Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC267; 2002(79)ECC5; 2001(134)ELT593(SC); JT2001(10)SC105; 2001(8)SCALE312; (2001)10SCC23; [2002]126STC117(SC)
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. The appellant, a manufacturer and exporter of leather and synthetic footwear, obtained a Value Based Advance Licence (VBAL) issued in terms of Para 49 of Export Import Policy 1992-93. The Licence permitted the appellant to import' printed PVC' wit he technical characteristics of 'PVC Leather Cloth' for use in the manufacture of the export product 'Synthetic footwear'. The appellant filed Bill of Entry of clearance of goods described 'Printed PVC' (PVC leather clothes) for consumption, claiming coverage of VBAL Scheme. Appellant sought clearance of the same as duty fee under Notification No. 79/95-Cus. dated 31.3.95 issued by the Central Government under Section 25(1) of Customs Act 1962 which permitted exemption for the whole of the duty of customs for the 'materials' imported into India against VBAL Scheme. The Licence listed 'Printed PVC' as an eligible item of import. The Assessing Officer after examination of the sample expressed the opinion that the goods h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2002]255ITR45(SC); (2002)10SCC736
1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. The High Court declined to call for a reference, inter alia, of the following question : 'Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, having held that the assessee has received unaccountedreceipts, was justified in law in holding that the Assessing Officer has to discharge the onus in respect of on money by showing that the assessee has invested Rs. 1,58,59,400 out of such receipts whereas the claim of the assessee for extra expenditure was found to be incorrect ?' 4. It did so on an appreciation of evidence and based on certain judgments of that High Court. 5. We have seen the relevant portions of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal from which the question has arisen. We think that the question does require the consideration of the High Court We do not, however, express any view on the merits of the case on either side. 6. The civil appeal is allowed. The order under challenge is set aside, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC264; 2002(1)BLJR283; (2001)171CTR(SC)546; 94(2002)DLT860(SC); [2001]252ITR772(SC); JT2001(10)SC127; 2001(8)SCALE316; (2002)1SCC695; 2002TAXLR233; [2002]120TAXMAN12
Brijesh Kumar, J. 1.This civil appeal arises out of judgment and order passed by the Delhi High Court dated July 31, 1997 directing the appellant namely the Revenue to dispose of the claim of interest preferred by the respondent viz. D.D.A., on the amount of refund and to release the amount thereof, in their favour.2. The fact which admit of no dispute are that the Delhi Development Authority (for short 'DDA') was to construct and allot flats to the buyers within the time stipulated in their agreements. On failure to do so, the D.D.A. was liable to pay interest to the buyers on the amount paid by them, for the period of delay. The D.D.A., defaulted as a consequence whereof it made payment of interest to the buyers. The concerned ITO (TDS) found that the D.D.A. failed to deduct income-tax at source on the payment of interest made to the buyers as provided under Section 194A of the Income-tax Act. Accordingly, a demand was raised for the Assessment Years 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90. An ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC319; 2002(1)BLJR353; (SCSuppl)2002(1)CHN62; 2002CriLJ560; 2002(1)Crimes186(SC); JT2001(10)SC77; 2001(8)SCALE305; (2001)10SCC284
SETH, J.1. Appellants along with one Bhaiya Mani Raut @ Babu Muni Raut were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. They wee also convicted under Section 148, 147 and 323 of the Code but no separate sentences were passed against them. The appeals filed by the convicts were dismissed vide the judgment impugned in this appeal.2. Special Leave Petition field by Bhaiya Mani Raut was rejected by this Court vide order dated 6.9.1999.3. Mr. P.S. Misra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that there was no evidence against the appellants for holding them guilty under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Code. It is contended that the common object, as alleged and proved by the prosecution, was only with respect to forcibly dispossessing the deceased and others and not for committing the ultimate crime of murder. According to the learned co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2002(1)ALT(Cri)209; 2002(50)BLJR357; 2002CriLJ553; JT2001(10)SC67; 2001(8)SCALE290; (2002)1SCC652
Phukan, J.1. Leave granted.2. In this appeal by special leave the appellants have assailed the judgment dated December 09, 1999 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna passed in CRWJC No. 243 of 1996. By the impugned judgment, the High Court quashed the investigation of a case, which was registered under Section 419 467 420 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The first information report was filed against eight accused out of which six were Revenue Officers and two were private persons. Two private persons filed a writ petition before the High Court and the High Court by the impugned order quashed the entire investigation ignoring the fact that there were six government officials.3. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:The Jamindari of ex-intermediary viz. Raghu Mahto vested in the State Government in terms of the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1955. It was alleged that the Government had to submit official assessment of the asset, which was made without proper ju...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC317; 2002(1)ALD52(SC); 2002(1)AWC203(SC); 2002(1)BLJR803; (SCSuppl)2002(1)CHN30; [2002(1)JCR6(SC)]; JT2001(10)SC92; 2002(1)KLT32(SC); (2002)1PLR211; 2001(8)SCALE30
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.1. Respondents 1 and 2 in this appeal are daughters of one Indira Bai. Appellants are her three sons. Indira Bai died on 13th November, 1981.2. In April, 1983, respondent No. 1 instituted a suit against the appellants, respondent No. 2 and her father claiming that Indira Bai died intestate on 13th November, 1981 and she is entitled to 1/6th share in the properties left behind by her. She also pleaded that if there is any will that is forged. All the defendants, namely, father, three brothers and one sister of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 took the stand that Indira Bai had left behind a will dated 26th August, 1981 and her properties are to be dealt with as per the will. The father of respondent No. 1 who was defendant No. 1 in the suit died during the pendency of the suit. 3. On appreciation of evidence the trial court held that the will had been dully proved and the suit was dismissed. In the first appeal, the judgment of the trial court was reversed by the High Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC270; 2002(1)BLJR288; (SCSuppl)2002(1)CHN104; 2002CriLJ568; 2002(1)Crimes197(SC); JT2001(10)SC111; 2001(8)SCALE320; (2002)1SCC655
Shah, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 03.7.2000 passed by the High Court of Patna in Crl. Misc. No. 16453 of 2000 confirming the order dated 2.6.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya.3.It is the contention of the appellant that his mother was done to death by the accused by forming unlawful assembly who ere armed with lethal weapons. FIR was lodged with Bodh Gaya police station on 9.10.1991 against 15 named accused and 25 to 30 unknown persons. On 27.8.1993 the case was taken up for trial by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Sessions Trial No., 24 of 1993. Charges were framed against the accused person on 27.8.1993 for the offence punishable under Section 148 189 323 449 and 302 IPC.4.After examining two or three formal witnesses, the learned Sessions Judge closed the evidence of prosecution on the ground that APP has not made any prayer either oral or written for adjournment or for examining other witnesses. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC258; 2001(3)ARBLR561(SC); [2002(1)JCR227(SC)]; 2001(10)JKJ115[SC]; JT2001(10)SC115; 2001(8)SCALE292; (2002)1SCC659
Shah, J.C.A. No. 8115 of 2001 @ S.L.P. (C) No. 7192 of 2001 Leave granted.1. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Ashwani Kumar appearing for the appellant contended that the judgment and decree passed by the High Court confirming the award made by the arbitrator is on the face of it illegal because:(a) arbitrator has failed to consider counter-claim.(b) second reference to arbitrator was not maintainable under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, and (c) the arbitrator has awarded interest despite the contrary condition in the agreement. 2. As against this, Mr. G.L. Sanghi learned senior counsel for the respondent as well as the respondent who is appearing in person submitted that in the written statement counter-claim or set off was neither pleaded nor proved by the appellant before the arbitrator. he also contended that in case of claims raised by the respondent after preparation of final bill, there is no question of application of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC as rightly held by the arbitrator and the Courts below. Fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC260; 2002(1)ALD(Cri)270; 2002(1)BLJR710; (SCSuppl)2002(1)CHN55; 2002CriLJ555; 2002(1)Crimes191(SC); JT2001(10)SC152; 2001(8)SCALE298; (2002)1SCC266
B.N. Agrawal, J.1. Leave granted in SLP (Crl.) Nos. 1964-65 of 2001.2. These appeals by Special Leave have been preferred against the judgment rendered by Jharkhand High Court. Surendra Singh Rautela @ Surendra Singh Bengali who is sole appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 628-29 of 2001 and Mohd. Anis who is appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 630 of 2001 were tried and convicted by the trial court. Surendra Singh Rautela was convicted under Section 302 and 307 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life on both counts. He was further convicted under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act and awarded death sentence and the matter was referred to the High Court for confirmation of death sentence. Mohd. Anis was convicted under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and ten years respectively. He was further convicted under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC315; JT2001(10)SC1; 2001(8)SCALE295; (2002)1SCC686
Phukan, J.1. In this appeal by special leave, the appellant has impugned the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur Bench in Second Appeal No. 219 of 1975.2. Allarakh was the brother of Naharkhan, who was a Maurusi tenant (occupancy tenant) of the erstwhile Zamindar. The Madhya Pradesh Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951 (for short 'the Zamindari Abolition Act') came into force on 2nd of October, 1951. Under the Zamindari Abolition Act the intermediary was expropriated so that the tiller of the soil became tenant directly under the State Naharkhan was given status of Bhoomiswami under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959. It was alleged that Naharkhan inducted Gulkhan as a tenant before coming into force of the Zamindari Abolition Act and therefore he became a Pacca tenant and continued possession by cultivating suit land. Gulkhan filed an application under Section 38 of the Zamindari Abolition Act before the revenue court for being declared as a Pacca tenant. It was averr...
Tag this Judgment!