20882/ 88,4853/89,18796/89,26515/90 and 35389/ 91.In the year 1986, appellant engaged the 0513s940159.htm respondents for the work of preparing certificates to be issued by the appellant to the successful candidates at the examinations conducted by it. The certificates were printed forms and respondents were required to fill up the particulars such as the name of the candidate, name of the school, date of birth etc. in the appropriate space. The respondents were paid initially Rs. 12/-for 100 certificates which was subsequently raised to Rs. 20/-. It would appear that there was a back-log of certificates to be cleared and the services of the respondents were engaged to clear that back-log...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC1218; 1993(1)ALT(Cri)61; 1993CriLJ314; JT1992(4)SC530; 1992(2)SCALE203; (1992)4SCC172; [1992]3SCR898; 1992(2)LC634(SC)
Kuldip Singh, J.1. Sat pal alias Sadhu, the petitioner, has challenged his continued detention in jail and is seeking an order in the nature of habeas corpus claiming that he has served more than the maximum sentence of imprisonment prescribed under law and should, therefore, be released.2. The petitioner was arrested on March 27, 1978 in a case registered under Section 302 Indian penal Code. He was convicted on August 16, 1978 and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. According to the petitioner he has undergone about 13 years and six months actual imprisonment and total period of imprisonment including remissions comes to more than 17 years. Admittedly his sentence has not been remitted fully nor commuted for imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years either under Section 55 Indian Penal Code or under Section 433(b) CrPC, 1973 by the appropriate Government. However, the petitioner's case is that he has undergone more than 14 years sentence including remissions and since...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1993)ILLJ482SC
Lalit Mohan Sharma, J.1. The learned Counsel for the respondent has, in support of his stand, placed reliance on several decisions of this Court and the High Courts in which the notification in identical terms has been construed in the way as is suggested on behalf of the Corporation. Although Mr. Bobde, learned Counsel for the appellant, has advanced an argument, which on the face of it, appears to be attractive, I think that in view of the consistent interpretation of the notification which has been followed in the country, the question should not be reopened for fresh consideration. Accordingly, I agree that all these appeals should be dismissed but without costs.S. Mohan, J.2. These appeals can be dealt with by a common judgment since the question of law to be decided is one and the same. It is enough if we note the facts in Civil Appeal No. 2599 of 1980.3. The appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. It has its registered office at Jew Town in Mattancherry. It ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC252; [1992(65)FLR676]; JT1992(4)SC602; 1992(2)KLT576(SC); 1992LabIC2577; (1993)IILLJ795SC; 1992(2)SCALE221; (1992)4SCC245; [1992]3SCR909; 1992(2)LC660(SC)
ORDERLalit Mohan Sharma, J.1. The learned Counsel for the respondent has, in support of his stand, placed reliance on several decisions of this Court and the High Courts in which the notification in identical terms has been construed in the way as is suggested on behalf of the Corporation. Although Mr. Bobde, learned Counsel for the appellant has advanced an argument, which on the face of it, appears to be attractive, I think that in view of the consistent interpretation of the notification which has been followed in the country, the question should not be responded for fresh consideration. Accordingly, I agree that all these appeals should be dismissed but without costs.S. Mohan, J.2. These appeals can be dealt with by a common judgment since the question of law to be decided is one and the same. It is enough if we note the facts in Civil Appeal No.2599 of 1980.3. The appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. It has its registered ; office at Jew Town in Mattancherr...
Tag this Judgment!