Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1999(66)ECC334; 1999(114)ELT371(SC); JT1999(10)SC83; (1999)6SCC65
ORDERS. Rajendra Babu and S.N. Phukan, JJ.1. The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Agricultural Irrigation Equipment which is used mainly for sprinkling water in the fields, lawns and gardens. The appellant, prior to commencing the production, by a letter sent on 11-8-1986 along with the classification list, claimed exemption for payment of duty in terms of notification dated 10-2-1986 as amended by another notification dated 14-3-1986. However, the Assistant Collector held that the appellant is not eligible for exemption under the said notification. The matter was carried in appeal and the Collector upheld the order made by the Assistant Collector. When a further appeal was filed before the CEGAT, the appellant pointed out that he is entitled to the benefit of exemption in view of the notifications issued in this behalf. However, the CEGAT took the view that the appellant was not eligible to claim exemption under the said notification. 2. It is now brought to our notice that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1999(3)SCALE8
ORDER1. As directed by us earlier, the State Government has taken steps for appointment of an Officer in the rank of a Secretary to oversee arrangements so far made and to do the needful as regards what further is required to be done for the purpose of implementing the directions given and orders passed by this court. One Mr. D.S. Mathur in the Department of Public Health and Family Welfare has been appointed for that purpose and he has already taken charge on 25.2.99. He has also submitted a Status Report. He has pointed out therein that the Second Action Plan has been submitted by the State Government to the Central Government. He has also pointed out that the Government of India has not so far released Rs. 27 crores though it was required to do so during the period of the First Action Plan.2. We now direct the Government of India to file an affidavit explaining why Rs. 27 crores have not been released so far and what action it has taken with respect to the Second Action Plan. The Go...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2622; 1999(1)ALD(Cri)726; 1999(1)ALT(Cri)288; 1999CriLJ2271; 1999(66)ECC329; JT1999(2)SC559; RLW1999(3)SC391; 1999(2)SCALE401; (1999)4SCC116; [1999]2SCR342
S. Saghir Ahmad, J. 1. Leave granted.2. The order of detention dated 3.2.1997 passed under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), under which Ramesh Nahar, husband of the appellant was detained, was challenged before the Bombay High Court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution but the petition was dismissed on 23.12.1998. It is this judgment which is challenged in this appeal.3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.4. Mr. R.K. Jain, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that though the order of detention was passed on 3.2.1997, it was executed after more than a year on 23.4.1998 without there being any explanation for the delay in executing the order. This delay, it is submitted, should be treated to have vitiated the order.5. Before dealing with the point raised by Mr. R.K. Jain, we may point out that individual libert...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1841; 88(1999)CLT564(SC); [1999(82)FLR143]; JT1999(3)SC53; (1999)ILLJ1236SC; 1999(2)SCALE545; (1999)3SCC666; [1999]2SCR354
1. Special leave granted. 2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant who was an employee of the respondent Corporation. The appellant joined as a Junior Clerk in 1962 and by the year 1986 he was working as Joint General Manager. He was issued a charge sheet on 22.7.92 in respect of various items of alleged misconduct. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated on the same day under Regulation 44 of the Orissa Financial State Corporation Staff Regulations, 1975 and the appellant was suspended with immediate effect. For various reasons, which it is not necessary to mention here, the disciplinary enquiry was not concluded before the date of the appellant's superannuation, which took place on 30th June, 1995.3. The appellant was relieved on 1st July, 1975 by the Corporation 'without prejudice to the claims of the Corporation.' Thereafter the question arose in regard to the continuance of the disciplinary enquiry for the purpose of reduction of retiral benefits payable to the appellan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1699; 1999(1)ALT(Cri)237; 1999CriLJ2523; 1999(31)Crimes1(SC); JT1999(3)SC121; 1999(2)SCALE622; (1999)4SCC108
ORDERG.T. Nanavati, J.1. The appellant has been convicted for committing offences punishable under Sections 376 and 302 IPC and Section 3(ii)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. For the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC death sentence has been imposed upon him. The appellant is challenging his conviction and sentence imposed under those Sections.2. The prosecution case was that on 7.9.95 at about 7.00 a.m. Kumari Marri, aged about 14 years had gone to ease herself in a field near her house and that while she was so doing, the appellant pounced upon her, pinned her down on the ground, committed rape and when she started resisting and raising shouts, strangulated and killed her by teeing her Salwar around her neck. It was also the prosecution case that hearing her shouts her father Mihilal ((PW-1) and Avadh Ram (PW-2) who had also gone near that field for answering the call of nature, rushed to that place. It was also the prosecution cas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1999)IILLJ1411SC
ORDERMr. S. Saghir Ahmad, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellants before us had worked on voluntary basis as Home Guards for the period from 1985 till 1990. Thereafter in 1990 Appellants 1 to 4 were appointed on ad hoc basis as Corporal Instructors while Appellants 5 to 8 were appointed as Despatch Riders. They continued to work, according to the respondents up to July 1994 as their period of appointments which were made for 89 days was extended for another eighty-nine days from time to time. It is contended that since they were appointed only on fixed-term basis and were not given fresh appointments on the expiry of the last term in 1994, they are not entitled to any relief, much less the relief of regularisation.3. The fact that all the eight appellants had worked as Home Guards for the period from 1985 to 1990 and the further fact that they were appointed on ad hoc basis and had worked on the aforesaid posts up to July 1994 is not disputed. Although the appellants, having been appointe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1385; 1999(1)ALT(Cri)226; 1999CriLJ2092; 1999(1)CTC720; JT1999(2)SC494; 1999(2)KLT156(SC); 1999(2)SCALE359; (1999)3SCC614; [1999]2SCR305
K.T. Thomas, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellant claims to be the power of attorney holder of a couple (husband and wife) now living in Kuwait. He sought permission of the Sessions Court, Trivandrum to appear and plead on behalf of the said couple who are arrayed as respondents in a criminal revision petition filed before the said Sessions Court (they will be referred to as the respondent-couple). But the Sessions Judge declined to grant permission as the request for such permission did not emanate from the respondent-couple themselves. Thereupon appellant moved the High Court of Kerala under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuance of a direction to the Sessions Judge concerned to grant the permission sought for. A Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the original petition against which appellant filed a writ appeal which too was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court.3. Undeterred by the successive setback in securing a right of audience on behalf of the aforesaid couple...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1786; JT1999(2)SC604; 1999(2)SCALE381; (1999)4SCC43; [1999]2SCR323
R.P. Sethi, J.1. Despite independence of the country about half a century back and the establishment of a democratic set up with the declaration in the Constitution to have a Secular, Socialist Republic in the country, there are people and organisations who have not mentally re-canceled with the realities of life and the writings in the chapters of history for various reasons including their vested interests. Ignoring the establishment of the rule of law and the development of the constitutional set up, they have made and are making fanatic efforts to sabotage the path of the goal intended to achieve the welfare of the society. Ignoring the verdicts of this Court in Keshvananda Bharati v. State of Kerala [1973] Suppl. SCR 1, R.C. Cooper v. Union of India : [1970]3SCR530 and Madhav Rao v. Union : [1971]3SCR9 and various other pronouncements, efforts have been made to reverse back the wheel of history merely for personal gains to quench the lust for money and power. The case of responden...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1944; (1999)157CTR(SC)50; [1999]237ITR364(SC); JT1999(4)SC589; (1999)3MLJ69(SC); RLW1999(3)SC371; 1999(2)SCALE446; (1999)4SCC86; [1999]2SCR358
1. The short facts are that one Kehar Singh was the owner of the land admeasuring 280 kanals and 18 marlas situated in Village Anlowali (now in Pakistan). He died prior to the partition. His widow Kirpo succeeded to his estate as owner. She had two daughters Santi and indro who came to India. Smt. Kirpo, widow of Kehar Singh was allotted suit land in lieu of the land left behind by her in Pakistan, in 1951 she died leaving behind two daughters who remained in possession of the suit land. Thereafter the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force. Some time in 1961 one of the sister Santi died. In 1963, mutation on the entire land was made in favour of Indro, the other sister. On 2nd March, 1963, Indro entered into an agreement to sell of this land in dispute, with the present appellant. It seems that subsequently as Indro tried to retract from the said agreement to sell, the present appellant had to file a suit for specific performance which was decreed in appellant's favour.2. This led...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2619; (1999)153CTR(SC)205; [1999]237ITR284(SC); JT1999(2)SC549; 1999(2)SCALE475; (1999)3SCC729; [1999]2SCR348
S.P. Bharucha, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether payment of commission to an agent abroad is no maintenance of an agency within the meaning of Section 35-B(1)(b)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The High Courts have taken divergent views.2. We are concerned with the Assessment Year 1981-82. The assessee manufactured agarbathis. It had exported agarbathis during the year under consideration. It had paid commission to agents outside India who had procured orders. It claimed weighted deduction under the aforementioned provision in respect of such expenditure of Rs. 13,23,225/-. It was disallowed by the Assessing Authority. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) took a contrary view. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in allowing the said weighted deduction. From out of the judgment and order of the Tribunal, the following question was referred to the High Court for its considerations:Whether on the facts and in the circumst...
Tag this Judgment!