Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2000)9SCC252
S.B. Majmudar and; G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.1. 690 days' delay is not satisfactorily explained. Hence, the review petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation itself. However, we have also considered the merits of the review petition. The impugned order has followed a three-Judge Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India v. M. Bhaskar1. Even if the question regarding the legality of the said three-Judge Bench decision is pending scrutiny before the Constitution Bench the same is not relevant for deciding the review petition for two obvious reasons — firstly, this was not pointed out to the Bench which decided the civil appeal; and secondly, by the time the impugned order was passed the three-Judge Bench judgment had not been upset and even in future if the Constitution Bench takes a contrary view it would be a subsequent event which cannot be a ground for review as is clear from the explanation to Order 47 Rule 1(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure whic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC1045; 2000(68)ECC367; 2000(116)ELT422(SC); JT2000(2)SC155; 2000(1)SCALE591; (2000)3SCC472; [2000]1SCR876
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. The Tata and Steel Company Ltd. (TISCO, for short), the appellant before us, has imported certain equipments and drawings and engineering documents from Siderugia National of Portugal - a Government of Portugal Undertaking. It appears that some time in the year 1981 Italimpianti, Genevo, Italy supplied materials, designs and engineering drawings etc. to Siderugia National Portugal (hereinafter SNP, for short) for setting up rolling mill project in Portugal. The supplies consisted of equipments for blast furnace, LD converter, steel plant ballet castors, wire rod mills, torpedo ladle cars etc. However, before the equipments could be installed, Portugal decided to join European Economic Community (EEC) consequent whereupon Portugal could not have expanded its steel making capacity. SNP decided to cancel its investment plan and to sell the equipments and materials which were lying unused from 1981 to 1986. On 14th April, 1988 a protocol was signed between the seller and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000(70)ECC202; 2000LC770(SC); 2000(118)ELT554(SC); (2000)10SCC568
ORDER1. The relevant portion of the notification in question, for the purposes of this appeal, reads thus :.belonging to or maintained by the Central Government or a State Government.... 2. The factory in question belongs to the respondent. The respondent is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act. Of it shares, all but one are owned by the Governor of Madhya Pradesh and that one is owned by the Director of Industries. Being a company, the respondent it a legal entity and it is that legal entity which owns the factory. But the question is: Who maintains the factory There is no evidence upon the record in this behalf. It is, therefore, necessary to set aside the order of the Tribunal under challenge and of the authorities below and to remand the matter to the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Gwalior, to hear and decide the matter afresh only insofar as the maintenance of the factory is concerned. The parties shall be at liberty to lead further evidence in this...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC1066; 2000(1)ALD(Cri)508; 2000CriLJ1436; JT2000(2)SC107; 2000(1)SCALE562; (2000)3SCC70; [2000]1SCR855
S.N. Phukan, J.1. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment and order dated 16-8-1988 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2742, 2743 and 2338 of 1984 arising out of Sessions Trial No. 202 of 1982. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Agra in the above Sessions Case convicted accused-respondents-Ashok Dixit and Chaman Lal under Sections 302 and 307 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced them accordingly. Two separate appeals were filed before the High Court by the respondents-accused and one appeal by the State for enhancement of the sentence. The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State and allowed the appeals filed by the respondents-accused and acquitted them of their charges,2. On 8-8-1982, at about 9.00 p.m., on hearing sound of gun shot coining from the house of deceased - Dr. Dubey, his brother- Bhagat Dayal Dubey-P.W. 1, proceeded to the house of deceased Dr. Dubey, along with his two sons. In the house of the decea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2000(85)FLR16]; [2000]1SCR903; 2000(1)LC614(SC)
Y.K. Sabarwal, J.1. Leave granted.2. The ex-employees of State of Punjab are respondents in the appeal and in the connected appeals. All of them retired from the service prior to 31st March, 1985. Thier pensionary benefits were calculated as per the rules prevalent at the time of their retirement. By a notification/order dated 9th July, 1985 issued by Government of Punjab, Department of Finance, it was inter alia decided that the clearness allowance and ad hoc dearness allowance sanctioned up to the consumers price level index No. 568 will be treated as dearness pay for the purposes of pensionary benefits, i.e., for calculating pension, Gratuity/DCRG, internal gratuity in respect of the employees retired on or after 31st March, 1985. Since the respondents were not given the benefit of the aforesaid notification, they filed a writ petition in the High Court claiming the benefits conferred by the notification dated 9th July, 1985. The High Court by the impugned judgment dated 18th Novemb...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC1109; JT2000(2)SC195; 2000(1)SCALE587; (2000)3SCC495; [2000]119STC1(SC)
ORDERSantosh Hegde, J.1. When the State of Haryana tried to impose sales-tax on levy transactions undertaken by the appellant in the year 1973, the same was challenged by the appellant before the Punjab & Haryana High Court on the ground that the said transactions did not amount to either purchase or sale. The High Court of Punjab as per its judgment dated 17th May, 1975 following a judgment of this Court in the case of M/s. Chitter Mal Narain Dass v. C.S.T. : [1971]1SCR671 , allowed the said writ petition and declared that the State of Haryana did not have the constitutional authority to impose sales-tax on levy transactions, consequently, it quashed the assessment orders and demand notices issued by the State. This judgment was not challenged by the State of Haryana, hence, remained to be the declared law so far as the State of Haryana is concerned.2. Subsequently, in the year 1982 even though the above referred judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court remained to be a good law, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC975; (2001)2GLR1091; JT2000(2)SC189; 2000(1)SCALE606; (2000)2SCC599; [2000]1SCR907; 2000(2)LC843(SC)
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. In this special leave petition the judgment and order passed by the High Court in Special Civil Application No. 6707 of 1995 is challenged. The petitioner had filed the writ petition challenging the government notification dated 9-8-1995 and the resolution dated 27-7 1995 passed by the State Legislature reducing the area of 'Narayan Sarovar Chinkara Sanctuary' from 765.79 Sq. K.M. to 444.23 Sq. K.M. The High Court dismissed that petition.2. On 14-4 1981 the Government of Gujarat, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 18(1) of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, declared a part of the forest area in Lakhphat Taluka of Kutch District as a 'Wild Life Sanctuary.' The total area of the sanctuary was 765.79 Sq. K.M. On 27-7-1993 it cancelled that notification and issued another whereby only a part of the said reserved forest was declared as the 'Chinkara Wild Life Sanctuary', The area so declared was 94.87 Sq. K.M. The said two notifications were challenged by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC1005; JT2000(1)SC171; RLW2000(2)SC193; 2000(1)SCALE612; (2000)3SCC379; [2000]1SCR925
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. Leave granted In all S.L. Ps.2. These appeals arise out of the common judgment of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court In a batch of Letters Patent Appeals (Nos. 70 to 72, 93, to 99 , 106, 108 and 117 of 1999 and Writ Petition No. 1685 of 1998) filed against the common judgment and order of single Judge of that Court In Writ Petitions filed by India Thermal Power Ltd., (W.P. 3534/1988), Bhander Power Ltd., (W.P. No. 4253/98), G.V.K. Power Ltd.. (W.P. No. 4631/98), S.I.P. Power India Ltd., (W.P. 4694/98), M/s. Shahpoorji Pallanji Power Co. Ltd.. (W.P. 4742/98), Bhilai Power Supply Co. Ltd., (W.P. No. 238/98) and Jindal Power Ltd.. (W.P. 6175/98).3. In the year 1991-92, the Government of India declared a policy of liberalisation in the electricity sector and thereby widened the scope for private participation in generation, distribution and supply of electricity. Pursuant to that policy the State of Madhya Pradesh decided to invite private companies for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC966; (2000)159CTR(SC)114; JT2000(2)SC141; 2000(1)SCALE641; (2000)3SCC501; [2000]1SCR863
D.P. Wadhwa, J.1. The question that calls for consideration is: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer for the Assessment Year 1962-63 under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is valid in law?2. The case concerns the H.E.H. the Nizam's Second Supplemental Family Trust. The trustees of the trust filed income-tax return for the Assessment Year 1962-63 on behalf of the beneficiaries on April 2, 1964. Along with return they filed an application under Section 237 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short the 'Act') for refund of tax Rs. 20,050.52 deducted at source on Interest on Government securities and dividends. Section 237 of the Act provides for refund and it is as under:237. If any person satisfies the Assessing Officer that the amount of tax paid by him or on his behalf or treated as paid by him or on his behalf for any assessment year exceeds the amount with which he is properly chargeable...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000(1)ALD(Cri)706; 2000CriLJ1442; [2000]1SCR898
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. 1. Nine accused were charged for offence under Section 396 IPC. Three of them, namely, Jamil, Mokid Alam and Mahmood were further charged for offence under Section 412 IPC as well. Briefly the case of the prosecution is:A dacoity was committed in the House of informant Bhupendra Mohan Singh, situated in Phulwari village, on 9th June, 1985 at about 7 : 15 p.m. 10 to 15 dacoits raided his house. This dacoits took away his leased gun from the house besides other articles. They ransacked the house of his brother also which is situated in the same 'Angan' and also assauted the wife of his brother. The informant somehow slipped out of his house and concealed himself in the house of his neighbour, Dinesh Chadra Singh and from there he saw the entire occurrence. On learning about the dacoity, the villagers rushed at the place of occurrence and some of them set fire to a heap of straw. There was Chowkidar Morchand who also came armed with bow and arrow. Some of the dacoits fi...
Tag this Judgment!