Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1997(94)ELT472(SC); JT1998(7)SC229; (1998)9SCC180
ORDER1. These appeals relate to what are called Tran shippers and would stand covered in favour of the Customs authorities by the judgment of a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court, in Chowgule & Co. (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, : 1987(28)ELT39(SC) but for the argument advanced on behalf of the owners of the Tran shippers that the judgment requires consideration.2. The Division Bench said: '14. The further question is whether the vessels which have been converted into Tran shippers to be used in Indian territorial waters for topping up bulk carriers, can be said to be vessels for home consumption merely on that account, even though when they entered Indian territorial waters they came under their own power as ocean-going vessels and notwithstanding that they are still capable of being used as ocean-going vessels and are in fact so used during the off-season when it is not practicable to do topping-up operations and, for that matter, even during the fair season when they have necess...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)131; JT1996(7)SC234; 1999(3)SCALE745a; (1996)11SCC740; [1996]Supp4SCR647; (1997)1UPLBEC435
O R D E R This application is filed by the State of Tamil Nadu requesting for modification of the Order dated July 22, 1996 and to permit the State Government to implement the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Classes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of seats in Educational Institutions and of appointments or posts in the Services under the State) Act, 1993. By Order dated July 22, 1996, this Court had directed inter alia that "order dated 18.8.94 shall apply and continue to apply for the academic year 1996-97 as well." This direction was made because this Court was of the opinion that "the same order and directions which were made for the academic year 1995-96 with respect to the extent of reservation in the matter of admission to Medical, Engineering and other educational institutions in Tamil Nadu shall be continued this year also." The purport of the Order dated August 18, 1994 is this: First make the admissions applying the rule of 69% reservation in favour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)760; AIR1997SC452; JT1996(7)SC574; 1996(6)SCALE321; (1996)10SCC170; [1996]Supp4SCR706
1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides.4. Notification under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the 'Act') was published on January 23, 1990 acquiring a large extent of the land for urbanisation and commercial purpose in Sectors No. 4A and 6 of Daruhera and Malpura Village in District Rewari. The respondents challenged the validity of the notification in the High Court on two grounds. Firstly, that there was a policy of the Government to exclude from acquisition the lands on which buildings have been constructed and secondly, the respondents had constructed shops before notification under Section 4(1) was published and, therefore, their land is liable to be excluded from the notification. The High Court in the impugned order made in Writ Petition No. 6804/91 on February 11, 1992 recorded a finding that the respondents had constructed the shops prior to the issue of the notification. There was general policy to exclude from ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)733; AIR1996SC3504; JT1996(7)SC460; 1996(6)SCALE189; (1996)10SCC293; [1996]Supp4SCR700
ORDER1. This special leave petition arises from the judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench made on May 15, 1996 in First Appeal No. 17/89. The admitted position is that one Dwarka Prasad Mathur was a member of the Secretarial Staff Housing Cooperative Society. Plot No. 14-C was allotted to him as a member and thereon he had constructed a house. It is the case of the petitioner that he had entered into an oral agreement of sale with him to purchase the house for a consideration of Rs. 20000 subject to his obtaining permission for transfer from the Society as per the law. It is his case that he had paid up the amount due from Dwarka Prasad Mathur to the Society and became member of the Society as per the resolution passed by the Society. But before he got the possession, surprise pranced upon him in the form of a decree of specific performance obtained by the second respondent Narvedeshwar Prasad Saxena in O.S. No. 77-A of 1976, dated October 11,1976. So he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)482; AIR1996SC2667; (1996)135CTR(SC)443; [1996]222ITR112(SC); JT1996(7)SC280; 1996(5)SCALE843; (1996)10SCC575; [1996]Supp4SCR651
ORDERSuhas C. Sen, J.1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal referred the following question of law arising out of its order to the High Court for its opinion :Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amounts received by the assessee by way of under charges, do not constitute its trading receipts, and that accordingly neither the surplus of the receipts remaining unpaid nor the amounts transferred by the assessee to the profit and loss accounts could be assessed as the income of the assessee in the years 1953-54, 1956-57, 1957-58, 1958-59, 1959-60, 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63?2. At all material times, Karam Chand Thapar & Others, the assessee herein, carried on business as del credere agent of the collieries and also as agent of the purchasers of coal. It acted, so to speak, as a double agent. The coal sold by the collieries were sent by wagons to various purchasers FOR. The purchasers paid for the freight. Even if the wagons ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)175; AIR1996SC2739; 2003(89)ECC755; 1996(86)ELT478(SC); JT1996(11)SC97; 1996(5)SCALE839; (1996)5SCC619; [1996]Supp4SCR673
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. The correctness of order of the High Court of Delhi dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants before it is under challenge.2. The appellants imported liquid caustic soda in bulk, on which Customs, auxiliary and countervailing duty was payable at the aggregate rate of 92.5 per cent. The State Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Corporation of India Ltd. (the 3rd respondents) also imported caustic soda but were required to pay duty thereon only at the rate of 10 per cent because of an exemption granted to them in the public interest under the terms of Section 25(2) of the Customs Act. The writ petition was filed by the appellants on the ground that there was discrimination; the appellants were also entitled to the exemption granted to the 3rd respondents. The writ petition prayed for the grant of such exemption; and, in the alternative, that the exemption in favour of the 3rd respondents should be declared null and void.3. It is not now in dispute that the case w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)570; [1996(74)FLR2239]; JT1996(7)SC483; (1997)ILLJ49SC; 1996(6)SCALE186; (1996)6SCC204; [1996]Supp4SCR703; 1996(3)SLJ131(SC); (1997)1UPLBEC576
ORDER1. This special leave petition arises from the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court made on March 4, 1996 in W.A. No. 111/96. The admitted position is that petitioner was convicted for an offence under Section 509, IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-. The conviction and sentence had become final. Subsequently, the petitioner sought for a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short, the 'Act'] for adjudication of his dismissal from service. The Central Government had refused to refer the dispute. Consequently, he filed the writ petition in the High Court. The learned single Judge by judgment dated September 19, 1995 allowed the writ petition and directed the Central Government to make a reference to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication whether his dismissal from service was in accordance with law. On appeal, the Division Bench modified the order of the learned single Judge and on the basis of the conce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)457; AIR1996SC2610; JT1996(7)SC322; 1996(6)SCALE17; (1996)10SCC11; [1996]Supp4SCR680
ORDERS.B. Majmudar, J.1. These civil appeals, arising out of special leave to appeal granted against a common judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in three writ petitions moved by the appellants, raise a common question as to whether Rule 9 of the Bihar & Orissa Excise Rules, 1919 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules') framed under Bihar Excise Act, 1915 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is ultra vires the provisions of the said Act and in the alternative whether the said rule covers appellants' distilleries which are manufacturing not only denatured spirit but also potable liquor. The appellants' aforesaid twin contentions have been repelled by the High Court and that is how they are before us in these appeals.Introductory facts2. A few relevant facts leading to these proceedings may be noted at this stage. Appellant in Civil Appeal Nos. 4762-63 of 1996 is the licencee in respect of two distilleries, one situated at Lauriya and another at Mirganj in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC460; 1997(57)ECC72; 1996(86)ELT457(SC); JT1996(11)SC101; 1996(5)SCALE833; (1996)6SCC115; [1996]Supp4SCR614
ORDERS.P. Bharucha, J.1. The appellants manufacture nylon yarn using a raw material known as caprolactam. The raw material is subjected to polymerization. This is a reversible process. After polymerization the resultant polycaprolactam is spun to obtain nylon yarn. Waste in solid form containing poly-caprolactam is obtained at various stages of the process of manufacture. To fully use caprolactam, which is expensive and duty paid, the appellants have installed equipment by which caprolactam is recovered from the aforementioned waste and re-cycled into the process. The Excise authorities sought to treat the process of separation of caprolactam from the waste as an independent manufacturing process, and subjected it to duty. The claim of the appellants for refund of such duty was rejected. The Collector (appeals) upheld the rejection, as did the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. Hence this appeal.2. Caprolactam in flakes is used as the original raw material. The caprol...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIIAD(SC)304; [1996(74)FLR2409]; JT1996(7)SC668; 1996(6)SCALE308; (1996)6SCC111; [1996]Supp4SCR642; 1996(3)SLJ108(SC)
ORDER1. We have heard learned Counsel on both sides.2. Initially, the special leave petition was filed against an order of the learned Single Judge made on September 23, 1991 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20281 of 1988 directing the State to promote Gayatri Devi Pandey to the post of Vocational Guidance Counsellor. On August 21, 1995, when the matter was heard for some time, it was suggested to the counsel whether the writ petition itself could be disposed of on merits, instead of remitting the matter to the High Court for decision on merits. In fairness, both the counsel agreed that the writ petition itself could be the writ petition pending in the High Court was withdrawn. We have heard the petition on merits. Consequently, all the relevant material has been placed before us.3. Smt. Gayatri Devi was initially appointed as a School Psychologist on December 17, 1962, she joined the post on January 3, 1963 and was selected on regular basis by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commissi...
Tag this Judgment!