Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC3078; 1999(65)ECC351; 1999(112)ELT743(SC); JT1999(6)SC173; 1999(5)SCALE38; (1999)6SCC387; [1999]Supp1SCR529
K. Venkataswami, J.1. This appeal by the Revenue is preferred against an order dated 19.4.88 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal').2. The question that arises for consideration is whether the duty of excise is leviable under the provisions of the Central Excise Act on the quantities of single ply straw board manufactured and cleared without payment of duty for manufacture of multiple ply straw board/straw board of higher D.G. in the same factory of production.3. Briefly stated, the facts are the following:The respondents are the manufacturers of paper boards falling under T.I. 17 of the Central Excise Tariff. They manufactured single ply straw boards and a major portion of the single ply boards was cleared on payment of duty at the factory gate. A portion of the single ply boards was used in the manufacture of multiple ply straw boards within the factory of production and the multiple ply straw boards are re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC3338; 2000(1)ALD(Cri)108; 1999(2)ALT(Cri)339; 1999CriLJ4301; JT1999(6)SC279; 1999(5)SCALE237; (2000)1SCC319; 1999(2)LC1402(SC)
ORDERSyed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. Leave is granted limited to the question of nature of offence.2. The appellant along with two others was tried for committing murder of one Satish (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') and causing injuries with knife to Harkishan and was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 304 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and three years rigorous imprisonment for the said offences by learned Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 198 of 1981 on July 17, 1982. A Di sion Bench of the High Court of the Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No. 171 of 1982 confirmed his conviction under Sections 302 and 324 I.P.C. and sentence for the said offences and dismissed his appeal on April 30, 1998. Against the judgment and order of the High Court, he is in appeal before this Court.3. Dr. T.N. Singh, learned senior counsel for the appellant, has urged that it is a case falling under Exception 4 to Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1998)9SCC716B
G.T. NANAVATI, J.1. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 6233 of 1983 and Criminal MP No. ... (application for discharging the advocate from the matter) are dismissed.2. The appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 1989 are challenging their conviction and the order of sentence passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari in ST No. 138/69 of 1978/81 and confirmed by the High Court. Writ Petition No. 543 of 1992 is filed by accused Ramayan Singh whose SLP was earlier dismissed by this Court.3. The appellants have been convicted on the basis of the evidence of 2 eyewitnesses PW Amila Devi and PW 3 Bhagwani Devi. Both these witnesses have been believed by the trial court and also by the High Court. No good reason is advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant for taking a different view as regards the credibility of these 2 witnesses. We do not find any infirmity in their evidence. Merely because they happened to be sister and mother respectively of the dece...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC405; (1999)4CompLJ20(SC); JT1999(6)SC364; (1999)IILLJ942SC; 1999(5)SCALE218; (1999)8SCC560; [1999]Supp2SCR62; 2000(1)SLJ145(SC)
K. Venkataswami, J. 1. The respondent Nos. 2 to 64 in Civil Appeal No. 5642/94 are the employees in the office of the Court Liquidator in the Calcutta High Court. Aggrieved by the disparity in pay-scales and deprivation of allowances and retiral benefits, they moved matter No. 756 of 1991 before a learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court. They claimed that they must be treated as employees of the Central Government and should be given full status of permanent Central Government employees on the expiry of 360 days of joining their service besides regular pay-scales with avenues for promotion, pension, provident fund and other service benefits on the basis of their length of service.2. The learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Courtd that writ petitioners/respondent Nos. 2 to 64 herein should be given the full status of permanent Central Government employees on the expiry of 360 days of their joining the service. However, the learned Judge restricted the arrears for a period o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC3203; [1999]239ITR738(SC); JT1999(6)SC293; 1999(5)SCALE249; (1999)7SCC26; [1999]Supp2SCR44
D.P. Wadhwa, J. 1. A Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay on a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short the 'Act') decided all the three questions of law referred to it for its opinion by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('Appellate Tribunal' for short) in favour of the revenue. The assessee is aggrieved. The questions of law are :1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, K.R. Patel and B.G. Amin held the properties as trustees from the time of the death of Bhikhubai Chandulal, or whether they held the estate in that capacity from April 5, 1963, when probate of the Will was obtained?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, K.R. Patel and B.G. Amin received income of certain part of the estate as executors and income of the remaining part of the estate as trustees?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, K.R. Patel and B.G. Amin were liable to be assessed as trustees under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1999)155CTR(SC)585
Wadhwa, J.A Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay on a reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') decided all the three questions of law referred to it for its opinion by the Tribunal in favour of the revenue. The assessee is aggrieved. The questions of law are:1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, K.R. Patel and B.G. Amin held the properties as trustees from the time of the death of Bhikhubai Chandulal, or whether they held the estate in that capacity from 5-4-1963, when probate of the will was obtained ?2 Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, K.R. Patel and B.G. Amin received income of certain part of the estate as executors and income of the remaining part of the estate as trustees ?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, K.R. Patel and B.G. Amin were liable to be assessed as trustees under section 161 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?'These questions arose front the order...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
S.Saghir Ahmed and; D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. An ex parte order was passed against the appellant and Respondent 2 by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner on 8-11-1993. On a recovery certificate being issued for the amount of Rs 65,000 which was awarded as compensation, the District Nazir came to the appellant's factory to execute the certificate on 26-9-1995 and it was then that the appellant came to know of the ex parte award. On 6-10-1995, the appellant made an application under Rule 41 of the Workmen's Compensation (M.P.) Rules, 1962 read with Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte award dated 8-11-1993 but the application was rejected on 28-6-1997. The appellant thereafter approached the High Court by a writ petition which has been dismissed on the ground that the appellant had an alternative remedy. The High Court's short order which does not indicate the alternative remedy available to the appellant reads as under:“Heard. As the petitioner has an a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC3289; JT1999(6)SC317; 1999(5)SCALE260; (1999)7SCC645; [1999]Supp2SCR16
D.P. Wadhwa, J. 1. Leave granted.2. The appellant Graphite India Ltd. ('Graphite' for short) was getting electricity supply for its project from respondent Durgapur Projects Ltd. ('DPL' for short). Graphite challenged the increase in tariff by filing three successive writ petitions in the Calcutta High Court. The learned single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petitions holding that the enhancement of tariff and the notices of enhancement issued by DPL for fixation of electricity tariff were contrary to the provisions of Section 57 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 ('Supply Act' for short) read with the statutory requirements of Schedule VI of that Act. Against that judgment of the learned single Judge DPL filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court which was allowed by the impugned judgment dated June 3, 1998. Writ petitions filed by Graphite were dismissed. Aggrieved Graphite has come to this Court.3. Facts are not much in dispute. DPL was granted sanction...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC3196; JT1999(6)SC283; (2000)1MLJ28(SC); 1999(5)SCALE241; (1999)7SCC339; [1999]Supp2SCR1
D.P. Wadhwa, J.1. Both the parties are aggrieved by judgment dated February 6, 1989 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir passed in an appeal against judgment dated May 10, 1986 by the learned single Judge of that High Court. While the learned single Judge made the award given under the Arbitration Act, 1940 a rule of the court and also granted interest, the Division Bench in appeal deleted two claims from the award and also reduced the rate of interest. The award was in favour of Dev Dutt Pandit, the Contractor. He is aggrieved by deletion of two claims and also lowering the rate of interest and the State is aggrieved against the award itself. Thus two separate appeals.2. Tender of the contractor for earth work, excavation, minor drainage crossing, overhead crossing, road bridges and cement concrete lining of Ravi Canal Project was accepted by the State Government and by order dated May 6, 1976 work was allotted to him. The work was to be completed within 18 mon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1999]106TAXMAN151(SC)
A Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay on a reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short the 'Act') decided all the three questions of law referred to it for its opinion by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('Appellate Tribunal' for short) in favour of the revenue. The assessee is aggrieved.The questions of law are:- "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, K.R. Patel and B.G. Amin held the properties as trustees from the time of the death of Bhikhubai Chandulal, or whether they held the estate in that capacity from April 5, 1963, when probate of the will was obtained?2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, K.R. Patel and B.G. Amin received income of certain part of the estate as executors and income of the remaining part of the estate as trustees?3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, K.R. Patel and B.G. Amin were liable to be assessed as trustees under section 161 of the...
Tag this Judgment!