Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2374; 1999(2)ALT(Cri)265; 1999CriLJ3668; 1999(3)Crimes189(SC); 1999(2)CTC646; JT1999(5)SC29; 1999(3)KLT872(SC); RLW1999(2)SC313; 1999(4)SCALE191; (1999)6SCC326; [1
ORDERD.P. Wadhwa, J.1. Leave granted.2. This is wife's appeal against order dated December 4, 1997 of the Madras High Court passed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code ('Code' for short). By this order wife was deprived of maintenance of Rs. 200 per month granted to her under Section 125 of the Code.3. Wife presented a petition under Section 125 of the Code on February 3, 1993 claiming from her husband, the respondent, maintenance for herself and her two daughters. The minor son of the parties is living with the husband. In the present appeal we are concerned with the grant of maintenance to the wife. She alleged that her husband having sufficient means neglected or refused to maintain her and that she was unable to maintain herself. In the petition wife had claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500 per month.4. Learned Judicial Magistrate, by order dated April 24, 1995, granted her maintenance only at the rate of Rs. 200 per month. Husband ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)10SCC334
S.Saghir Ahmed and; R.P. Sethi, JJ.1. Stocks of rice and paddy belonging to the respondent Mill were insured with the appellant for a sum of Rs 27.50 lakhs under a policy of insurance issued by the appellant which also covered the risk of damage/loss from flood and cyclone. Kakinada town where the respondent Mill is situated was hit by cyclone and heavy rains between 9-5-1990 and 13-5-1990 as a result of which the stock of rice and paddy of the respondent Mill was damaged. The matter was reported to the appellant who appointed Mr M.V. Subba Rao as a surveyor. He conducted a preliminary survey on 10-5-1990 and submitted his report indicating the loss and damage to the stock of paddy and rice due to cyclone and heavy rains. The appellant, thereafter, appointed two surveyors to carry out joint and final survey of the loss occasioned to the respondent. The two surveyors were (1) M/s Vardhman Insurance Service Pvt. Ltd., and (2) Shri Nageswara Rao.2. On 5-11-1990 Shri Nageswara Rao submitte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)10SCC23
The Text below is only a summarized version of the order pronouncedThe orders passed u s 24 of CPC by District Judge and subsequent order of the HC were set aside. It was observed that as District Judge invoked his powers u s 24 on the basis of application moved by the respondent thus, a notice should have been issued to the other side, which was not done in this case. Therefore, the application of the respondent was restored in the file of the District Judge....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)10SCC26
The Text below is only a summarized version of the order pronouncedThe respondent company who dealt in oil products took insurance policies with appellant in order to protect itself against losses due to accidents, theft, pilferage, non-delivery etc., occurring in the course of transit. One of the conditions of the policy was if the value of the total quantity of oil transported fell short of Rs 17. 10 crores during the period of policy, the appellant would refund to the respondent the proportionate premium on the amount of shortfall in the quantity transported. And when the period of policy expired on demanding the refund the appellant refused to refund on the ground that the premium charged by the appellant from the respondent was less than what it ought to have been charged. But National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission accepted the claim of the respondent and on appeal to Supreme Court from the Order of the commission it was held that after having received the benefit under t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1999)123PLR488
The Text below is only a summarized version of the order pronouncedAppellant filed claim petition on account of supply of defective goods after using machinery for three years. Claim dismissed by National Commission on ground that printing business does not come within term consumer. Supreme Court held that appellant cannot be treated as consumer and cannot legally claim compensation or replacement after using machinery for three years....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1999)9SCC27
S.Saghir Ahmed and; R.P. Sethi, JJ.1. The appeal filed by the present appellant before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was disposed of in their absence on 25-10-1991 by the following order:“The appellant — the Indian Oil Corporation — is not present either by advocate or by any authorised representative when the case is called for hearing. We have gone through the facts of the case and we find that the order passed by the State Commission is quite just and fair and does not contravene any settled principle of law. The compensation awarded by the State Commission is also fair, proper and adequate and hence we confirm the order of the State Commission and dismiss First Appeal No. 113.”2. Subsequently, when application was given for recall of the order so that the appellant may be heard on merits, the Commission passed the following order on 27-11-1991:“The order dated 25-10-1991 passed by this Commission was not one dismissing the appeals...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2550; 1999(66)ECC16; 1999LC721(SC); 1999(112)ELT5(SC); JT1999(5)SC100; 1999(4)SCALE207; (1999)6SCC137; [1999]3SCR1026
1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the provisions of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.2. The petitioners are engaged in the business of import of automobile spare parts. They are liable to pay customs duty as levied under Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962 which provides that the Customs duty will be levied at such rates as may be specified under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.3. The Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') provides for levy of additional duty under Section 3 which Section reads as follows:3. Levy of additional duty equal to excise duty.-(1) Any article which is imported into India shall, in addition be liable to a duty (hereinafter to this section referred to as the additional duty) equal to the excise duty for the time being leviable on a like article if produced or manufactured in India and if such excise duty on a like article is leviable at any percentage of its value, the additional duty to which the imported article shall...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000(69)ECC25; 1999(113)ELT17(SC); 1999(4)SCALE420; (2000)10SCC13
ORDERCIVIL APPEAL NO. 4123/19831. This appeal arises from the judgment dated 4th March, 1983 of the Delhi High Court. The appellant had filed a writ petition in the High Court, inter alia, challenging the levy of additional duty of customs under Section 3 of the Tariff Act. The High Court following its decision in M/s Khandelwal Metal and Engineering Works and Anr. v. Union of India dismissed the writ petition. In the present appeal it was contended that the matter is similar to M/s Khandelwal Metal and Engineering Works and Anr. v. UOI which was pending in this Court. It is on that basis that this appeal was admitted. When this Court decided the appeal arising from the Delhi High Court in M/s Khandelwal Metal and Engineer Works and Anr. v. UOI it was represented that the point involved in this appeal is different. M/s Khandelwal Metal & Engineering Works' case was concerned with brass scrap whereas the present case was concerned with copper scarp. On that basis it was delinked. On 28t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC2378; 1999(2)ALD(Cri)279; 1999CriLJ3672; 1999(65)ECC695; 1999LC545(SC); [1999(81)FLR303]; (1999)3GLR2483; JT1999(4)SC595; (1999)ILLJ254SC; 1999(II)OLR(SC)474; 199
A.S. Anand, C.J.1. On 15.7.1997 when this batch of appeals/special leave petitions was placed before a two-Judge Bench, it was noticed that there was divergence of opinion between different Benches of this Court with regard to the ambit and scope of Section 50 of Narcotic Drugs and - Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter 'NDPS Act') and in particular with regard to the admissibility of the evidence collected by an investigating officer during search and seizure conducted in violation of the provisions of Section 50 of NDPS Act. In the cases of State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh : 1994CriLJ3702 . Ali Mustaffa Abdul Rahman Moosa v. State of Kerala : AIR1995SC244 . Saiyad Mohd. Saiyad Umar Saiyad and Ors. v. State of Gujarat, : 1995CriLJ2662 and a number of other cases, it was laid down that failure to observe the safeguards, while conducting search and seizure, as provided by Section 50 would render the conviction and sentence of an accused illegal. In AH Mustaffa's case (supra), t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC3622b; (1999)9SCC18
V.N. Khare and; Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, JJ.1. The appellant herein is a landlord. He owns premises in the town of Gurdaspur. The said premises was let out to the respondent tenant in the year 1971 for residential purposes under an agreement. In the year 1991, the appellant retired from service. Under such circumstances, the appellant filed an application under Section 13-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for eviction of the respondent tenant from the premises in dispute on the ground that he is a specified landlord and he requires the premises for his own need. The Rent Controller after having found that the appellant is a specified landlord and further that the premises was let out for residential purposes, allowed the application filed by the appellant.2. Aggrieved, the tenant filed a revision petition under sub-section (8) of Section 18-A of the Act before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court, in exe...
Tag this Judgment!