Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC947; 1995(1)ARBLR326(SC); JT1995(1)SC392; 1994(5)SCALE228; (1995)1SCC371; [1994]Supp6SCR530
ORDERS. Mohan, J.1. The facts in brief leading to this civil appeal are as follows:2. The appellant is a member of the Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association. By a claim petition dated 11.8.1979, the appellant had claimed a sum of Rs. 4,51,245.30 under various heads of accounts including commission from the first respondent up to the period of 30.6.1979. The claim related to transaction which took place between appellant and first respondent. In turn, the first respondent was also a member of Delhi Hindustani Mercantile Association. It also made a counter claim against the appellant. As per the rules of the association, the dispute was referred to an Arbitrator.3. By an order dated 20.11.1981, the learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court directed in terms of the concession made on behalf of the Association and the Sole Arbitrator, a reasoned award shall be passed by the Arbitrator.4. The Sole Arbitrator (Mohan Lal) entered upon the reference. On 19.7.1983, by a reasoned award, he awar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1995(1)SC202; 1994(5)SCALE192; 1995Supp(2)SCC101; [1994]Supp6SCR460
Faizan Uddin, J.1. This appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been directed against the judgment of the High Court of Kerala dismissing the Election Petition of the appellant whereby he had challenged the election of respondent No. 1 as a member of Kerala Legislative Assembly from constituency No. 104 Kayamkulam, and for a further declaration that the appellant was duly elected for the said seat for which the election was held on 12.6.1991 and the result of which was declared on 16.6.1991.2. In all there were eight candidates in the field i.e. the appellant and respondents No. 1 to 7 who contested the said election for the Legislative Assembly seat from 104 Kayamkulam constituency. The appellant was a candidate fielded by the Communist Party of India (Marxist). The respondent No. 1 herein was the candidate sponsored by the Indian National Congress which was a constituent party of the United Democratic Front. The tot...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1996)7SCC66
ORDER 1. Leave granted in both the matters. 2. Both these appeals are directed against the order dated 4-10-1994 passed by the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 4046 of 1994. 3. The City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘CIDCO’), an undertaking of the Government of Maharashtra, invited tenders for certain construction work. The tender notice required the tender to be submitted in two envelopes, one envelope was to contain the covering letter, receipt, challan/bank guarantee towards earnest money deposit, list of documents, etc. and the second envelope was to contain the financial bid. Both these envelopes were to be placed in one common envelope. The last date for submission of tenders was 31-8-1994. When the tender box was opened on 1-9-1994 it was found that one of the tenderers, Unique Construction Corporation, had submitted one more envelope. The said envelope was not opened on 1-9-1994 alon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1995(2)SC89; 1994(5)SCALE342; 1995Supp(2)SCC49; [1994]Supp6SCR456
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. We are happy to note that at the suggestion of this Court, the parties have settled the disputes amicably. Therefore, having regard to the terms of such settlement placed before us, the following order is made:3. The appellant-Smt. H.B. Usha shall pay to the respondent-D.S. Ramachandra a total sum of Rs. 3,25,00,000/- for his giving up half share in the partnership firm - M/s. Ajax Petro in her favour as under:(1) A sum of Rs. 75,00,000/- which is lying in the Star Deposit account in State Bank of India, City Branch, Bangalore, in the name of Stone Bonds (P) Ltd. should be released to the respondent, with interest accrued thereon, by crediting the same to the account of the respondent in Canara Bank, South End Road Branch, Bangalore, within a period of seven days from today; or the appellant shall give necessary direction to the S.B.I., City Branch, Bangalore, Order dated December 12,1994 in C.A. No. 9515 of 1994 (Arising out of SLP No. 7604/94) to withdraw the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC1935; 1994(2)ALT(Cri)342; 1995CriLJ3217; 1994(2)Crimes87(SC); JT1994(3)SC649; 1994(2)SCALE518; (1994)4SCC29
ORDER1. Balraj, the sole appellant has been convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. for the offence of committing the murders of four members of P.W. 2's family and also under Section 307 I.P.C. for attempting to commit the murder of P.W. 2. In respect of murders charge he has been sentenced to death and for the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. he has been sentenced to undergo seven years' R.I. The Division Bench of the High Court confirmed the convictions and the sentences awarded by the trial court.2. The prosecution case is as follows:3. P.W. 2, Smt. Laxmi Devi, is the wife of Tej Pal, one of the deceased persons in the case. The appellant Balraj is the younger brother of Tejpal. Budh Jyoti, a boy aged about 13 months, Kumari Renu, aged about 4 years, Kumari Chandrawati, aged about 11 years and Kumari Deep Mala, aged about 8 years were the children of P.W. 2 and Tej Pal. Once Bhante Baba was a person known to the family. According to the prosecution there were disputes between...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994(5)SCALE216; 1995Supp(1)SCC405; 1995(1)LC150(SC)
Paripoornan J.1. These are connected appeals. The appellants in both the appeals are the same persons. But the respondents are different in the two different suits and appeals. Civil Appeal No. 808/92 is filed against the judgment in Second Appeal No. 2841/80 dated 20.9.91. The appellants are plaintiffs in Suit No. 314/T dated 4.8.77. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court and it was affirmed in appeal by the lower appellate court in C.A. No. 507/91T dated 8.8.79. Second Appeal No. 2481/80 filed by the plaintiffs-appellants was also dismissed. That has resulted in filing C.A. No. 808/92 in this Court.2. The short facts of the case relevant to understand the controversy are as follows. The Maharaja of erstwhile State of Patiala gifted 115 bighas 4 biswas of land to one Harbans Singh. Mutation was effected in the name of Harbans Singh on 29.11.51. The plaintiffs purchased the aforesaid land from Harbans Singh by two registered sale deeds dated 7.11.52 and 30.11.55. Mutation was effect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995LC422(SC); 1995(75)ELT21(SC); JT1995(1)SC152; 1994(5)SCALE181; (1995)1SCC534; [1994]Supp6SCR446
R.M. Sahai, J.1. Whether oil driven pumps sold by the appellant were exempt under Notification No. 85/72 dated 17,3.1972 or they were assessable to duty under item 30A of the Central Excise Tariff is the short question that arises for consideration in this appeal directed against order passed by the Custom, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi.2. The appellant, a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act was engaged in the manufacture of combustion and diesel engines bearing brand name 'Atul Shakti' for which it was duly licensed under the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 ('Act' for short). It also carried on trading in pumps. It entered into agreements with different units who were duly licensed under the Act for manufacturing pumps and power driven pumps. In October, 1977 the appellant was served with a show-caused notice by the Central Excise Department that they got the power driven pumps manufactured with brand name 'Atul Shakti' from the diff...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996(53)ECC96; 1995LC209(SC); 1995(75)ELT17(SC); JT1995(1)SC99; 1994(5)SCALE183; (1995)2SCC372; [1994]Supp6SCR439
R.M. Sahai, J.1. The question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the tube mill and welding head erected and installed by the appellant for manufacture of tubes and pipes out of duty paid raw material was assessable to duty under residuary tariff item No. 68 of the Schedule being excisable good within the meaning of Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 ('Act' for short).2. To answer the issue, few facts are necessary to be narrated. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of welded steel pipes and tubes which were classified before 1.8.1983 under item 28AA of the First Schedule to the Act. Later on these items came to fall under tariff item 25 of the Schedule. The steel tubes and pipes produced by the appellant were exempt from duty as they were produced out of duty paid raw material. For the manufacture of these items the appellant had set up plant and machinery at its factory site. The first phase of installation was completed in the year 1974 by putting u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994(5)SCALE329; (1995)1SCC383; [1994]Supp6SCR450; 1995(1)LC256(SC)
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Heard counsel for the parties.3. Originally land admeasuring 54 Kanals 11 Marias was requisitioned by the Dist. Magistrate, Amritsar by a Notification published on September 9, 1946 for para-military purposes. Subsequently, notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published by the State Government on dated June 30, 1965. The arbitrator awarded the compensation on January 25, 1972. On reference, compensation was enhanced to Rs. 30/- per square yard by the award dated March 5, 1973 together with solatium at 15% and interest at 12% from the date of acquisition till payment was made on behalf of the State. The claimants F.A.O. No. 76/73 was disposed of by the High Court on November 17, 1982. Subsequently, an application was made under Sections 152 & 151 of C.P.C. requesting the High Court to amend the decree applying the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 68 of 1984. The High Court allowed CM. No. 2911-C/1986 on dated July 22, 1986 granting the be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1997(10)SC616; 1994(5)SCALE341; 1995Supp(2)SCC47; [1994]Supp6SCR453
ORDER1. Leave grant.2. We have heard both the parties. The tangle can be resolved by adopting the following procedure:3. K.V. Thakkar and another are the plaintiffs in Suit No. 252 of 1980 on the original side in the High Court. Equally, respondents 1 to 17 in this special leave petition are the plaintiffs in Suit No. 983/90 on the original side in the High Court. Initially, in Suit No. 252/80, on a motion, a Court Receiver has been appointed as a custodia legis of the properties involved in the suit. In Suit No. 983/90, filed by the respondents for declaration of title, on three different occasions, three learned Judges on the original side passed orders, the result of which was that the Court Receiver should continue in possession of the suit property as custodia legis. Later on the respondents moved another motion in which the Division Bench, on appeal, in the impugned order dated October 24, 1994, directed the Court Receiver to continue to be the Court Receiver in Suit No. 983/90 t...
Tag this Judgment!