Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2001)9SCC373
G.T. Nanavati and; S.P. Kurdukar, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The appellant is engaged in the business of manufacturing ayurvedic medicines. He and his brother -- Vinay Kumar Singh are the proprietors of M/s Vishwanath Indian Herb Products. They obtained a licence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 for manufacturing ayurvedic medicines in Form No. 25D. On 24-3-1995, they applied to the Commissioner of Excise for a licence in Form L-I under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparation (Excise Duties) Act, 1955 and the Rules made thereunder for manufacturing medicinal preparations containing alcohol. This application was rejected by the Commissioner on the ground that the manufacturers of ayurvedic medicines in the districts of Saran and Vaishali have not been manufacturing medicinal preparations containing alcohol according to their installed capacity. It was further observed by the Commissioner in his order that non utilisation by the licence holders of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)10SCC658
ORDER1. Leave granted. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. The proceeding arising out of a complaint filed by the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('the Act' for short) against Respondent 1 has been quashed by the High Court solely on the ground that in his order dated 28-2-1995 passed in compliance with Section 251 of the CrPC the Magistrate has not recorded that the petitioner (the respondent before us) alone was responsible to or in charge of the firm for conduct of the business so as to attract the provisions of Section 141 of the Act.3. The above order of the High Court is patently wrong: firstly, because, while complying with Section 251 of the CrPC the Magistrate is required to incorporate the substance of accusation--and not the derails--as appearing in the complaint; secondly, because, liability under Section 141 of the Act is not limited to that of a single director of a company or a single partner of a firm; and, thirdly, because, in the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998VIIIAD(SC)93; AIR1999SC317; 1998(6)ALT27(SC); JT1998(7)SC397; (1999)121PLR656; RLW1999(2)SC241; 1998(6)SCALE2; (1998)8SCC136; [1998]Supp2SCR505; 1999(1)LC13(SC)
V.N. Khare, J.1. Leave granted.2. This group of Civil Appeals is directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of Delhi High Court and the questions involved therein relate to the quantum of compensation with regard to acquisition of appellants' land situated in village Rangpuri @ Malikpur Kohi, Delhi. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in this group of appeals, we propose to decide them by a common judgment noticing the fact of the case appearing on the record of Civil Appeal No. 7690 of 1994.3. A large tract of land in village Rangpuri near Palam Airport was notified for acquisition vide notification dated 23.1.1965 issued Under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') for planned development of Delhi. Simultaneously, notifications dated 23.1.1965 were also issued for acquisition of land in villages Masoodpur and Mahipalpur. Some plots of land of village Rangpuri were acquired vide Award No. 1958/67 dated 16.3.1967. The L...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)10SCC578
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. We do not think that any case is made out for interference with the judgment under appeals. However, we consider it necessary that the word 'court' occurring in the following sentence in para 9 of the judgment of this Court in Ram Piari v. Land Acquisition Collector, Solan, : [1996]3SCR307 needs clarification: 'The development authority is directed to recover the amount and pay the amount so recovered at the rate determined by the court to the respective landowners.'4. While agreeing with the High Court that the word 'court' occurring in the above sentence means 'District Court', we make it clear that the amount payable by the appellant to the respective landowners is the amount as awarded by the District Judge/Court.5. The appeals are accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1998(80)FLR931]; JT1998(7)SC342; (1999)ILLJ442SC; (1999)IMLJ84(SC); 1998(5)SCALE699; (1998)8SCC26; 1999(1)LC4(SC)
ORDERNanavati, J.1. The appellants have challenged in this appeal the decision of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 2010 of 1992. 2. Both the respondents were initially appointed as teachers in Panchayat Union Primary School. In the year 1985, they were serving as teachers in the Middle School of the Panchayat Union at Alangombu. The said Middle School was upgraded as Government High School with effect from 28.10.85. The respondents opted for absorption in the Government High School and therefore became a part of the secondary education service. Some junior teachers who had continued as teachers in the Panchayat Union Primary Schools were subsequently promoted as Head Masters in the Primary and the Middle Schools run by the Panchayat Union. They were allowed to draw their pay in the scale of Rs. 2000-3200 from 1.6.88, following G.O. No. 1381 dated 5.10.90. The result was that they started getting more pay than the respondents and other teachers in the Government High S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2015; [1998(80)FLR894]; JT1998(7)SC353; (1999)ILLJ1SC; 1998(5)SCALE704; (1998)8SCC90; [1998]Supp2SCR482; 1999(2)SLJ1(SC)
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. Both these appeals for special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India have brought in challenge two orders of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh dismissing two Letters Patent Appeals arising out of the decision of the learned Single Judge of the High Court who has considered identical questions of law. Consequently, both these appeals were heard together. Learned counsel for the respective parties were heard in support of their cases and thereafter both these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The common question which falls for consideration of this Court in these appeals is as to whether the appellants which are carrying on the business of printing and publishing newspapers in the State of Punjab at Jalandhar are liable to remit contributions Under Section 6 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short the 'Act') to the authorities functioning u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998VIIIAD(SC)148; AIR1999SC201; JT1998(7)SC370; 1998(5)SCALE718; (1998)7SCC707; [1998]Supp2SCR461; [1998]111STC752(SC)
K. Venkataswami, J.1. The common question that arises for consideration in all these appeals is whether a Pawn-broker is a 'dealer' and carries on 'business' within the meaning of the State General Sales Tax Act read with the State Pawnbrokers Act and Rules when he causes the sales of unredeemed articles/goods, occasioned by the default of the Pawner through (statutory) Auctioneer.2. The above question has to be considered with reference to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act read with the Tamil Nadu Pawnbrokers Act and Rules as well as the Karnataka Sales Tax Act read with the Karnataka Pawnbrokers Act and Rules. We may point out that the relevant provisions of both the Sales Tax Acts and the Pawnbrokers Act are substantially the same and for the sake of convenience the provisions mentioned hereinafter are the provisions of the Karnataka Acts.3. Before going into the submissions advanced at the bar, certain basic background facts need to be stated.4. 'Pawn-broker' i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC3461; 1998(62)ECC601; 1998(104)ELT3(SC); JT1998(7)SC292; 1998(5)SCALE685; (1998)7SCC668; [1998]Supp2SCR436
K. Venkataswami, J.1. In all these writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the constitutional validity of Notification No. 49/89 Customs dated 1-3-1985. The said Notification was issued but exercising the powers Under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act. Under the impugned Notification the respondents have levied customs duty at 30% ad valorem on imported 'glazed newsprint' which is used for the publication of news magazines.2. In view of certain subsequent events, we are relieved of going into the constitutional validity of the impugned notification. While these writ petitions were pending, this Court by an order dated 12-12-1996 passed the following order :-'We have heard the opening arguments of Mr. R.F. Nariman, learned counsel for the writ petitioners. Having regard to what has been stated, it seems to be an appropriate case where the Union Government should consider the matter itself. Mr. Nariman states that an appropriate repres...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1; RLW1999(1)SC168; 1998(5)SCALE629; [1998]Supp2SCR400
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. Article 143 of the Constitution of India confers upon the President of India the power to refer to this Court for its opinion questions of law or fact which have arisen or are likely to arise and which are of such a nature and of such public importance that is expedient to obtain such opinion. In exercise of this power, the President of India has on 23rd July, 1998 made the present reference, which is quoted in extenso:2. 'WHEREAS the Supreme Court of India has laid down principles and prescribed procedural norms in regard to the appointment of Judges of the Supreme Court [article 124(2) of the Constitution of India], Chief Justices and Judges of the High Court [article 217(1)], and transfer of Judges from one High Court to another [article 222(1)], in the case of Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and Anr. v. Union of India, reported in : AIR1994SC268 ; 3. AND WHEREAS doubts have arisen about the interpretation of the law laid down by the Supreme Court a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998VIIIAD(SC)84; AIR1999SC78; JT1998(7)SC288; 1998(5)SCALE679; (1998)8SCC77; 1999(1)LC80(SC)
ORDERS.P. Kurdukar, J.1. The lands bearing Survey Nos. 200/2 admeasuring 3 acres 2 gunthas and 201/2 admeasuring 12 acres 8 gunthas situate at village Madgyal admittedly belonged to Maruti Deo, a deity, through V.M. Kulkarni. It is also not disputed that the said Deosthan is managed by a Managing Committee which is under the supervision of the Secretary, Deosthan Managing Committee, Western Maharashtra, Kolhapur. It appears that since 1948, these lands were in possession of Bhimanna Mallappa Mali the first respondent as a protected tenant on payment of rent to the Deosthan Managing Committee. The Deosthan Managing Committee found that the income received from the lands was too inadequate to manage Deosthan and, therefore, in a meeting of Deosthan Managing Committee, it was resolved to give these lands on lease for a period of five years. It was further resolved that the Managing Committee should move Tahsildar Jath to hold an auction in respect of these lands. Accordingly, the Tahsilda...
Tag this Judgment!