Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998ACJ859; (1997)11SCC446
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. In a motor accident which occurred on 6.1.1977, the appellant Shashendra Lahiri suffered multiple injuries which required his treatment as an indoor patient in a hospital at Bhopal and then in a Bombay hospital for a considerable period. The injuries caused several fractures and bone-grafting was required to be done in Bombay. The appellant suffered permanent disability of shortening of his right leg by 3 inches. He was then a student of B.Com. aged about 17 years. It is common ground that the appellant thereafter continued his education and has a good academic career. The Tribunal awarded the sum of Rs. 33.000/- only with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum towards the claim of more than Rs. 6,00,000/- by the appellant. High Court has enhanced that amount to the total of Rs. 58,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the claim, until payment. This further appeal by the claimant is for enhancement of that amount.3. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)11SCC322
S.P. Bharucha and; S.C. Sen, JJ.1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. The first respondent to the appeal was appointed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, by its order dated 17-8-1994 in CRP No. 1388 of 1994, Receiver of Gurdwara Bir Baba Budha Saheb pursuant to a compromise. Thereafter a civil miscellaneous application was filed by the appellant in that CRP with an application to summon the Receiver on the next date of hearing. The civil miscellaneous application made serious allegations against the first respondent. The High Court, by the impugned order, dismissed the civil miscellaneous application, without requiring the attendance of the first respondent, holding that no case for recalling the order appointing him a Receiver had been made out. There is a statement on affidavit made by the appellant that the High Court did not go into the merits of the allegations made against the first respondent and this is borne out by counsel on the other side.4. A Receiver holds property t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC2045; 1997(93)ELT325(SC); JT1996(11)SC466; 1996(9)SCALE280; (1997)1SCC146; [1996]Supp9SCR553
1. The short question here relates to the interpretation of Tariff Item 14D of the Central Excise Tariff. It reads thus:Synthetic organic dyestuffs (including pigment dyestuffs) and synthetic organic derivatives used in any dyeing process.The question is, do the words 'used in any dyeing process' qualify synthetic organic dyestuffs and synthetic organic derivatives or only synthetic organic derivatives.2. Dyestuffs are used in the dyeing process and, therefore, the use of the words 'used in any dyeing process' with reference to dyestuffs would be tautology. The words can, therefore, apply only to synthetic derivatives which are used in the dyeing process.3. This is the view that was taken by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal in an earlier judgment, which has been followed by the Tribunal in the present case.4. The words being so clear, we do not think that assistance from any external source for their interpretation is called for.5. The appeal is dismissed, with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1997(89)ELT444(SC); (1997)10SCC279
1. These appeals arise out of the judgments and orders of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. The principal order under challenge is in Civil Appeal No. 4169 of 1986. In the other appeal the aforementioned judgment and order was followed. The facts are similar and can be briefly stated.2. The appellants imported manganese ore from Moanda in Africa. They used such ore in the dry batteries which they made. The Revenue sought to levy Customs duty upon the said manganese ore under Heading 25.01 /32(3) of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The appellants contended that the said manganese ore fell under Heading 26.01(1). The Tribunal noted that it was an agreed position that the imported goods were 'ore', 'ore.-concentrate' and were 'ore belonging to certain known 'mineralogical species'. The Tribunal, however, came to the conclusion that the said manganese ore was natural battery grade manganese dioxide classifiable under Heading 25.02/32(3):3. For th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1997ACJ361; AIR1997SC1923; 1997(4)ALT27(SC); [1997]89CompCas217(SC); 1997(2)CTC211; JT1996(11)SC597; 1997(1)SCALE41; (1997)1SCC757; [1996]Supp9SCR576
ORDER1. This special leave petition is from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated December 6, 1995 made in LPA No. 239 of 1993.2. The admitted position is that the petitioner is a registered contractor with the Indian Oil Corporation for transportation of the petroleum products within Andhra Pradesh from Vishakhapatnam to Hyderabad. It would appear that he engaged one P. Nirmala, the owner bearing truck No. DHL 2182 and entrusted 12000 Lts. of oil for delivery at Hyderabad on July 9, 1982. It is now not in dispute that on account of the accident of the truck there was a leakage of oil. As a consequence, only 1755 Lts. were delivered resulting in shortage of the rest, namely 10245 Lts. The suit was filed by the petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs. 66,212.36 with interest against P. Nirmala, the truck owner and the insurer, Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd., respondent No. 4 in the special leave petition. The Trial Court decreed the s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1997(96)ELT224(SC); (1998)9SCC285
ORDER1. The respondents do not appear.2. The goods imported by the respondents were cleared at the Paradip port in the State of Orissa. The goods were then transported to Howrah in the Stale of West Bengal and were seized there by the Customs authorities in West Bengal on the ground that they had been imported on the strength of fictitious licences. In proceedings consequent upon the seizure it was held that the goods had been imported on fictitious licences and were liable to confiscation. The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, in the order under appeal, held that the Customs authorities in West Bengal had no jurisdiction to pass such order.3. There had also been certain proceedings in the Calcutta High Court, with which we are not here concerned, except to note that the High Court had ordered the appellants to refund the amount of Rs 50 lakhs paid to them by the respondents in connection with the aforesaid proceedings before the West Bengal Customs authorities wit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)10SCC582; [1996]Supp9SCR570
1. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Delhi High Court, made on August 1, 1985 dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the conclusion reached and the findings recorded by the authorities under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, (44 of 1954) (for short, the 'Act') are a question of fact and exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution could not be reopened by the Court. With a view to find out whether the conclusion reached by the learned Judges is correct in law, it is necessary to state the material facts.2. One Chandu Mal Sippy, father of respondent Nos. 4 and 5, Khushi Ram Sippy and Narain Dutt Sippy, was a resident of Nawabshah in West Pakistan. While the father and one of his brothers remained in Pakistan, after the partition of India domain into Pakistan and India, the said respondents migrated in 1947 to India. Their father died some time in the last week of April 1955 in Pakistan. They filed their appl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1998(8)SC211; RLW1999(2)SC210; (1998)9SCC303
ORDER1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29-10-1991 passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 360 DB of 1989. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has affirmed the conviction and sentence passed against the appellants by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana in Sessions Case No. 42 of 1988. The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant Lachhmi Devi and the other two appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and passed the sentence of life imprisonment against them. They were, however, acquitted of the charges under Sections 498A and 304B of the IPC. The said convicted accused faced the trial before the learned Sessions Judge in connection with the death of Sarita alias Sunita alias Veena on 4-10-1988 at about 8.00 a.m. The said Sarita died within four years of her marriage in her matrimonial home, the marriage being solemnised on 12-7-1985. Sarita was admitted in the C.M.C. Hospit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IXAD(SC)332; AIR1997SC1567; (1998)1CALLT10(SC); [1997(75)FLR161]; JT1996(10)SC727; 1996(8)SCALE706; (1996)11SCC658; [1996]Supp9SCR543; 1997(1)SLJ225(SC); (1997)1UPLBEC1
ORDERG.T. Nanavati, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No 8914 of 1983.2. In February 1981, the Director of Medical and health Services U.P., invited applications for appointment as lecturers on ad hoc basis in different disciplines in Medical Colleges of the State. The appellant and respondent No. 4 applied for the post of lecturer in Orthopaedics. Both of them were interviewed by the Selection Board on 3.9.81. the Director of Medical Education prepared a panel of selected candidates and recommended their names to the Government for appointment. In February 1982, the Public Service Commission U.P. (PSC for short) gave an advertisement inviting applications for the posts of lecturers in Orthopaedics and other specialities in different medical colleges of the State. A Master's Degree in the speciality with three years' teaching experience including one year's teaching experience after post-graduatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IXAD(SC)387; AIR1997SC2364; 1997(1)ALT5(SC); JT1996(10)SC834; 1996(9)SCALE2; (1997)1SCC68; 1997(1)UJ218(SC)
The appelltant/defendant in Civil Suit. No.9-A/67 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge. Class-I, Rajandgaon, has suffered a decree at the hands of the trial Judge, directing the removal Of the electric line with poles situated in the land bearing Kh. No. 908/2 area 1.32 acres at village Nandai. In addition to that, the appellant was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.1770/- towards past damages and to pay future damages @ 5/- per day to the plaintiff (respondent-herein) from the date of institution of suit till the removal of electric line.Aggrieved by decree, an appeal was preferred to the first Additional District judge, Durg, at Rajnadgaon, The appellate court dismissed the appeal by judgment and decree dated 5.2.1984. Still aggreived, he preferred a second appeal in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur. The High Court modified the decree by removing the mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the electric line with poles but sustained the decree for damages, p...
Tag this Judgment!