Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2002(141)ELT309(SC); JT2001(10)SC198
ORDER1. By an order made in the adjudication proceedings on 27th of November, 1997, the Commissioner, Central Excise, Meerut-I held M/s. T.C. Health Care (P) Ltd. (respondent herein) had misdeclared the assessable value of the products manufactured by it by suppressing the actual price of such products. Hence, it held them as having contravened Rule 9(1), 52A, C, 173F and 173G of the Central Excise Rules and raised a demand for a sum of Rs. 4,57,51,508.17 (Rupees four crores fifty seven lacs fifty one thousand five hundred eight and paise seventeen only) under the provisions of Section 11 of the Central Excise Act. He also levied an equivalent amount as penalty under Rule 173Q for contravention of the above said provisions of the Rules. While making the said order, the said Commissioner came to the conclusion that the transactions between the Modi Revlon (P) Ltd. and the respondents were not truly commercial transactions and were tainted by extra-commercial considerations and the trans...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2002(141)ELT310(SC); (2002)10SCC419
ORDER1. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. No ground is made out to interfere with the order of the Tribunal for imposing the penalty upon the appellant in terms of Section 112A of the Customs Act on proof of the fact that the appellant had intentionally misdeclared the nature of the goods in the relevant bills of entry and instructed the supplier that they should not indicate in the relevant proforma investing the correct description and classification of the goods. 2. In view of the above, we find no merit in these appeals which are, accordingly, dismissed. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC47; 2002(1)ALD24(SC); 2002(1)ALT41(SC); 2002(1)AWC121(SC); JT2001(9)SC480; 2001(8)SCALE1; (2002)1SCC470; [2001]119TAXMAN774(SC); (2002)1UPLBEC396
Shivaraj V. Patil, J.1. The appellant has filed this appeal, under Section 38 of The Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the judgment and order dated 4.11.1998 passed by the Disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India, confirming the order passed by the Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana removing the name of the appellant from the State's Roll of Advocates under Section 35(3)(d) of the Act.2. The appellant was enrolled with the State Bar Council as an Advocate on 16.9.1994 vide enrolment No. P/771/94. On 9.9.1995, the respondent-association made a written complaint to the State Bar Council making allegations of misconduct against the appellant. The State Bar Council took cognizance of the complaint and referred the complaint to its Disciplinary Committee. After the completion of the proceedings in D.C.E. No. 1/1996, order was passed by the Disciplinary Committee of State Bar Council to remove the name of the appellant from th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC126; 2002(1)ALD104(SC); 2002(1)ALLMR(SC)666; 2002(79)ECC457; 2001(134)ELT596(SC); (2002)4GLR2830; (2002)4GLR54; JT2001(9)SC318; 2001(8)SCALE72; (2002)1SCC567; 2002
Santosh Hegde, J. 1. These civil appeals are preferred by the Union of India and Others challenging the judgment and order of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad made in Special Civil Application Nos. 3282/99 and 3279/99 wherein the High Court allowed the said civil applications and granted the relief as prayed for by the petitioner therein.2. Though in these appeals, principal contention involved pertains to the entitlement of the respondents herein to the benefit of the Pass Book Scheme found in paragraph 54 of the Import Export Policy introduced by the appellants herein w.e.f. 1st April, 1995 in relation to certain credits to be given on export of Shrimps the appellant firstly challenges before us the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad to entertain the civil applications and grant relief in favour of the respondents.3. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned Additional Solicitor General of India and Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC50; 2002(1)ALT(Cri)134; 2002CriLJ205; 2002(1)Crimes131(SC); JT2001(9)SC312; 2001(7)SCALE570
R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. Sewaka @ Ramsewak, the appellant was tried on charges under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. His real brother and co-accused Rakesh was tried on a charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The Trial Court acquitted both the accused persons. Feeling aggrieved by the acquittal, the State of Madhya Pradesh preferred an appeal before the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court which heard the appeal has allowed the same. The appellant and the co-accused, who were respondents before the High Court have been held guilty of the offences charged and sentenced to life imprisonment each. Rakesh has not preferred any appeal and in so far as he is concerned the matter has achieved a finality. The legality of the conviction and the sentence passed there on, in so far as the appellant is concerned, are in issue in this appeal. 2. It is an undisputed fact that some time before the present occurrence the deceased Kitab Singh had appeared as a witness...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2002)10SCC489
D.P. Mohapatra and; Shivaraj V. Patil, JJ.Heard learned counsel for the parties.Leave is granted.The judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan, allowing the second appeal filed by the plaintiffs and decreeing the suit for eviction of the defendant on the ground of renouncement of the title of the landlord under Section 13(1)(f) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 is under challenge in this appeal filed by the defendant.Learned counsel for the appellants has strenuously urged that the ground under Section 13(1)(f) of the Act was not considered in the appeal inasmuch as no such substantial question of law was formulated by the High Court at the time of admission or hearing of the second appeal. It is the further contention of the learned counsel that on the facts and circumstances of the case emerging from the pleading of the parties and the findings recorded by the trial court and the first appellate court, it was not open for the a High Court to disturb the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC404; 2002(1)ALT30(SC); 2001(3)ARBLR487(SC); 2002(1)AWC115(SC); 2002(50)BLJR971; JT2001(9)SC337; 2001(7)SCALE560; (2002)1SCC203
Raju, J. 1. Special leave granted. 2. Having regard to the nature of the orders under challenge and the stage of the proceedings, we consider it inappropriate to refer to or delve in great detail with the allegations and claims on either side, in this judgment. But, it becomes necessary to deal with the background of the disputes between parties on a bird's eye view. 3. One Shri Laxmi Narain Yadav (since dead) was running a hotel business in tourist bungalow on Mirza Ismail Road at Jaipur, which belonged to him exclusively and absolutely. It was said to have been constructed on agricultural land without obtaining proper sanction and the proceedings were also said to have been initiated against him, in accordance with law. On 13.2.80, Laxmi Narain Yadav died leaving behind him a son Shri Vijay Krishna Yadav (a law graduate) and his wife Smt. Ashok Kumari and in a family settlement arrived at thereafter, the entire land and building admeasuring 5354 sq. yds. (4478 sq. meters) of the Tour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC42; I(2002)BC1(SC); JT2001(9)SC344; 2001(7)SCALE583; (2001)9SCC673
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The effect of institution of a civil suit by the creditor on the proceeding initiated on the application filed by the debtor under the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act, 1980 (Act XIII of 1980) (for short 'the Act'), is the question that falls for determination in this case.2. A learned single Judge of the High Court of Madras held that on filing of the civil suit the Special Tahsildar who was the competent authority under the Act ceased to have jurisdiction in the matter and the decision of the civil court would be binding on the parties. The judgment was confirmed by the Division Bench. Therefore, the debtor has filed this appeal assailing the judgment in Writ Appeal No. 971/96 confirming the judgment of the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 3409/1983.3. The short resume of the facts relevant for appreciating the case may be stated thus:4. The appellant herein mortgaged his land measuring about 3.07 acres for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in favour of one Ramummal wife ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2002(1)ALT(Cri)201; 2002CriLJ967; JT2001(9)SC383; 2001(7)SCALE551; (2002)1SCC731
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. 'G' a young child of 11 years, daughter of PW6, the father and PW7, the mother, resident of a village within the limits of P.S. Shambhupura, Distt. Chittorgarh had gone to fetch fodder from the filed of theirs at about 4 p.m. on 2.9.1992. She did not return back to home until 7 p.m. whereupon an extensive search was launched by the parents, associated with the villagers, who made inquiries not only in the village but also in nearby villages but without any result. Mohan Lal and Chaggan Lal, PW16 and PW23 found the dead body of the missing girl in the field of Udai Lal at about 7 a.m. on 3.9.1992. Udai Lal's field is situated near the field of PW6. They informed the villagers whereupon they assembled in the field of Udai Lal. The dead body was in a bad shape. The neck was broken. There marks of injury on the neck which appeared to have been twisted. Blood was oozing out from neck and private parts of the body. Her both legs were chopped off from near the ankles and wer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2001(9)SC332; 2001(7)SCALE567; (2001)8SCC718
Sethi, J.1. The appellant-landlord prayed for eviction of the respondents-tenants on the ground of his bonafide personal requirement within the meaning of Section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). He submitted that he ha a large family and was residing in a rented premises. He intended to convert the entire premises, in the occupation of the respondents-tenants and some other tenants, into one portion by making suitable alterations. It was further contended that the respondents were in arrears of payment of rent.2. The Trial Court allowed the petition holding that the appellant required the premises for his bonafide use and occupation but in revision filed by the respondents-tenants, the order of the Trial Court was set aside vide the common order impugned in these appeals. The appellant submits that the High Court was not just justified in allowing the revision petitions and setting aside the order passed by the Trial Court allegedly wi...
Tag this Judgment!