Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2001)10SCC75
G.B. Pattanaik and; U.C. Banerjee, JJ.1. An application was made by Respondent 1 (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent”) under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short “the Act”) for permission to close down the Company on 15-1-1998. On 2-4-1998 a letter was sent on behalf of the Government to the respondent to the effect that the application filed by it is defective in certain aspects and is hence rejected.2. Under Section 25-O(3) of the Act if the Government does not communicate the order granting or refusing to grant permission to the employer within a period of 60 days from the date on which such application is made, permission applied shall be deemed to have been granted on the expiration of the said period of 60 days.3. In the present case the application was not disposed of within a period of 60 days from 15-1-1998 and a communication was sent only long after expiry of that period on 2-4-1998. In that view of the matter the view taken ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
V.N. Khare and; N. Santosh Hegde, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit against the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay in the City Civil Court, Bombay, without giving any notice as required under Section 527 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The plaintiff-respondent also moved an application for temporary injunction and on that application, the Court granted injunction, which is still intact. After the issues were struck in the suit, the plaintiff-respondent submitted an application to the Court praying that since no notice under Section 527 of the Act was given prior to filing of the suit, he may be permitted to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit after giving notice to the Municipal Corporation. The said application was rejected by the City Civil Court. The plaintiff-respondent thereafter filed a revision petition before the Bombay High Court. The High Court was of the view that in c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC567; 2001(1)ALD(Cri)354; 2001ALLMR(Cri)406(SC); 2001(1)ALT(Cri)129; III(2005)BC435(SC); (2001)3CALLT31(SC); [2001]104CompCas418(SC); 2001CriLJ950; (2001)2GLR1558;
Thomas, J.1. Leave granted.2. A Judicial Magistrate of first class, after convicting an accused of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short `the NI Act') sentenced him to imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs.83,000/-. The conviction and sentence were confirmed by the Sessions Judge in appeal and the revision filed by the convicted person was dismissed by the High Court. When the special leave petition was moved, learned counsel confined his contention to the question whether a Judicial Magistrate of first class could have imposed a sentence of fine beyond Rs.5,000/- in view of the limitation contained in Section 29(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short `the Code'). As the decision of this Court in K. Bhaskaran vs . Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and anr. : 1999CriLJ4606 is in support of the said contention we issued notice to the respondent mentioning that it is limited to the question of sentence. Learned counsel for the respondent contende...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001(10)SCC68
V.N. Khare and; N. Santosh Hegde, JJ.Leave granted.The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit against the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay in the City Civil Court, Bombay, without giving any notice as required under Section 527 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The plaintiff-respondent also moved an application for temporary injunction and on that application, the Court granted injunction, which is still intact. After the issues were struck in the suit, the plaintiff-respondent submitted an application to the Court praying that since no notice under Section 527 of the Act was given prior to filing of the suit, he may be permitted to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit after giving notice to the Municipal Corporation. The said application was rejected by the City Civil Court. The plaintiff-respondent thereafter filed a revision petition before the Bombay High Court. The High Court was of the view that in case the plaintiff-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2001(89)FLR427]; JT2001(3)SC609; (2001)IILLJ1246SC; (2001)9SCC575; (2001)2UPLBEC1541
1. An order of compulsory retirement in a departmental proceeding under the provisions of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (for short the CCS Rules) is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal. Against the delinquent-respondent in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the CCS Rules a set of charges having been leveled. He was called upon to answer those charges in a regular inquiry. Before the Enquiring Officer the delinquent prayed for production of certain documents and in fact, an order was passed by the Enquiring Officer directing the departmental authorities to give copies of those documents to the delinquent. But, notwithstanding the same the allegation of the delinquent is that some of those documents had not been produced. Ultimately, on the basis of the materials produced, the Enquiring Officer came to the conclusion that the charges against the delinquent have been proved by the departmental authorities. On the basis of the said...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC2420; 2001(2)ALD(Cri)159; 2001(2)ALT(Cri)70; 2001CriLJ3281; JT2001(4)SC184; (2001)9SCC571
1. Leave granted.2. Appellant stands convicted under Section 17 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.D.P.S. Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount he has to undergo a simple imprisonment for a further period of 3 months. He filed an appeal before the High Court. A learned single Judge of the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal.3. The case alleged against him shows that he was found in possession of 23.5 grams of opium at the time when he was intercepted and searched by PW2, sub-inspector of police. We have noticed that two witnesses were called by PW2 at the time of search out of whom one was examined as PW1 and the other was not examined. But even the one examined (PW1) did not support the prosecution and hence he was treated as hostile. Though an argument was addressed by Mr....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001(73)ECC435; 2001(127)ELT645(SC); JT2001(2)SC334; 2001(1)SCALE214; [2001]1SCR329
ORDERKirpal, J.1. The respondent herein at his printing press manufactures playing cards as well as printed cartons. Playing cards fall under Tariff Item 56 of the Tariff Act, while printed cartons fall under Tarriff Item 68. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether for the purpose of levy of excise duty on the manufacture of printed cards the respondent can be regarded as a small scale industry or not. The answer to that question depends on whether the value of the printed cartons can be taken into consideration even though by Notification No. 89/79 levy of excise duty on manufacture of printed cartons was exempted.2. The excise authorities came to the conclusion that taking into consideration the aggregate value of the goods cleared, i.e., playing cards plus printed cartons the respondent could not be regarded as a small scale industry. This was so stated even in the show cause notice which was issued to the respondent and it was clearly mentioned therein that in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC2416; 2001(2)ALD(Cri)63; 2001(49)BLJR2326; 2001CriLJ3279; (2001)9SCC736
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Bihar dated 14th December, 1990 confirming the conviction and sentence of the appellants for an offence under Section 302/34 IPC.2. On the basis of a fardbayan recorded on the statement of Anjira Khatoon -PW-3, sister of the deceased, at about 8.30 PM on 16th April, 1986, investigation was taken in hand and at the conclusion of the investigation, the appellants along with two others (father and sister-in-law of appellant No. 1) were tried for offences under Sections 302/ 34 IPC and Section 201 IPC. The trial court, vide judgment dated 3rd October 1988 acquitted all the four accused for the offence under Section 201 IPC but convicted them for offences under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court acquitted the father and sister-in-law of accused No. 1 by giving them benefit of doubt vide judgment dated 14th December, 1990 but maintained conviction a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC2422; 2001(2)ALD(Cri)164; 2001(1)ALT(Cri)373; 2001(49)BLJR2368; 2001CriLJ3290; JT2001(3)SC183; RLW2001(2)SC350; 2001(3)SCALE546; (2001)9SCC578
ORDERThis appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned single Judge of Patna High Court arising out of a case under the provisions of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The appellant Abdul Rashid was found to be in company with the co-accused Mohd. Islam from whose possession the offending article was recovered but the conviction of the appellant is based upon the alleged confessional statement made by him to the Superintendent of Excise under the provisions of Bihar and Orissa Excise Act as well as the co-accused statement stating therein that he was merely a carrier and the offending article belongs to the present appellant. Before the High Court, the learned Public Prosecutor fairly stated that the statement of the appellant made to the Superintendent of Excise would not be admissible in view of the majority judgment of this Court in Raja Ram Jaiswal v. State of Bihar 0065/1963 : 1964CriLJ70...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC623; JT2001(1)SC621; (2001)2MLJ126(SC); 2001(1)SCALE101; [2001]1SCR326
Rajendra Babu, J.1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal arises out of a suit [O.S.No.10579/89] filed in the court of First Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore. The respondents- plaintiffs sought for the relief of declaration as to the ownership of the suit site No.20, measuring 20 ft. x 32.5 ft. at Ramakrishna Mutt Extension, Gavipuram, Guttahalli, Bangalore as described in detail in the schedule to the plaint. They claimed that they have been residing in this site by putting up a hut and thereafter the C.I.T.B, the predecessors of the Bangalore Development Authority issued a letter of allotment dated 19.7.1973 and a possession certificate was also given on 17.3.1981. Allegations against the appellant-defendants are that they had trespassed over a portion of the property and as regards rest of the property they were creating disturbance and thus the plaintiffs sought for declaration of right, title or injunction. The plaintiffs relied upon several documents such as the letter of allotment date...
Tag this Judgment!