Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1998)8SCC632
ORDER1. In this petition, the vires of Section 9 of the CrPC Code (U.P. Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act 16 of 1976) has been challenged on the ground that the section is violative of Articles 19, 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Considering the importance of the point raised in Writ Petition No. 5883 of 1980, a Bench of this Court by an order dated 31-3-1981 referred the said writ petition to be considered by a larger Bench by noting that the point involved was a very substantial question of law as to the interpretation and application of various articles of the Constitution having far-reaching consequences, not only in the State of U.P. but in other States if they choose to follow suit and adopt the stand taken by the U.P. Legislature. It was also indicated in the said order that Section 438 of the CrPC Code as introduced by Parliament is applicable to all the States.2. It however appears that the said writ petition came up before a Constitution Bench of this Court and the same was d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)598; AIR1997SC11; (1997)1CALLT103(SC); 1996(6)SCALE237; (1996)10SCC174; [1996]Supp4SCR411
1. Leave granted.2. We make it clear at the outset that we are not expressing any opinion on merits as regards the contentious controversy between the parties in the dispute in several suits in the High Court on the original side and appeals arising thereunder and some order passed by this Court in that behalf. We are concerned in this appeal with the legality of the order of the learned Single Judge in review order dated December 23, 1994 in appeal No. 514/92.3. The admitted position is that there was an agreement between Terai Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. said to be having shares and represented by Ajit Kumar Agrawal as its Managing Director who was said to be in the management of Dharanipur Tea Estate and the appellant for sale of tender and good quality green tea leaves of the Dharanipur Tea Estate and in consideration thereof a sum of Rs 20 lakhs was advanced. It is not in dispute that Rs. 20 lakhs came to be deposited with a Court Receiver in a pending suit. The appellant filed the suit No....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC2696; 1996(86)ELT460(SC); 1996(5)SCALE873; (1996)10SCC520; [1996]Supp4SCR418
ORDER1. The 1st, respondents imported RBD palm oil during the period November, 1978, to March 1979, and cleared the same in the quantity of 13,500 metric tonnes. Import of the said oil was permissible. On 11th October, 1979, the 1st, respondents were served with show cause notices under Section 28 of the Customs Act and, on 21st January, 1980, with show cause notices under Section 124 thereof. The show cause notices stated that the said oil had been imported in containers made of stainless steel, which was a banned item, but which had been painted over to give the impression that they were made of mild steel. Thus, Customs duty had not been levied and the stainless steel containers were liable to be confiscated. The respondents were required to show cause there against. The respondent filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court on 8th February, 1980, impugning the issuance of the Section 28 and Section 124 show cause notices. On 22nd August, 1980 the High Court allowed the writ petit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)185; AIR1996SC2736; JT1996(7)SC216; 1996(5)SCALE793; (1996)5SCC460; [1996]Supp4SCR393
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. Leave granted.2. These appeals arc preferred against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court allowing the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh against the judgment of a learned Single Judge who had allowed the writ petition filed by the appellant. While we agree fully with the reasoning and conclusion of the Division Bench, we think it necessary at the same time to emphasise a few aspects relevant in the case of such contracts. First, the relevant facts briefly.3. For the excise year 1994-95, the appellant was the highest bidder for certain number of liquor shops. His bid in a sum of Rs. 11,67,00,000 was accepted, payable in monthly instalments of Rs. 97,25,000 each. After making the necessary deposits and after complying with other conditions, licences were granted to him and he commenced the business with effect from 1.4.1995. He failed to pay the monthly rental (licence fee) for the months of July and A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1998)8SCC427
ORDER1. We are concerned in these appeals against the judgment of the High Court at Allahabad related to the Assessment Years 1963-64, 1965-66, 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73. The issue relates to assessment for the purposes of sales tax of un spun woollen carpet yarn or 'Kati'. The High Court placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in CST v. Sarin Textiles Mills, : AIR1975SC1262 to hold that 'Kati' was not exempt from tax. 2. In the present case, the appellant-assessee claims exemption under a notification dated 1-2-1968; the exemption is provided to yarn of all kinds, including un spun fibre used in weaving, other than, among others, woollen carpet yarn. This Court, in the judgment aforementioned, was concerned with other notifications that referred to yarn of all kinds, including un spun fibres used in weaving. The question this Court addressed itself to was whether woollen carpet yarn or 'Kati', which was admittedly un spun fibre was used in weaving within the contemplation o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC3501; 1996(6)SCALE217; (1996)11SCC475; [1996]Supp4SCR424
1. An interesting question of law has been raised in this case. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition, 1894 (1 of 1894) (for short, the 'Act') was published in the State Gazette on September 24, 1981 acquiring an extent of 137 acres of land for housing scheme of the appellant. We are concerned with 2 acres 28 gunthas of land belonging to the respondent Nos. 3 to 7 in this appeal. The objections under Section 5-A of the Act were filed by the respondents on November 12, 1981. He appeared through counsel on November 21, 1981 and sought further time to file further objections. The matter was posted for November 25, 1981. He filed a memo stating that the additional objections already filed on November 12, 1981 would be treated as on record and sought time for hearing and accordingly the matter was posted for November 30, 1981 on which date the respondent appeared neither in person nor through counsel. The Land Acquisition Officer, therefore, considered the objections and s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1998)8SCC740
ORDER1. This appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant for setting aside the different orders passed by the Commissioner, Financial Commissioner and the High Court in connection with land ceiling case.2. It appears that proceeding for fixation of the ceiling was initiated against the original landholder on 27-7-1959 under the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), In that proceeding on 19-10-1959 an order was passed by the Collector, declaring 23 standard acres and 7 1/2 units as surplus. The appeal filed on behalf of the original landholder was dismissed on 20-5-1960. However, the writ petition filed before the High Court was allowed on 15-12-1961. While allowing the writ petition, the High Court said:'The counsel for the parties are agreed that this writ should be allowed and the impugned order quashed leaving it to the department concerned to determine the matter in the light of legal position as laid down by a DB of this Court in Jaga...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC2787; 1996(2)ALD(Cri)526; 1996CriLJ4147; 1997(89)ELT433(SC); (1997)1GLR420; JT1996(7)SC256; 1996(5)SCALE658; (1996)6SCC255; [1996]Supp4SCR382
ORDERG.B. Pattanaik, J1. Leave granted. 2. Both these appeals arise out of the same judgment of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Valsad dated 7th of May, 1982 in Criminal Case No. 60 of 1980 and therefore heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. On the basis of a complaint filed by the customs authorities both these appellants stood charged of having committed the offences under Section 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on the allegation that on the date of occurrence they were found to be carrying silver without any transport voucher within the specified area which is duly notified under Section 11-K of the Act. The appellants denied their complicity and pleaded not guilty. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate convicted the appellants under Section 135 of the Act and sentenced them to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 4,000, in default, undergo further rigorous imprisonme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)775; JT1996(8)SC40; 1996(2)KLT784(SC); (1997)1MLJ61(SC); 1996(6)SCALE311; (1996)6SCC218; [1996]Supp4SCR403
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment and order dated August 10, 1995 of the Kerala High Court made in A.S. Nos. 147 and 303 of 1987. The appellants were the plaintiffs. The first respondent and her son Sailesh were defendants in O.S. No. 56/80 for partition between the co-parceners. Therein Prabha Cinema Theatre situated in Cannanore was allotted to them in a compromise decree, subject to their paying a sum of Rs. 1,55,000/- each to the plaintiff and the second defendant therein within three months from the date of the compromise decree dated 22.10.80. Since the amount could not be paid, the theatre was brought to sale at a court auction dated June 24, 1982 and was sold for a sum of Rs. 5,44,000/-. The auction was to be confirmed on or before July 25, 1982. Since she was not in a position to pay the amount, she had through her brother, DW-2 'approached the appellant. In furtherance of the understanding, the appellant was to deposit Rs. 2,10,39...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VIAD(SC)1; 1996(2)ALD(Cri)689; 1996CriLJ4161; JT1996(7)SC635; 1996(5)SCALE683; (1996)10SCC281
M.K. Mukherjee, J.1. The appellant before us stands convicted and sentenced under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 by the Designated Court, Karnal for having been found in unlawful possession of a hand-grenade and a detonator. 2. According to the prosecution case on April 3, 1984 when Inspector Sada Ram (P.W. 5) and ASI Bachan singh (P.W. 4) of Panipat City Police Station along with other police personnel were proceeding along Jatal Road for investigating into a case they found the appellant coming from the opposite direction. On Suspicion they apprehended him and started interrogating. On interrogation he disclosed that he had kept concealed a hand-grenade underneath a Barh tree in front of his house. To work out that information the police party along with Pratap Singh (Pw 2), a member of the public, went to the house of the appellant. Reaching there the appellant brought out the hand-grenade along with a detonator after digging the earth from near a Barh tree. Inspect...
Tag this Judgment!