Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996(53)ECC104; 1995LC643(SC); 1995(75)ELT3(SC); JT1995(1)SC172; 1994(5)SCALE301; (1995)1SCC323; [1994]Supp6SCR648
R.M. Sahai, J.1. The only dispute that arises for consideration in these appeals directed against the Order of Central Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal is whether scrap obtained by the appellant in course of manufacture of iron and steel and steel products was dutiable under Item 26 or 26AA of the Tariff Schedule.2. Since facts are not in dispute, and the duty is sought to be levied on scrap obtained by the appellant in course of manufacture of iron and steel products and supplied by it to M/s. Tata Yodogawa Ltd on payment of duty for conversion of scrap into ingots after re-melting which was actually re-melted and re-used by the appellant as ingot, it is appropriate to extract the two entries relating to steel ingots and iron or steel products:26. Steel Ingots including - Rs. 100 per Steel Melting Scrap. metric tonne.26AA.- Iron or steel products, the following namely :(i) Semi-finished steel including Rs. Three hundred and blooms, billets, slabs, sheet fifty per metric tonn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995(75)ELT214(SC); JT1995(1)SC276; 1995(1)SCALE17; (1995)2SCC84; [1994]Supp6SCR692
R.M. Sahai, J.1. This appeal under Section 35L of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 ('Act' for short) raises two important questions of law, one relating to construction of item No. 14E of the Central Excise Tariff levying duty on Patent and Proprietary medicines and other the scope of proviso to Section 11A of the Act.2. For purposes of duty patent and proprietary medicines were classified in relevant period in two broad categories - one, which were dutiable under tariff item 14E and other which fell under the residuary item 68. The latter were wholly exempt from duty under Notification No. 55/75 dated 1.3.75. The appellant manufactured pharmacopoeial and non-pharmacopoeia medicines. One of the items manufactured by the appellant was 20% Dextrose injection. It is a trade name in the Indian pharmacopoeia. It being one of the medicines specified in pharmacopoeia it was wholly exempt from duty. An item which fell under tariff item 68 and was wholly exempt from duty was further exempte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995(1)Crimes204(SC); JT1995(1)SC240; 1994(5)SCALE279; (1995)1SCC623; [1994]Supp6SCR642; 1995(1)LC222(SC)
Suhas C. Sen, J.1. This is a habeas corpus petition filed by Smt. Harbans Kaur. The petitioner prays for a direction upon the Director General of Police, State of Punjab, and other respondents, to produce the petitioner's sons Surinder Pal Singh and Sarvjeet Singh. There is also a prayer for an order directing inquiry into the cause of death of Gurbax Singh. The allegation is that the Gurbax Singh was in police custody from 3rd April, 1994 till date of his death.2. It has been alleged in the petition that Surinder Pal Singh, Gurbax Singh, Sarvjeet Singh and Manjit Singh, the sons of the petitioner, were married and were living with their families at 1619/2, Durgapuri, Habowal, Kalan, Ludhiana, Punjab, along with their mother, the petitioner herein.3. On 3.4.1994 Surinder Pal Singh was called to the Police Post through a Constable. Since then his whereabouts were not known and it was alleged that he was kept in unlawful custody of Police and had not been produced before any Magistrate. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC763; 1995(1)ARBLR167(SC); 1995(1)BLJR404; JT1995(1)SC257; 1994(5)SCALE310; 1995Supp(1)SCC312; 1995(1)LC160(SC)
ORDERSujata V. Manohar J.1. The deceased appellant Naraindas Lilaram Adnani was the original petitioner. Respondents 1 and 2 are his sons by his first wife. The 5th respondent is also the son of the appellant by his first wife. Respondent No. 3 is the wife of the first respondent. The 6th respondent Devibai Naraindas Adnani is the second wife of the appellant. Respondents 7 and 9 are the sons of the appellant by his second wife.2. After filing of the Special Leave Petition the appellant died on 15.4.1988. The 9th respondent has filed IA No. 1/1989 for being substituted as the appellant in place of the original appellant. In the said application which is under Order 22 Rule 3 of the CPC read with relevant rules of this Court, the 9th respondent has stated that the deceased appellant has left a Will under which respondent No. 9 is the sole executor of the Will. Under the said Will the appellant has left his entire estate to respondent No. 6 i.e. his second wife. Respondents No. 9 has, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1995(1)SC188; 1994(5)SCALE330; 1995Supp(1)SCC567; [1994]Supp6SCR653; 1995(1)LC230(SC)
K. Jayachandra Reddy, J.1. This is an appeal under Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 filed by Sundaramurthi, original accused No. 2 in the case. He alongwith his father S.K. Palaniappa Gounder, original accused No. 3 and one Illangovan alias Pachan, original accused No. 1 was tried for offence punishable under Sections 302/34, 392 and 449 I.P.C. A-3 was also charged under Sections 302/109 I.P.C. alternatively. The Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant (A-2) and his father A-3 but convicted A-1 under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to death subject to confirmation by the High Court. He was also found guilty under Sections 392 and 449 I.P.C. The State preferred an appeal against the acquittal of A-2 and A-3 and the same alongwith reference for confirmation of death sentence were heard together and disposed of by a common judgment by a Division Bench of the High Court which confirmed the acquittal of A-3 but reduced the deat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1995)110PLR603; 1995(1)SCALE86; 1995Supp(1)SCC760; [1994]Supp6SCR700; 1995(1)LC613(SC)
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The State Government of Haryana exercising the power under Section 4 of the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1952, (for short 'the Act') issued the notification dated 18.12.1991 amalgamating Bhorakh and Harigarh Gram Sabhas as Bhorakh Madan Harigarh Gram Sabha with consequential changes in the respective columns in Block Pehowa in Kurukshetra District. The said notification when was challenged by the second respondent and others in W.P. No. 499 of 1992, the learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court by his order dated November 2, 1993 quashed the said notification. On appeal in L.P.A. No. 893/93, by order dated 21.12.1993, the Division Bench summarily dismissed the appeal. Thus, this appeal by special leave.3. It is not in dispute that in the year 1988 separate Gram Sabha areas were constituted which was upheld by the High Court. On November 13, 1991, the Gram Panchayat, Bhorakh had resolved requesting the Government to amalgamate the two Gram Panchaya...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : I(1995)ACC274; 1995ACJ232; AIR1995SC782; [1995]82CompCas638(SC); JT1995(1)SC244; (1995)110PLR305; 1994(5)SCALE335; (1995)1SCC320; [1994]Supp6SCR687
ORDERSuhas C. Sen, J.1. Leave granted.2. This case has arisen out of an insurance claim made by Narendra Pandurang Kadam. Narendra was a bright student studying Industrial Electronics. He stood first in his class and fourth in the college. He was physically fit and a sportsman. On 18.5.1980, at about 6 A.M. Narendra was travelling with one Sunil David on motorcycle bearing No.GDC-7526 along Afonso do Albuquerque Road, Panaji, Goa. When the motorcycle carrying the claimant and his companion had reached a road crossing the bus No. GDS-1574 driven by the Alisaheb Appasaheb Nadar, belonging to Ashok Vishwanath Naik came from the western section of Albuquerque road, and collided with the motorcycle. As a result of which Narendre sustained serious injuries.3. Narendra's case is that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus. He was plying the bus at very high speed, and was unable to control the vehicle at the intersection. After the accident the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1995(70)FLR333]; JT1995(1)SC180; 1994(5)SCALE303; (1995)1SCC468; [1994]Supp6SCR661; 1995(1)LC693(SC)
Madan Mohan Punchhi, J.1. This bunch of matters comprising a Civil Appeal and a few writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution, have a common aim and therefore can conveniently be disposed of by a common order. Necessary facts can be gathered from the Civil Appeal focussing the issue.2. The appellants are members of the U.P. Civil Service (Judicial Branch) 'Nyayik Sewa'. They were writ petitioners in one of the many writ petitions preferred before and disposed of by the Allahabad High Court, governing judgment of which is in Dinesh Chander Srivastava and Ors. v. State of U.P. reported in : AIR1977All310 . In sum that judgment is under appeal. The cause settled therein was the one which arose as an aftermath of Chandra Mohan v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. : (1967)ILLJ412SC and the steps taken by the State of U.P. in pursuance thereof.3. Candidates for recruiting District Judges in the State of Uttar Pradesh, under the U.P. Higher Judicial Service Rules, framed by the Govern...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1995(1)SC63; 1994(5)SCALE314; (1995)2SCC462; [1994]Supp6SCR674; 1995(1)LC474(SC)
N. Venkatachala, J.1. On a certificate granted by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in respect of its common Judgment dated 21st June, 1984 rendered in Writ Petition No. 1587 of 1984 and connected matters, the present appeals are filed assailing the sustainability of that judgment insofar as it relates to the striking down of Section 9(2) of the Tamil Nadu Exhibition of Films on Television Screen through Video Cassette Recorders (Regulation) Act, 1984- 'the Act' requiring every person keeping a Video Library licensed under the Act, possessing cinematograph films, to produce in respect of each film whenever demanded by the concerned officer of Government a letter of consent got from the first owner of the copyright of such film under the Copyright Act, 1957 or its assignee thereunder, as that enacted by the Tamil Nadu State Legislature- 'the State Legislature', without being possessed of the required legislative competence and of Section 10(2) of the Act requiring every person keep...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1990LabIC1003; (1994)IILLJ843SC; 1995(1)SCALE92; (1995)2SCC15; 1995(3)SLJ73(SC); 1995(1)LC548(SC)
1. Leave granted.2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 681/ 90, dated 12.9.91. The appellants filed writ petition No. 3571/89 seeking that the former employees of the respondent-Corporation who retired prior to 1.1.89 (Clerical cadre) employed in the Bombay region are entitled to the parity in payment of pension with the employees who retired on that date in other regions of the respondent-Corporation and the non-payment thereof is violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution. To understand the contention, it is necessary to mention the background of the case.3. Consequent upon the nationalisation of the erstwhile Burmah-Shell on January 24, 1976, the Burmah-Shell pension fund operating prior to the nationalisation was taken over and a new trust fund was created with terms and conditions mentioned therein found beneficial to the employees even after the nationalisation. According to the terms, the pen...
Tag this Judgment!