Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC712; 2000(67)ECC401; 2000LC747(SC); 2000(115)ELT593(SC); JT2000(1)SC179; 2000(1)SCALE143; (2000)1SCC718; [2000]118STC293(SC)
ORDERSantosh Hegde, J.1. The only question that arises for our consideration in these appeals is whether the service charges payable to Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation (for short 'the MMTC') by the appellant for the importation of raw asbestos made by them, is includible in the assessable value of import as provided in the Customs Act and Customs Valuation (Determination of Price) Rules, 1988 or not.2. The appellant is a manufacturer of asbestos cement products for which it uses raw asbestos which is mainly imported from foreign countries. Under the provisions of the Import and Export Policy of the Government of India, the MMTC is designated as a canalising agent for the said purpose. The MMTC imports the raw asbestos in bulk purchasing the same from the foreign sellers. It then enters into sale agreement on what is known as high seas sales basis with the various users of raw asbestos. Consideration paid by the purchasers of the raw asbestos from the MMTC (which includes the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000(3)ALLMR(SC)247; JT2000(3)SC392; (2000)9SCC307
S. Saghir Ahmad, J.1. Delay in filing application for substitution is condoned and the abatement is set aside.2. Application for substitution is allowed and the legal representatives of deceased respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 5 as mentioned in the application are brought on record.3. The principal controversy raised in this case is covered by the decision of this Court in Shri Ram Mandir Sansthan v. Vatsalbai and Ors. : AIR1999SC520 which lays down that tenancy is not heritable under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958.4. Learned Counsel for the respondents next contended that the suit instituted by the appellant under Section 100(2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bombay Tenancy Act') was beyond time in view of the provisions contained in Section 12(c) (ii) of Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') which provide that the Mamlatdar shall reject the plaint w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC3415; 2000(3)ALLMR(SC)474; JT2000(3)SC391; (2000)6SCC325
1. These appeals relate to proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (Act 33 of 1976). The prescribed authority had declared an area of 4314.60 Sq. mtrs. of land as surplus. This Order was challenged in appeal. But the appellate authority rejected the appeal where after a writ petition was filed in the High Court which too was dismissed. It is in these circumstances that these appeals have been filed in this Court which also granted an Order of 'status quo' in respect of possession of the surplus land.2. The Act has since been repealed by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 (Act 15 of 1999). The Legislature of State of U.P. has since adopted the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 by a resolution as required by Article 252(2) of the Constitution. The Repealing Act has since come into force in the State of U.P. with effect from 18-3-1999. The appellant has filed a supplementary affidavit dated 31-10-1999 i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC667; JT2000(1)SC174; 2000(1)SCALE148; (2000)2SCC15; [2000]1SCR262; [2000]117STC547(SC)
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (5) of Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, the Government of Madhya Pradesh issued a notification No. F. No. A-3-41-81 (31)-ST-V, dated the 29th June, 1982 allowing exemption from payment of tax to certain dealers subject to the satisfying the requirements of the notification. The relevant part of the notification reads as under:NOTIFICATIONF.No. A3-41 -81(3 i )-ST-V, dated the 29th June, 1982.Whereas, the State Government is satisfied that it is necessary so to do in the public interest; Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (5) of Section 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (No. 74 of 1956), the State Government hereby directs that no tax under the said Act shall be payable with effect from the 1st July, 1982, by the dealers specified in Column (1) of the Schedule below, who have set up industry in any of the districts of Madhya Pradesh specified in the annexure to this notifi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC714; 2000(1)ALD(Cri)456; 2000CriLJ807; JT2000(1)SC166; 2000(1)SCALE141; (2000)2SCC66
ORDERK.T. Thomas, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellant is arrayed as an accused in one FIR registered on the complaint lodged by one Capt. Walia with the Defence Colony Police Station, New Delhi, for offences under Section 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code. He was arrested by the police on 20.10.1999 and was released on bail by the orders passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, New Delhi on certain unusual conditions. As part of compliance of the conditions he executed a bond (sic) a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two solvent sureties and one of the sureties (Inder Malhotra) issued three cheques for Rs. 2 lacs in total, to the complainant. When the cheques were dishonoured by the drawee bank the complainant moved the court for cancellation of the bail granted to the appellant. As per order dated 27.3.1999 the bail was cancel led and appellant was taken back to the prison and he is still languishing therein.3. Appellant moved the Session Court for releasing him on bail and when it...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC767; JT2000(1)SC296; 2000(1)SCALE230; (2000)2SCC439; [2000]1SCR275
B.N. Kirpal, J.1. Special leave granted.2. Aggrieved by allotment of land to 34 persons by the Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the 'BDA'), respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court challenging not only the said allotment but also some of the transfer of land which had been effected by some of the said allottees. These 34 respondents were stated to be ex-Legislators, Ex-Ministers, etc. who were members of the Legislators Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. (for short 'the respondent-Society'). In the writ petition, it was averred that out of turn allotment had been given to these 34 persons and in violation of the Rules some of them had transferred the land and, therefore, that land should be resumed by the Government.3. The aforesaid writ petition was filed in the High Court by an Advocate who stated that he had no personal interest in the matter but was aggrieved by the breach of the rule of law stated to have been committed by the Go...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC731; 2000(1)ALD(Cri)472; JT2000(1)SC286; 2000(1)SCALE216; (2000)2SCC62; [2000]1SCR270
ORDER1. Mohammed Idris Ali, respondent No. 16 in this appeal by special leave, filed an election petition under Section 80, read with Section 80-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), calling in question the election of respondent No. 1 Shri Mustafa Shahidul Islam, as a member of the Assam Legislative Assembly from 83 DHING Legislative Constituency Assembly in the general elections held in 1996. Various allegations were made in the election petition with a prayer for a direction for re-counting of votes polled in the election and thereafter to declare the election of respondent No. 1 as void under Section 110(1)(d)(iii) and (iv) and to declare the election petitioner to have been duly elected from the said Assembly Constituency. The election petition came to be registered as Election Petition No. 7 of 1996 in the Gauhati High Court. The election petition was resisted by the returned candidate. Some of the other candidates, who had filed t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000CriLJ4996; JT2000(8)SC487
1. Leave granted.2. Heard both sides.3. The impugned judgment is another instance of pre-bargain to which a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court had yielded. In the light of the decision of this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chandrika : 2000CriLJ384 , we upset the impugned judgment and direct the Allahabad High Court to dispose of the appeal afresh. Respondents will remain on bail till disposal of the appeal on the same bond on which they were released during the pendency of that appeal. It is submitted that respondents have remitted a total amount of Rs. 10,000/- pursuant to the said judgment. We permit them to apply for refund of the said amount without prejudice.4. With these observations, we dispose of this appeal....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2000(4)SC346; (2000)9SCC240
ORDERK.T. Thomas, J.1. Leave granted.2. An amount of Rs. 18,83,385/- has been sanctioned as compensation on account of death of one Mohd. Jalaluddin, who was employed in Kuwait. His widow Smt. Rukhsana and some others filed an application for disbursement of the said amount. The mother of late Mohd. Jalaluddin has also made a claim for a portion of the said amount. Now, the High Court has directed them to produce a Succession Certificate and observed that on production of such Certificate, the court before which the claims were, will determine the shares payable to each of the claimants.3. We cannot approve the said view of the High Court, for, Succession Certificate as envisaged in the Indian Succession Act can be granted only in respect of 'debts' or 'securities' to which a deceased was entitled. The amount involved in this case was not a debt or security to which the deceased was entitled. This was a compensation sanctioned on amount of the death of the deceased and is, therefore, n...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC843; 2000(2)ALLMR(SC)222; JT2000(1)SC393; (2000)IIMLJ101(SC); 2000(1)SCALE268; (2000)2SCC451; [2000]1SCR257
ORDER1. Delay condoned.2. Heard counsel on both sides. Learned Counsel for the State of Andhra Pradesh has contended before us that an application for grant of exemption under Section 20(1)(b) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 is not maintainable once the excess land has been declared and the excess land has vested in the State under Section 10, inasmuch as the declarant cannot be said to be 'holding' the land any longer. Reliance is placed on Section 2(l) which defines the words 'to hold'.3. We are unable to accept the above contention. The scheme of the Act Is that any person holding vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit has to file a declaration under Section 6, vacant land is defined in Section 2(q) as not including land on which construction is not permissible under building regulations, land occupied by building, before the due date or under construction. Section 2(q) defines urban land as urban land which is referred to as such in master plan etc. but doe...
Tag this Judgment!