Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC62; [2000]99CompCas490(SC); JT1999(7)SC437; (2000)124PLR790; 1999(6)SCALE172; (1999)8SCC357; [1999]Supp3SCR174
ORDERD.P. Wadhwa, J.1. Appellant Union Bank of India is aggrieved by the order dated June 18, 1996 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ('National Commission' for short) passed on appeal from the order dated July 21, 1993 of the State Commission of Delhi.2. State Commission had allowed the complaint of the first respondent M/s. Seppo Rally OY, a foreign company based in Finland against the Union Bank of India, the appellant, directing the Bank to pay 11,234 with interest at the rate of 15% to the first respondent from May 27, 1992, the date when the complaint was filed. Bank was also burdened with cost of Rs. 2,500, The National Commission and the State Commission have been constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the 'Act'). State Commission is established by the State Government in the State and the National Commission is established by the Central Government. Appeal filed by the Bank before the National Commission under Section 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2002)10SCC261
G.B. Pattanaik and; N. Santosh Hegde, JJ.1. The appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC for causing murder of one Balaram Sahu and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhadrak in Sessions Trial No. 31/13 of 1992. The said conviction and sentence was upheld by the High Court of Orissa. Along with him, his father Sanatan Sahu and his uncle Sukadeb Sahu stood charged under Sections 323/34 for causing hurt to one Suma Bewa but the learned Sessions Judge acquitted them of the said charge and that order of acquittal has not been assailed. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that the deceased is the brother of Ratnakar Sahu, PW 1. Prior to the date of occurrence, there was some litigation between the deceased and the present appellant. On 11-7-1991 at about 8.00 a.m. the deceased, his brother PW 1 and their mother were fencing the bari of their land. It is at that point of time the appellant and the other accused persons came to the spot bein...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC197; 2000(69)ECC451; 1999LC817(SC); 1999(113)ELT353(SC); JT1999(7)SC477; 1999(6)SCALE223; (1999)7SCC633; [1999]Supp3SCR184
ORDERS.P. Bharucha, J.1. This appeal has been referred to a Constitution Bench for the reason that there are two conflicting three Judge Bench decisions of this Court on the point at issue.2. Briefly stated, the facts are : The assessee-respondent manufactures NES yarn. It had filed classification lists with the Excise authorities, the appellants, which had been approved under the provisions of Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The approval classified the NES yarn under old Tariff Item 19- I(2)(a)(2)(e). On 28th September, 1977, a notice was issued by the Excise authorities to the assessee to re-open the assessment for the period February, 1977 to May, 1977. The reason for so doing was that the NES yarn ought to have been correctly classified under old Tariff Item 19-I(2)(F). A demand for differential duty was made. A second show cause notice was issued by the Excise authorities to the assessee on 18th November, 1977 for the period 1st June, 1977 to 17th June, 1977. The asse...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1999(7)SCALE216; (2000)10SCC89
ORDER1. This Contempt Petition has been filed on the allegation that the order of this Court dated 4.12.1996, directing payment of compensation has not been complied with. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, a showcase has been filed clearly indicating therein that the applicant is facing a departmental proceeding on the allegation of misappropriation of huge funds of the Company and until and unless that departmental proceeding is concluded,question of making any payment pursuant to the order of this Court would not arise. In view of the stand taken by the Management in the show cause filed, we see no justification for initiating a contempt proceeding, as in our view the non-payment of the alleged due is not on account of any deliberate violation of the Court's orders, but on account of the pendency of a departmental proceeding.2. The Contempt Petition is accordingly dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC3730; JT1999(7)SC614; 1999(6)SCALE227; (1999)7SCC503; [1999]Supp3SCR191; 1999(2)LC1571(SC)
ORDERS.B. Majmudar, J. 1. Leave granted.2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties finally in this appeal.3. Learned senior counsel for the appellants made two-fold grievances in this appeal. In order to appreciate those grievances it would be necessary to note a few relevant facts.4. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') was adopted by the Legislative Assembly, State of Manipur in pursuance to Clause (1) of Article 252 of the Constitution of India by its resolution No. 36 in its sitting held on 28.12.1987. As the Central Act was adopted and became applicable to the State of Manipur, the appellant No. 1 State of Manipur under Section 4 of the Act became empowered to constitute State Pollution Control Board (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Board'). In exercise of its powers under Section 4 of the Act, the appellant No. 1-State Government by various notifications constituted/reconstituted the Board from time to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)IILLJ1601SC; (2000)10SCC294
ORDERMr. S.B. Majmudar, J.1. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties we find that on the peculiar facts of this case Respondent 1 seems to have been tossed from pillar to post. Respondent 1 was working at the relevant time in 1986 as 'badli' filler (mazdoor) with the appellant Company, which admittedly is a Central Government company, though administered by the State authorities. Respondent 1 was charge-sheeted on November 10, 1986 for alleged misconduct and after domestic inquiry was dismissed from service on May 13, 1987. His appeal to the General Manager failed. Thereafter he directly approached the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in writ petition. He was permitted to withdraw the writ petition presumably because he could not move the High Court directly but ,had remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act'). Then he went to the State Labour Court at Hyderabad under Section 2A Sub-section (2) of the State amendment to the Act. The State Labour Court by a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC3524; 1999(2)ALD(Cri)662; 1999(2)ALT(Cri)379; 2000(48)BLJR37; 1999CriLJ4541; (2000)1GLR605; JT1999(7)SC317; 1999(1)KLT173(SC); 1999(II)OLR(SC)512; 1999(6)SCALE150;
ORDERThomas, J.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, no notice to any person is necessary in this application.2. In the main appeal, a three Judge Bench of this Court to which two of us were parties, has issued certain directions for effective enforcement of the right to speedy trial flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution of India (as recognised by a five Judge Bench of this Court in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak : 1992CriLJ2717 . Relevant among such directions for the present purpose, are the following:Direction No. (i) : In cases where the trial is for an offence punishable with imprisonment for a period not exceeding seven years, whether the accused is in jail or not, the court shall close prosecution evidence on completion of a period of two years from the date of recording the plea of the accused on the charges framed whether prosecution has examined all the witnesses or not, within the said period and the court can proceed to the next step provided by law for the trial...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2002)10SCC458
D.P. Wadhwa and; M.B. Shah, JJ.1. This appeal has been preferred by Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (“the Board” for short) on a certificate granted by the Andhra Pradesh High Court under Article 133 read with Article 134-A of the Constitution of India. The order granting the certificate is as follows:“An oral application is made by Shri T. Ananta Babu, the learned counsel for the respondent Board for the grant of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. As substantial questions of law of general importance to be decided by the Supreme Court are involved, we grant leave.”2. Under Article 133 of the Constitution appeal lies to this Court if the High Court certifies that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance and that in the opinion of the High Court the said question needs to be decided by the Supreme Court.3. During the pendency of the appeal, the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Reforms Act, 1998 came to be passed which broadl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1999(10)SC494; 2000(2)SCALE62; (2000)4SCC614; [1999]Supp3SCR150
ORDERS. Saghir Ahmad, J.1. Plot Nos. 510, 519, 520, 521, 522, 523, 524 and 533 of Khata No. 76 situated in village Akbarpur Kutubpur, Pargana Mustafabad, Tehsil Jasrana,, District Mainpuri, were recorded in the basic year in the name of Hira Lal, father of the present appellants. When the Consolidation operations under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short 'the Act') started, the respondents filed objections claiming, inter alia, that the plots in question constituted 'Sir' and 'Khudkasht' land of their predecessor-in-interest, namely, Hansraj, who had mortgaged these plots in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants on 21.1.1920. On the abolition of the Zamindari by the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short 'the ZA & LR Act') they ought to have been recorded as 'Bhumidhars' of the said land in view of Section 14 of the ZA & LR Act.2. The appellant: contested the case before the Consolidation Officer by filing a written statement and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC3517; 1999(2)ALD(Cri)677; 1999(2)ALT(Cri)410; 1999CriLJ4534; 1999(66)ECC342; 2000(120)ELT37(SC); JT1999(7)SC336; 1999(6)SCALE133; (1999)8SCC177; [1999]Supp3SCR98;
ORDERG.B. Pattanaik, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18-1-1995-20-1-1995 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 701 of 1994. The appellant is the wife of the detenu, Jayendra Vishnu Thakur, The State of Maharashtra issued an order of detention under Section 3(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1970(hereinafter referred to as the 'COFEPOS A Act') on 5-2-1992. The detenu was served with the order of detention on 13-8-1993 while he was in custody on being arrested on 23-7-1993 in some other criminal case. On 15-9-1993, a declaration was made under Section 9(i) of the COFEPOSA Act thereby extending the period within which the procedural requirements under Section 8 of the said Act could be complied with. The case of the detenu was referred to the Advisory Board on 15-9-1993 and the Advisory Board gave its opinion stating that there exists sufficient cause for detention of the person concerned and on...
Tag this Judgment!