Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC1052; 2001(1)ALD(Cri)349; 2001ALLMR(Cri)990(SC); 2001(1)ALT(Cri)157; 2001CriLJ1169; 2001(74)ECC38; JT2001(2)SC552; RLW2001(2)SC288; 2001(1)SCALE429; [2001]1SCR678;
S. Rajendra Babu, J. 1. The petitioner before us has been charged that on or about 27.07.1998 at Kilapokhari of Balasore Town abetted the commission of the offence by (i) Azad Parvez, (ii) Batu @ Jahid Parvej, and (iii) Allauddin Saha @ Sk. Allauddin or was party with them to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence of possession and/or sale cannabis ganja and manufactured drugs punishable under Chapter IV of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [hereinafter referred to as `the Act'] and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 20(b) and Section 21 read with Section 29 of the Act within the cognizance of the Special Judge at Balasore. 2. The gist of the case is that a Special Case No. 63 of 1998 was filed in which one Md. Diwan was apprehended by Subrat Kumar Behera, SI of Police and from his possession, as is alleged, 500 gms of `ganja' was seized for which this Special Case No. 63 of 1998 was instituted and the trial therein was going on in the Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC850; [2001(88)FLR956]; JT2001(2)SC432; (2001)ILLJ840SC; 2001(1)SCALE496; [2001]1SCR692; (2001)2UPLBEC1050
S. Rajendra Babu, J. 1. The appellant before us is a manufacturer of beedies. He challenged an order made by the respondents under Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). The appellant had not deducted from the wages of the home workers employed through contractors for manufacture of beedis because of pendency of litigation in order to contribute towards the provident fund on the ground that the Act would not be applicable in cases of such employees. Earlier on the receipt of a notice under the Act from the respondents the appellant challenged the notice in the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4089 of 1988 on the ground that the Act has no application in respect of home workers engaged in rolling the beedis engaged through independent contractors. An interim stay had been granted by the Court during the pendency of the proceeding. By an order made on July 27, 1989 the said writ petition was dismissed by holdin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC854; 2001(1)ALD(Cri)565; 2001CriLJ1069; 2001(74)ECC274; JT2001(2)SC416; RLW2001(2)SC305; 2001(1)SCALE510; [2001]1SCR683; 2001(1)LC535(SC)
Rajendra Babu, J.1. Leave granted.2. A writ petition was filed in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging the validity of the order of detention passed against the respondent under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') directing the detention of the respondent by an order made on 9-6-1998. It appears that the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi challenging the validity of the said detention order which was, however, withdrawn on 15-7-1998 with liberty to file a fresh writ petition, if need be. Thereafter a petition was filed before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and in the course of the petition filed before if the fact of having filed a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi was not disclosed. But, on the other hand, it is stated that no petition had been filed in any of the Courts, including the Supreme Court for the identical relief ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC784; 2001(1)ALD(Cri)352; 2001ALLMR(Cri)456(SC); 2001(1)ALT(Cri)280; 2001CriLJ1015; I(2001)DMC320SC; JT2001(2)SC198; RLW2001(2)SC294; 2001(1)SCALE431; [2001]1SCR706
K.T. Thomas, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The sole question is whether a complaint, once dismissed by a magistrate for default, can be refiled Appellant, who is alleged to have married twice, and that too with the sibling of the first spouse, is now aggrieved as the High Court held that there is nothing illegal in filing a second complaint on the fact situation. 3. Ranjit Kaur, the undeterred complainant, felt beguiled by the appellant, whom she described as her lawful husband, and her younger sister Rajwant Kaur connived with him for performing a marriage between them clandestinely during the time when Ranjit Kaur was enceinte. After the child was born to her she filed the first complaint against Jatinder Singh - the appellant. In the complaint she arrayed the appellant as the first accused indicting him of the offence of bigamy (Section 494 IPC) and four others including her sister Rajwant Kaur were arraigned for abetting the said offence (Section 109 IPC). 4. The magistrate before whom s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC846; JT2001(2)SC477; 2001(1)SCALE504; [2001]1SCR668
Shivaraj V. Patil, J.1. These two appeals are directed against the order dated 25.8.1992 passed by the High Court of Orissa in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 228/1987. For convenience, we will refer to Paradip Port Trust as 'the Trust' and Unique Builders as 'the Company'. 2. The Trust entered into an agreement with the Company on 31.3.1981 for sale of scrap. Certain disputes arose between the parties. Pursuant to the arbitration clause contained in the said agreement they came to be referred to an arbitrator. Shri B.P.Das, Advocate, was appointed as Arbitrator; he entered into reference and after conducting the proceedings passed the award on 1.6.1985 to the effect that the Company was entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 8,51,315/- together with the interest @ 18% per annum from 28.9.1992 from the Trust. The parties did not lead any oral evidence before the Arbitrator and relied only on the correspondence between them. The award passed by the Arbitrator did not contain any reasons and is a non...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC857; [2001(88)FLR1085]; JT2001(2)SC508; (2001)ILLJ1040SC; 2001(1)SCALE465; [2001]1SCR659; 2001(1)LC538(SC); (2001)2UPLBEC1121
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. 1. Leave is granted. 2. The Judgment and order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.979 of 2000 passed on April 26, 2000, is brought under challenge in this appeal by special leave. Appellant No.1 is Government of India Undertaking and appellant No.2 is its General Manager (hereinafter they will be referred to as `the management'). The first respondent is the union of workmen of appellant No.1 and the second respondent is its member and a workman (hereinafter they will be referred to as `the workmen'). 3. To comprehend the controversy in this appeal, narration of the following facts will be useful. 4. The management is running a canteen in compliance with the requirements of Section 46 of the Factories Act, 1948, in which the workmen were employed purporting to be the employees under a contractor. The litigation between the parties commenced with the filing of Writ Petition No.2206 of 1997 by the workmen in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : I(2001)ACC301; I(2002)ACC215; 2002ACJ215; (2002)9SCC412
K.T. Thomas and; R.P. Sethi, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. As a consequence of a collision between an oil tanker and a bus belonging to the appellant State Road Transport Corporation, Respondent 1 Mr Mallikarjun Sanganabasappa Shettar had a fracture on his right wrist. He claimed compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal concerned. A sum of Rs 2,08,000 was awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the first respondent. However the Tribunal apportioned the liability of the owner of the oil tanker and the Corporation as equal. The second respondent Insurance Company is the insurer of the owner of the oil tanker.3. The appellant Corporation contends that the compensation amount awarded for the fracture on the wrist is very much on the higher side. Learned counsel for the first respondent made an attempt to sustain the large amount of compensation on the premise that the said fracture affected his future earning when a doctor had assessed the disability at 25%.4. The Tribunal awarded a s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2001)167CTR(SC)188; [2001]248ITR100(SC)
ORDER1. Special leave granted.2. After hearing counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the High Court should have admitted the appeals under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and decided the cases on merit. We, accordingly, allow the appeals, set aside the judgments of the High Court and restore the appeals filed by the appellant on the board of the High Court. We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of these cases....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2001)10SCC59
K.T. Thomas and; R.P. Sethi, JJ.1. The point involved in this case is this: when the police filed a final report after investigation holding that no offence against the accused mentioned in the FIR is made out, the aggrieved person filed a protest complaint on the same allegations. But before the protest complaint was filed before the Magistrate he had passed an order on 27-1-1996: “Notice on the final report was served on the complainant and none is present for opposing the final report and hence the final report is accepted.” The protest complaint was filed on 19-4-1996. The High Court quashed the proceedings initiated by the Magistrate on the protest complaint as per the impugned order.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner cited the decision of a two-Judge Bench of this Court in Gopal Vijay Verma v. Bhuneshwar Prasad Sinha1 which reads thus: (SCC p. 511, para 1)“1. The High Court was clearly in error in thinking that the Magistrate could not take cognizance of a ca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC862; 2001(74)ECC1; 2001(128)ELT21(SC); JT2001(2)SC141; 2001(1)SCALE436; (2001)4SCC593; [2001]1SCR608; [2001]124STC59(SC)
ORDERKirpal, J. These appeals have been filed against the common order dated 15th November, 1999 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal which, while confirming the order of the Commissioner of Customs held that drawings, designs etc. relating to machinery or industrial technology were goods which were leviable to duty of customs on their transaction value at the time of their import. As principal arguments on behalf of the appellants were addressed in the case of M/s Hotel Leela Ventures Limited by Mr. Ashok H. Desai, learned senior counsel, for the sake of convenience we will refer to the relevant facts in that case in greater detail. Leela Ventures are engaged in the business of setting up, operating and maintaining Hotels and Resorts. For designing the Hotels and Resorts, it engaged a foreign company M/s Wimberly Allison Tong & Goo, USA ('WAT' for short) for providing architectural services including design development drawings. Leela Ventures had entered into ...
Tag this Judgment!