Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000(1)ALD(Cri)73; JT1999(8)SC351; 1999(II)OLR(SC)341; (1999)5SCC705
ORDERS. Saghir Ahmad, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant, who was the sister-in-law of the deceased Manju Mandalani, was convicted under Sections 304B/34, 498-A I.P.C. and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. She was sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304-B I.P.C.; 3 years RI under Section 498-A I.P.C.; and 6 months RI under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, read with Section 34 I.P.C., by IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad. On appeal, the High Court acquitted her of the charges under Sections 304-B/34 I.P.C. giving her the benefit of doubt. However, her conviction under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was maintained.3. It is contended by learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant that the judgment passed by the High Court is wholly inconsistent inasmuch as having recorded her acquittal from the charges under Section 304-B I.P.C., it was not possible to maintain the convictions under Sections 3 and 4 of the D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1964; JT1999(3)SC295; 1999(3)SCALE73; (1999)9SCC184; 1999(2)LC960(SC); (1999)3UPLBEC1961
ORDERSethi, J.1. The appellant claims to have been appointed as Head Mistress on the basis of her seniority in the high schools on 25.9.1990. Respondent No. 4 is stated to have been appointed as Assistant Head Master on 5.10.1990. The President of the respondent-municipal council issued the orders for promotion of the appellant as Head Mistress on 13.7.1993. Respondent No. 4 filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of an appropriate writ setting aside the order dated 13.7.1993 by which the appellant was promoted as Head Mistress with a further direction to the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council to appoint him as Head Master of the Municipal Nehru High School, Tumsar. The writ petition was allowed vide the order impugned on the ground of the respondent No. 4 allegedly being senior.2. It is not in dispute that the seniority is a relevant term which has reference to the class, category or grade regarding which an issue is raised. A perusal o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1999(9)SC615; 1999(3)SCALE166; (1999)6SCC12
ORDER1. Notwithstanding the enactment of the Environment (Protection) act 1986 decline in the quality of environment continues. This prima facie shows a failure on the part of the authorities to perform their obligation under the Constitutional scheme and the mandate of the Act. Concerned by the effects of the vehicular pollution on the health of the citizens, particularly in the National Capital Region (NCR), this court has given directions from time to time to the State/Union as well as other authorities but it appears that despite those directions and the concern expressed by the Court, the pollution level is on the increase and not on the decrease. It is a serious matter.2. Bhure Lal Committee, which was constituted by an order of this Court on 7th January, 1998, has been submitting its Reports from time to time and in the Report submitted to this Court on April 1, 1999, it was pointed out that the private (non-commercial) vehicles comprise 90% of the total number of vehicles plyin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1952; 1999(4)ALLMR(SC)367; 1999(2)ALT(Cri)309; II(2006)BC316(SC); [1999]96CompCas822(SC); 1999CriLJ2883; 1999(2)CTC347; JT1999(3)SC374; 2000(1)MPHT310; 1999(2)MPLJ
M.B. Shah, J. 1. Leave granted.2. NEPC Micon Limited, Appellant No, 1 and its directors approached the High Court for quashing the proceedings in Case No, C-494 of 1997 pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, initiated by Magma Leasing Limited, Respondent-Company under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It was alleged by the complainant that in discharge of its existing liability, the appellant-Company had given five cheques dated 1st January, 1997 for various amounts totalling to Rs, 58,25,980 drawn on Canara Bank, Broadway Branch, Madras, in favour of the Respondent-Company. Those cheques were duly tendered to the bankers, Punjab National Bank, Calcutta for encashment, but were returned by the banker of the accused persons, that is, Canara Bank, Madras with the remark 'account closed'. Appellants have also challenged before the High Court the order dated 10.12.1997 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate rej...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC1697; [1999(82)FLR618]; JT1999(3)SC291; (1999)ILLJ1319SC; 1999(3)SCALE76; (1999)4SCC7; [1999]2SCR943; (1999)3UPLBEC1957
K.T. Thomas, J.1. Leave granted.2. Handloom House is a Co-operative Society engaged in manufacturing and selling handloom fabrics. It disburses to its employees, besides the normal wages, special amounts under two counts. One is 'incentive bonus' and the other is 'sales commission.' Thereupon, the Employees State Insurance Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') demanded from the Handloom House additional contribution towards insurance fund on the premise that such extra benefits given to the employees fall within the ambit of 'wages' under the Employees State Insurance Act 1948 (for short 'the Act'). When the Handloom House challenged the said demand before the Employees Insurance Court it was held that such benefits do not form part of wages and hence the demand is unsustainable. The Corporation filed statutory appeal before the High Court of Kerala and a Division Bench thereof quashed the judgment of the Insurance Court and permitted the Corporation to proceed with the demand.3. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1999)5SCC738
G.T. Nanavati and; S.N. Phukan, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether in case of a retired public servant, previous sanction of the Government is required before the court can take cognizance of the offence under the J&K Public Servants Prevention of Corruption Act, 1975. Section 6 of that Act reads as under:“6. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution.—No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 161 or Section 164 or Section 165 or Section 167-A of the State Ranbir Penal Code, Samvat 1989 or under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of Section 5 of this Act, alleged to have been committed by a public servant except with the previous sanction:(a) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the State and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government;(b) in the case of any other person, of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2216; 1999(3)ALLMR(SC)471; JT1999(4)SC464; (1999)3MLJ127(SC); 1999(3)SCALE533; (1999)4SCC350; [1999]2SCR950
1. Special leave granted.2. This is an appeal filed by the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff against the judgment of the High Court of Madras in Second Appeal No. 1946 of 1983 dated 30th September, 1997. By the said judgment, the High Court reversed the judgment of the lower appellate court dated 30.6.83 and restored the judgment of the Trial Court dated 12.5.82 in O.S. No. 187 of 1979.3. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title of the suit property and for permanent injunction claiming to be the son of Late Haritheertham and Mariyayee. According to him the said Haritheertham his father died 40 years earlier and Mariyayee, his mother died 5 years before the suit. It was stated that the plaintiff was suffering from paralysis for over 25 years. It was also stated that several years earlier the first defendant and her mother were residing in the suit village and the second defendant was the husband of the first defendant. The 1st defendant was not the daughter of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2008; 1999(108)ELT332(SC); JT1999(3)SC404; 1999(3)SCALE64; (1999)4SCC615; [1999]2SCR919
ORDERR.P. Sethi, J.1. The short point in controversy is as to whether, Can Filler, Fruit Feeder and Ripple Machine are accessories to the continuance ice cream freezer or are independent machines covered by Chapter 84.19 and 84.30(1). The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short CEGAT) held that the three items did not merit classification under heading 84.15(1) and dismissed the appeals. Not satisfied with the judgment of the CEGAT the assessee has preferred this appeal reiterating all pleas which were negatived by the Appellate Tribunal.2. The appellant had imported under one single order in its single consignment of plant and machinery namely, 'continuous ice cream freezer add with alleged accessories such as Electronic Doser, Can Filler, Fruit Feeder and Ripple Machine with spare parts.' According to it, the main function of the machines imported is to make ice cream. The ice freezer is stated to be refrigerating equipment classified as such under heading 84...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2124; JT1999(3)SC420; 1999(3)SCALE121; (1999)4SCC192; [1999]2SCR925
S.P. Bharucha, J. 1. We are concerned with the interpretation of Section 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1961, as amended by Act 25 of 1976. Principally, the provisions to be dealt with are Sub-sections 3D, 4 and 5 of Section 21 which read thus:(3-D) In relation to the tax levied under Sub-section (1) and in respect of purchase of sugarcane on or after the date of commencement as aforesaid:(a) Sub-sections (4) and (5) shall not apply, and the tax shall be deemed due date of purchase of sugarcane or the date of commencement as aforesaid, whichever is later,(b) Sub-section (3-C) shall apply with the modification that where the assessing authority is satisfied that the occupier of a factory or owner of khandasari unit has removed or cause to be removed any sugar in contravention of the provision of this section or has failed to account fully for the sugar produced in the factory or khandasari unit or deposited by him under the provision to Sub-s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2141; 1999(1)ALD(Cri)892; 1999(2)ALT(Cri)293; 1999CriLJ3488; 1999(66)ECC3; JT1999(3)SC417; 1999(3)SCALE141; (1999)4SCC417; 1999(2)LC936(SC)
ORDERNanavati, J.1. This petition is filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of detention passed by the Government of Tamil Nadu, on 23.11.98, Under Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Preservation of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. Pursuant to this detention order, the detenu was detained on 28.1.99.2. It is not necessary to state the facts in detail as this petition deserves to be allowed on the ground that there was undue delay in passing the detention order. The order of detention has been passed as the detenu was found to be smuggling 23 gold biscuits weighing 2679.5 grams into India on 8.12.1997 itself and again on 19.12.97 when his further statement was recorded. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even then, the order of detention came to be passed as late as on 23.11.98, that is, after 11 months and 15 days. It was further submitted by him that the satisfaction of the detaining authority re...
Tag this Judgment!