Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1999(81)FLR20]; JT1998(8)SC136; (1998)IIMLJ32(SC); (1998)1SCC196
ORDER1. The short question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether Respondent 1 (hereinafter to be referred to as the respondent) is an establishment within the meaning of that expression under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). 2. The respondent is carrying on the business of dry cleaning. According to the appellant, implicit in the dry cleaning of clothes is the ironing thereafter with the help of electric iron and therefore, the respondent has to be regarded as undertaking 'manufacturing process' and as it employs more than 10 employees, it is covered under the provisions of the Act. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the decision of this Court in Regional Director, ESI Corpn. v. Ram Chander, : [1988]2SCR1098 and sought to contend that the ratio of the said decision is applicable to the instant case. 4. In Ram Chander Case (Supra) the establishment was that of tailoring shop where electric i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998(99)ELT198(SC); (1998)8SCC692
1. One of the questions that falls for consideration in these appeals is whether the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act can be held to be applicable where a Rule in the Central Excise Rules is replaced by Notification dated August 6, 1977 issued by the Central Government in exercise of its Rule making power, Rules 10 and 10A were substituted. The said Rules as substituted in 1977 were replaced in 1980 by Section 11A of the Central Excise Act.2. Shri F.S. Nariman, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 2132/94, has placed reliance on the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. and Ors. v. Director of Enforcement, New Delhi : 1970CriLJ588 . In that case this Court was dealing with the provisions of Rule 132A of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, and it was held that the provisions of Section 6 of General Clauses Act could not be made applicable only to the repeal of the Rules and that the said pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1997(95)ELT164(SC); JT1998(8)SC533; (1998)1SCC303
ORDER1. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel products under a classification list dated 1-3-1986 which was duly approved on 23-10-1986. The appellant removed its products for the period August 1986 to February 1987. The appellant claimed benefit of the Exemption Notification No. 208/83-CE dated 1-8-1983 (as amended by 79/86-CE dated 10-2-1986). One of the conditions for grant of benefit under that notification was that the final products are made from any goods of the description specified in the corresponding entry in column (1) of the Table. By a show-cause notice dated 25-1-1988 issued by the Collector, Central Excise to the appellant, it was called upon to show cause against the proposed action mentioned therein on the ground that the appellant had not used the specified input in accordance with the Exemption Notification dated 10-2-1986. The notice also invoked the larger period of limitation in accordance with the proviso to Section 11-A of the Central Ex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1998(79)FLR793]; JT1998(4)SC355; (1998)IILLJ43SC; RLW1999(1)SC10; (1998)1SCC185
ORDER1. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation as appellant has brought in challenge the decision rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala dismissing the first appeal moved by the appellant against the decision of the Employees' State Insurance Court which had taken the view that the imposition of 19 per cent of defaulted arrears by way of damages for default in remission of contribution by the management was done in a mechanical manner and there was possibility of the said rate exceeding the arrears of contributions which would become ultra vires Section 85B of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. When we turn to the order passed by the authority, we find that the damages were calculated in the light of the extent of each default and a flat rate of damages of 19 per cent was applied for computation, it cannot necessarily be held that it would, therefore, exceed the ceiling provided by Section 85B which reads as under:'85-B. Power to recover damages,--(1) Whe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)11SCC640
S.C. Agrawal and; V.N. Khare, JJ.1. The only question which falls for consideration in this appeal by special leave is whether the appellant-Municipal Council is competent to levy toll tax on motor vehicles in view of the provisions contained in Section 6 of the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1947, which has been extended to the whole of Madhya Pradesh by the Madhya Pradesh Taxation Laws (Extension) Act, 1957, with effect from 1-11-1957. The said provision contained in Section 6 reads as follows:“6. Bar of imposition of tax by any local authority.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other enactment for the time being in force, no local authority shall, after the commencement of this Act, impose or enhance a tax, toll or licence fee in respect of a motor vehicle and if any local authority has imposed such tax, toll or licence fee since before the 1st day of April, 1942, and the same is still in force at the commencement of this Act any person who is li...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1577; [1998(80)FLR888]; JT1998(7)SC388; (1999)ILLJ945SC; (1998)9SCC265
ORDER1. The respondent was holding the post of Clerk-cum-Cashier in the petitioner-Bank at the material time. On 27-4-1988 an FIR was lodged against the respondent in connection with an alleged criminal offence under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and the case was registered against the respondent. The criminal prosecution is still pending.2. On 4-6-1988 the petitioner-Bank suspended the respondent in view of his detention for an offence under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. In August 1988 the respondent filed Writ Petition No. 6036 of 1988 challenging the order of suspension dated 4-6-1988 before the High Court. The High Court by the impugned judgment dated 8-9-1988 quashed the order of suspension on the ground that there is no provision in the bipartite settlement empowering the petitioner-Bank to suspend an employee in these circumstances. Hence the present appeal is filed by the appellant-Bank.3. Before the High Court it was not disputed that the terms of the bipartite ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1997(2)ALD(Cri)490; 1997(45)BLJR1644; JT1997(8)SC43; 1997(6)SCALE80; (1997)8SCC386
1. Leave granted,2. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi (the accused) was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Satara for offences under Section 376 Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 57 of the Bombay Children Act, 1948 for having committed rape on a girl of eight years of age and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and for offence under Section 57 of the Bombay Children Act, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default thereof rigorous imprisonment for one month. The substantive sentences were ordered to ran concurrently. Maruti car in which the offence of rape was committed was ordered to be forfeited and confiscated to the State, The accused appealed to the Bombay High Court against his conviction and sentence. A Division Bench of the High Court by judgment dated October 4, 1994 upheld the conviction of the accus...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC3867; JT1997(8)SC87; 1997(6)SCALE120; (1997)8SCC34; [1997]Supp4SCR90
1. These two Civil Appeals arise out of a common judgment of the High Court dated 10.12.1986. The controversy before us is limited and revolves around a patta of land measuring 28 acres and 82 cents, which is Stated to be poramboke land. The respondents produced the said patta before the Reference Court in the proceedings under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for the first time. The appellant issued a notice under Section 14-A of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion Into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (hereinafter the Inam Abolition Act). In that notice, inter-aim, it was stated that there was a prima-facie case to suspect that the patta, in question, had been obtained fraudulently. The notice went on to say :It is therefore proposed to take up suomotu enquiry as there is prima facie case to suspect the genuineness of the patta alleged to have been issued in this case. 2. The respondents filed Writ Petition No. 1225/78 resisting the claim of the Government that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC3876; 1997(2)ALD(Cri)502; 1997CriLJ4636; 1998(3)Crimes40(SC); JT1997(8)SC24; RLW1997(3)SC391; 1997(6)SCALE39; (1997)7SCC614; [1997]Supp4SCR56
ORDERA.S. Anand, J.1. Special leave granted.2. Union Public Service Commission (hereinafter the UPSC), appellant herein, conducted Indian Forest Service Examination for 1992. One of the centers for the examination was the Urdu-Hall sub-center at Hyderabad. Respondent No. 1 appeared as a candidate and took the examination from the said hall. On September 27, 1993 the UPSC sent to the Joint Director, CBI, a complaint alleging the use of unfair means at the examination by respondent No, 1 in collusion with the supervisor incharge of the said center-respondent No. 2. It was pointed out by the UPSC in the complaint that it had received a pseudonymous letter disclosing that answer sheets were written by the candidate-respondent No. 1 at a specified address in Gandhi Nagar, Hyderabad, outside the examination hall. It was also stated that the UPSC had found certain factors suggesting a nexus between the candidate-respondent No. 1 and the supervisor incharge, after an examination of answer book...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)11SCC624
S.P. Bharucha and; M. Jagannadha Rao, JJ.1. The assessee is aggrieved by a decision of the High Court of Kerala in a tax revision case. The principal question that arises in the appeals relates to the interpretation of Section 5(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 which, at the relevant time, read thus:“5. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the tax payable by a dealer in respect of any sale of the goods mentioned in the First Schedule by such dealer to another for use by the latter as component part of any other goods mentioned in the said Schedule, which he intends to manufacture inside the State for sale, shall be at the rate of only one per cent on the taxable turnover relating to such sale:Provided that the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply to any sale unless the dealer selling the goods furnishes to the assessing authority in the prescribed manner a declaration duly filled in and signed by the dealer to whom th...
Tag this Judgment!