Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC526; [1998]92CompCas72(SC); JT1997(10)SC214; 1997(7)SCALE698; (1998)1SCC720; [1997]Supp6SCR572; 1998(1)LC327(SC)
M. Jagannadha Rao, J. 1. Hindustan Lever Ltd. has filed this Civil Appeal under Section 55 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (hereinafter called the Act) against the order of the Monopolies & Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (hereinafter called the Commission). The order is dated 5/6 November, 1997 and is passed in Injunction Application No. 336 of 1997 filed in the Main Case No. 405 of 1997.2. The two respondents are Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. and Miss Pallavi S. Desai. The said respondents were the complainants 1 and 2 respectively in the main case No. 405 of 1997 which is pending before the Commission. By virtue of the impugned order, certain directions in the nature of temporary injunction have been granted in favour of the respondent-complainants and against the appellant. It is to be noted further that the Commission, which directed a panel of experts to give its opinion on the issue involved, made it clear that the order that was being passed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1998)8SCC605
1. The appellant has been found guilty for offences under Sections 304-B, 306, 498-A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code by both the courts below on the allegation that he had maltreated his wife, the deceased, on account of her bringing insufficient dowry which caused her death by her committing suicide which he had abetted, and that he inflicted cruelty on her and finally destroyed evidence of the offence by putting her body to flames without informing her parental family. Legal presumptions have been raised from the fact that the appellant had married the deceased within 7 years of her death, and that whenever she visited her parental house, she was found complaining about the ill-treatment meted out to her by the appellant. The last complaint on that account was revealed from her visit to her parental family about a month prior to the date of her death. PW 4, the brother and PW 5, the mother have deposed to that effect setting in motion the presumption reusable under Section 304B IPC....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1999)236CTR(SC)34; [1999]236ITR34(SC)
1. The challenge in this case is to the reopening of the assessment of Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. We have been shown the recorded reasons for reopening under Section 147(a). The case of the Revenue was that the assessee was charging to its profit and loss account, fiscal duties paid during the year as well as labour charges, power, fuel, wages, chemicals, etc. However, while valuing its closing stock, the elements of fiscal duty and the other direct manufacturing costs were not included. This resulted in under valuation of inventories and understatement of profits. This information was obtained by the Revenue in a subsequent year's assessment proceeding.2. Mr. Vellapally, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has argued that the Department has made a grievous error in coming to this conclusion.3. In this case, we do not have to give a final decision as to whether there is suppression of material facts by the assessee or not. We have only to see whether there was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1555; JT1998(4)SC348; (1998)2SCC204
ORDER1. A copy of the Resolution dated 16-12-1997 of the Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice has been placed before us to show that the requisite enlargement of the terms of reference of the First National Judicial Pay Commission (Shetty Commission) has been made to enable the Commission to make recommendations even in the nature of interim reliefs. We appreciate the promptness with which the Central Government has responded to this need, at the behest of the learned Additional Solicitor General. No further mention of this requirement is, therefore, necessary.2. With regard to the requirement of compliance by every State/Union Territories of the ultimate paragraph of our order dated 13-11-1997, the response of the States/Union Territories, in substance, is of disinclination, to say the least, to avail of this mode for the consideration of this matter pertaining to the staff of the subordinate courts. In view of the past experience and the growing discontent among the staff...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1998)150CTR(SC)209; (1998)2SCC366
ORDER1. Although several questions of law were raised before the High Court, we are here concerned only with the following two questions: '(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the fact that the net gain of Rs. 48,984 was made by the assessee-company from fluctuations in the rate of foreign exchange while repaying the instalments of the foreign loan for the Assessment Year 1960-61, the appropriate part of the said gain (i.e. after excluding that portion of it which is attributable to the element of interest) was gain on capital account which went to reduce the 'actual cost' of the depreciable assets for computing depreciation for the Assessment Year 1960-1961? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the fact that the net loss of Rs. 29,063 and net loss of Rs. 58,28,839 accrued to the assessee-company from the fluctuations in the rate of foreign exchange for the Assessment Year 1961-62, the appropr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1998]233ITR203(SC); (1998)8SCC667
ORDER1. This case is about writing off of bad debts. 2. It is well settled that whether a debt has become bad or the point of time when it became bad are pure questions of fact. 3. There is no question of law involved in this appeal. We, therefore, declined to go into the controversy raised. The appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC2820; 1998(2)ALD(Cri)45; 1998CriLJ1410; 1998(1)Crimes119(SC); JT1998(1)SC5; 1998(1)SCALE7
ORDERNanavati, J.1. This appeal is filed by the father of Gobind Ram, who was killed by accused Kharaiti Lal, on 24.11.1985 at about 9.30 p.m. The appellant Kharaiti Lal was acquitted by the High Court by allowing his appeal against the order of conviction passed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur in sessions case 20/86 (sessions trial No. 46/86)2. Along with Kharaiti Lal, 3 other accused were also tried for the murder of Gobind Ram and for causing injuries to Subhash Chander, P.W. 7. In order to prove its case the prosecuting had examined P.W. 6 Vijay Kumar and P.W. 7 Subhash Chander. The trial court believed both these witnesses with respect to participation in the incident by Kharaiti Lal. It did not believe their evidence with respect to the remaining 3 accused. Thus they were acquitted and Kharaiti Lal was convicted under Section 302 IPC.3. The High Court on reappreciation of evidence did not think it safe to rely upon the evidence of the two eye witnesses. The H...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC1222; JT1997(10)SC235; 1998(7)SCALE704; (1998)1SCC680; [1997]Supp6SCR582; 1998(1)LC265(SC); (1998)1UPLBEC192
S.C. Agrawal, J.1. These matters raise common question relating to the validity of the provisions contained in Section 14 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in so far as the said provision provides for removal of the Pradhan of a Gram Sabha by a majority of two-thirds of the members of the Gram Panchayat present and voting.2. The Act was enacted by the U.P. Legislature to establish and develop Local Self-Government in the rural areas of the State and to make better provision for village administration and development. The Act amongst other things makes provision for establishment and Constitution of Gram Sabhas and Gram Panchayats, election of Pradhans and Up-Pradhans of Gram Sabhas and members of Gram Panchayats and removal of Pradhans and Up-Pradhans. The election to the office of the Pradhan or Up-Pradhan of. a Gram Sabha and a member of a Gram Panchayat is required to be held by secret ballot in the manner prescribed (Section 12A). Under the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC1493; 1998(59)ECC37; 1998(97)ELT193(SC); JT1997(10)SC194; 1997(7)SCALE748; (1998)1SCC665; [1997]Supp6SCR528
J U D G M E N TThe following Judgement of the Court was delivered: S.C.AGRAWAL,J.CIVIL APPEALS NOS. 1852-53/1991.2516-21/1991 AND 11899/1996 These appeals by the Revenue raise a common question, namely, whether paper based laminated Sheets/Boards are classifiable for the purpose of excise duty under Heading 3920.21 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 [hereinafter referred to as `the Act'] as claimed by the Revenue or under Heading 4818.90 of the said Schedule till February 28,1988 and under Heading 4823.90 of the said Schedule on and after March 1,1988 as found by the Customs Excise & Gold [Control] Appellate Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal'].M/s Wood Polymers Ltd., the respondent in Civil Appeals Nos.1852-53 of 1991, manufactures (i) paper based decorative laminated sheets, (ii) cotton fabric based laminates and (iii) paper based insulators electrical grade. The said products were classified by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise under Chapt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC877; 1998(2)ALLMR(SC)57; JT1997(10)SC174; 1997(7)SCALE640; (1998)2SCC171; [1997]Supp6SCR543
K. Venkataswami, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal by special leave has arisen under the following circumstances :-'3. The appellants are the partners of a suit firm called 'M/s. Paramount Builders'. The partnership was entered into on 29.11.1979 with the following individuals as partners :S. No. Name of Partners Share 1. Shri Sharad Vasant Kotak 15% 2. Shri Dilip Vasant Kotak 15% 3. Shri Anil Dhirendra Kotak 15% 4. Smt. Hemkuver Vasant Kotak 15% 5. Smt. Lilavati Dhirendra Kotak 15% 6. Shri Mohanlal Hinji Chawda 12 1/2% 7. Shri Ramniklal Mohanlal Chawda 12 1/2%4. The said partnership firm was registered on 15.12.1980 under Registration No. 158675 with the Registrar of Firms. On 6.5.1986, Shri Mohanlal Hinji Chawda, a partner of the firm (Sr. No. 6 above) died and in his place, his widow Smt. Jijiben Mohanlal Chawda was admitted as a partner in the firm. After the admission of the said Smt. Jijiben Mohanlal Chawda, another deed of partnership was made consisting of the old six partners ...
Tag this Judgment!