Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1998(8)SC25; (1998)9SCC379
ORDER1. Leave granted. We have heard Shri K. Parasaran, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and Shri K.N. Shukla, learned Senior Counsel for the contesting respondents-State authorities.2. Looking to the contention of the appellants that the State of Tamil Nadu has already recovered Central sales tax for the same transaction from them and therefore they are not liable to pay the State sales tax to State of M.P. for the same transaction and therefore, the assessment made by the authorities of the State of M.P. would be liable to be set aside, we find that as the appellants themselves have gone in appeal before the Appellate Commissioner of Sales Tax, till that appeal is decided it is just and proper to order that there shall be stay of collection of the M.P. State sales tax from the appellants provided the appellants satisfy the authorities concerned of the State of M.P. that in respect of the same transaction it had paid the Central sales tax in the State of Tamil Nadu. There wil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC1463; JT1997(9)SC397; (1998)9SCC499; [1997]Supp5SCR585
Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. This appeal is from an order of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal dated 6th of July, 1994. It pertains to the promotion of Headmasters/Headmistresses of Government High Schools and Lecturers of Higher Secondary Schools to Class II (Gazetted) posts in the School and Inspection cadre of the State of Himachal Pradesh under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules of 1980,2. Prior to the coming into force of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for Class II posts (Gazetted) in the School and Inspection cadre (hereinafter referred to as 'the Recruitment Rules of 1980') in the Department of Education, Himachal Pradesh, which Rules came into force on 7.6.1980, the relevant Rules in force were the Rules of 1968. It seems that there were irregularities in complying with the Rules of 1968. After the Recruitment Rules of 1980 came into force, these Rules were also not being properly implemented. The Education Department, State of Himachal Pradesh had, from time to tim...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1997(9)SC395; (1998)1SCC449; [1997]Supp5SCR581; (1998)1UPLBEC8
Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. At the material time, respondent No.l was holding the post of Senior Prosecuting Officer, Agra. The date of birth of respondent No. 1 was 20.10.1919. In the ordinary course, he would have retired on superannuation on attaining the age of 58 years on 20th of October, 1977, The first respondent however took voluntary retirement after completion of thirty one and a half years of service on 12th of April, 1976. He has been granted retirement benefits including pension and gratuity accordingly. Respondent No.l took voluntary retirement under the provisions Fundamental Rule 56 Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rules. Under Rule 56(c), 'the Government servant may by notice to the appointing authority voluntarily retire at any time after attaining the age of 45 years or after he has completed qualifying service fo 20 years'. By the Uttar Pradesh Fundamental Rule 56 (Amendment Act), 1976, certain amendments were made to Rule 56, Under one such amendment, Sub-Clause (e) of Rule 5...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC680; JT1997(9)SC408; 1997(7)SCALE301; (1998)2SCC402; [1997]Supp5SCR573; (1998)1UPLBEC272
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. The question which arises for consideration in this appeal relates to the admission to first year M.B.B.S. Course for the session 1996-97 to the Rohtak Medical College, respondent No. 2.2. Seats in different medical colleges in the State of Haryana are filled on the basis of M.B.B.S. Entrance examination Rohtak Medical College, respondent No. 2 is affiliated to Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak and for the session 1996-97 it had 60 M.B.B.S. free seats to which admission had to be made in the first year of the said course. Out of this 49 seats were to be filled from the open category candidates while remaining 11 seats were reserved for backward class candidates.3. In the entrance examination one Sunil Yadav, on the basis of his marks, had secured position at serial No. l in the category of backward class quota while in the general category he had been placed at merit position No. 62 The seats to the medical colleges are filled on the basis of counselling where cand...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC4415; 1998(1)ALLMR(SC)459; JT1997(9)SC490; (1998)IIMLJ48(SC); (1998)1SCC500; [1997]Supp5SCR593
1. Leave granted. We have learned counsel for the parties.2. The short question is whether an appeal would lie before a Division Bench of the High Court against an order of the learned Single Judge rendered by him in proceedings under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1960 (hereinafter refer to as 'the Act'). Learned Single Judge passed an order dated 15.11.1994 in Suit No. 411/93 decreeing the suit in terms thereof. When an appeal was carried to the Division Bench of the High Court against the said order, it was contended on behalf of the respondents that the appeal was not maintainable in view of Sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the Act. The said provision certainly bars any appeal or revision against any order passed by the court under Section 6 of the Act. To that extent the decision of the Division Bench cannot be found fault with. However, one contention canvassed by learned counsel for the appellant requires closer scrutiny. He submitted that even if an appeal would not lie u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998(1)ALD(Cri)86; [1998]91CompCas413(SC); 1998CriLJ841; JT1997(9)SC379; 1997(6)SCALE351; (1998)1SCC52; [1997]Supp5SCR566
K.T. Thomas, J.1. Leave granted.2. When the Enforcement Directorate (under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, for short 'FERA') moved the High Court of Calcutta challenging an order passed by a sessions judge granting anticipatory bail to the respondent, a Division Bench of the High Court made the position worse for the Enforcement Directorate (for short the Directorate). It necessitated the Directorate to move this,court with the special leave petition.3. The officials of the Directorate wanted to interrogate the respondent in connection with recovery of certain documents and other materials in a raid conducted in the residential premises of the respondent. So they issued summons to the respondent under Section 40 of FERA to appear before the officials at New Delhi. But the respondent, instead of appearing in response to the summons, approached the High Court with a writ petition challenging the summons and praying for interim orders restraining the officials from proceeding with the su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998(99)ELT197(SC); JT1998(9)SC149; (1998)9SCC656
Bharucha, J.1. The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, in the judgments and orders under appeal, held that quicklime and hydrated lime were not exigible to excise duty. The conclusion was based upon Chapter Note 2 of Chapter 25 of the Central Excise Tariff as it read at the relevant time. Chapter 25 covered salt, sulphur, clay and stone, plastering materials, lime and cement. Chapter Note 2 read thus:'2. Headings Nos. 25.01, 25.03 and 25.05 cover only products which have been washed (even with chemical substances, eliminating the impurities without changing the structure of the product), crushed, grounded, powdered, levigated, sifted, screened, or concentrated by flotation, magnetic separation or other mechanical or physical processes (except crystallisation), but not products that have been roasted, calcined or obtained by mixing.'2. It is not in dispute that the quicklime and hydrated lime is obtained by calcination. Apparently, therefore, it would fall outside the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1999(1)CTC640; (1999)IILLJ147SC; (1998)9SCC696
ORDER1. The respondent was employed as a clerk in the Government High School, Raipur, Rasulpur on 26-4-1976. He was subsequently posted as a clerk in the Government High School, Bharta Khurd, (Jalandhar). On 9-5-1979 he proceeded on leave. He did not rejoin on the due date. He submitted his applications for extension of leave from time to time. As the respondent did not join duty till 2-2-1980, his services were terminated by the appellants by an order dated 2-2-1980. In March 1980, the respondent wanted to resume duty when he was informed that his services were already terminated by an order dated 2-2-1980.2. For six years thereafter the respondent did not take any action. On 8-11-1986 he filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that the order of 2-2-1980 terminating his services was illegal, invalid and without jurisdiction. One of the issues which was raised at the trial was whether the suit was barred by limitation. The trial court held that because the order of termination was nul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC2927; 1998(1)ALD(Cri)258; 2000(121)ELT14(SC); JT1997(9)SC641; (1998)1SCC48
1. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 104 of 1988.2. The truck of the respondent was ordered to be confiscated by the Assistant Conservator of Forests, as it was found involved in commission of a forest offence. That order was confirmed by the Conservator of Forests. Against his order, the respondent preferred an appeal to the Sessions Court but it was dismissed. Therefore, he approached the High Court with a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court set aside the order of confiscation on the ground that the authorities had failed to establish that the owner of the truck had any knowledge that his truck was likely to be used for carrying forest produce in contravention of the provision of the Forest Act. This finding was based upon the evidence on the record. Therefore, we do not consider it proper to interfere with such finding.3. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal ....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1999LC175(SC); JT1998(9)SC99; (1998)9SCC708
ORDER1. By order dated 11-10-1993, leave has been granted confined to the direction in the impugned judgment of the High Court regarding refund of the amount of excise duty that has been paid by the respondent to the appellant on the import of rectified spirit for use in the manufacture of copper by the respondent. The High Court has held that the State Legislature was not competent to impose excise duty on rectified spirit since it is not fit for human consumption. Shri Aruneshwar Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, sought to reopen the order granting special leave to appeal by raising the question about the correctness of the judgment of the High Court regarding the competence of the State Legislature to impose excise duty on the import of rectified spirit by the respondent. He has invited our attention to the decision of this Court in Vam Organic Chemicals Ltd. v. State of U.P., : [1997]1SCR403 and has submitted that since rectified spirit after adding of water ...
Tag this Judgment!