Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC391; 94(2001)DLT662(SC); 2001(78)ECC468; 2002(139)ELT6(SC); JT2001(9)SC544; 2001(8)SCALE73; (2002)2SCC95
Sethi, J. 1. The appellants are the aircraft carrier engaged in the business of international air transport of passengers and cargo across various countries. They are also operating in India under bilateral agreements executed between the countries of their origin and India. Claiming that as they are not the 'persons incharge' of the aircraft, no liability of shortages of off-loading the complete quantity of goods can be imposed upon them in terms of Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It is contended that once the officer incharge of the aircraft is given a certificate under Clause (e) of Sub-section (2) of Section 42 of the act, the authorities cannot re-open the issue. According to the appellants no penalty could be imposed upon either the owner of the aircraft or the carrier as the owner and the carrier cannot be deemed to be an agent of the person incharge of the conveyance under Section 148 of the Act.2. It appears that the aircrafts of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC5; 2002(1)ALD31(SC); 2001(6)ALT1(SC); 2002(1)AWC248(SC); JT2001(10)SC31; 2001(8)SCALE79; (2002)1SCC227
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.1. The question for determination in these appeals is whether it is the master plan that was in existence when the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulations) Act, 1976 (for short, 'the Act') was enforced, and not the plan prepared subsequently, that has to be taken into consideration to determine if land is vacant land held in excess of the ceiling limit fixed under the Act.2. The High Court, by the impugned judgment and order, relying upon the decision of a Bench of two Judges in Atia Mohammadi Begum (Smt.) v. State of U.P. and Ors. , has held that when the land was not vacant land n the date of the commencement of the Act, the authorities cannot convert that land into vacant land by their unilateral act by including it in the master plan for a purpose other than agriculture. On this view, the proceedings taken under the Act have been declared null and void by the High Court.3. Since reconsideration of the decision in Atia Begum's case was sought, it was directed by a Bench ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC107; 2002(1)ALLMR(SC)646; 2002CriLJ225; 2002(1)Crimes145(SC); JT2001(9)SC438; RLW2002(1)SC112; 2001(8)SCALE88; (2001)9SCC631
Sethi, J. 1. Leave granted.2. Aggrieved by the framing of charges against him under Sections 376 511 451 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, the respondent-accused filed a revision petition in the High Court which was allowed vide the order impugned in this appeal by quashing the charges framed against him. The appellant-compliant-prosecutrix has filed this appeal submitting that the impugned order is against the provisions of law as the High Court could not prevent the holding of trial by sitting in appeal against the order of framing of charge by sifting and weighing the evidence recorded during the investigation.3. We find substance in the submission made on behalf of the appellant. The revision power under the code of Criminal procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. While exercising such powers the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do. Revisional powers could be exercised on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1; 2002(1)ALLMR(SC)270; 2002(1)AWC435(SC); (SCSuppl)2002(1)CHN77; [2001]252ITR324(SC); [2002(1)JCR400(SC)]; JT2001(10)SC270; RLW2002(1)SC64; 2001(8)SCALE93; (2002)
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.I.A. No. 1 is allowed.1. This appeal was finally heard and allowed on 31.3.1999 by a Bench consisting of one us (Hon. U.C.Banerjee, J.) and another learned Judge of this Court. That decision is reported in : [1999]237ITR364(SC) Bhagat [Ram (Dead) Versus Teja Singh].2. The only respondent in the appeal was Teja Singh. He was served with the notice issued from this Court but he did not choose to appear and defend the appeal. Taja Singh died on 1.12.1986. But no steps were taken to implead the legal heirs of Teja Singh. The original appellant Bhagat Ram also died and his legal heirs/representatives were brought on record on 20.11.1985. When the appeal was heard by this Court on 31.3.1999, it was not brought to the notice of this Court that Teja Singh had already passed away on 1.12.1986. After the appeal was disposed of, the legal heirs of Teja Singh filed an application to get themselves impleaded in this appeal for an opportunity of hearing.3. This Court, however, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC191; 94(2001)DLT606(SC); 2001(78)ECC453; 2002(139)ELT12(SC); JT2001(10)SC584; 2001(8)SCALE98; (2002)1SCC718
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.1. In Civil Appeal Nos. 767-768 of 1995, the challenge of Union of India is to be the judgment and order of the High Court whereby allowing the writ petition, the Collector of Customs has been directed to release the imported goods of the writ petitioner (respondent No. 1 herein) lying with the Central Warehousing Corporation Limited (for short 'the Corporation'). It has been further directed that the first respondent will pay demurrage, container charges and ground rent to the Corporation from the date of storage of the goods till January, 15, 1991 whereas the Collector of Customs will pay the said charges on account of storage of these goods from January 16, 1991 till the date of release of the goods.2. In Special Leave Petition (C) No. 1663 of 2000, the challenge of the Government is to the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal which upheld the order of Collector of Customs dated 22nd October, 1993. By the said order, the Collector of C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001(8)SCALE228; (2001)10SCC166
G.B. Pattanaik,; R.P. Sethi and; Doraiswamy Raju, JJ.1. Delay condoned.2. Having heard Mr Dwivedi, learned Senior Counsel at length and on examining the impugned order of the High Court as well as the order of the Minister concerned on the question of withdrawing from the acquisition already made, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the said order of the Minister does not suffer from any apparent error requiring to be corrected by the High Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court after a detailed examination of the materials on record having dismissed the writ petition for the reasons indicated therein, we find that no case for our interference under Article 136 of the Constitution has been made out. Nonetheless, the applicant before us being an engineering institution for whose benefit the land had been acquired, we examined the order passed by the Minister concerned, withdrawing from the acquisition and all the r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2001(10)SC188; 2001(8)SCALE255; (2001)10SCC665
R.C. Lahoti and; Brijesh Kumar, JJ.A petition seeking eviction of tenant on a ground available under Section 13(3)(a)(i)(a) of The East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter `the Act', for short) succeeded before the Rent Controller who passed an order of eviction. The order was maintained by the Appellate Authority who dismissed the tenant's appeal. In a revision preferred by the tenant under Section 15(5) of the Act, the High Court has set aside the order of eviction and directed the eviction petition to be dismissed. The aggrieved landlady has come up in appeal by special leave.The ownership of the landlady over the premises and their occupation by the respondent in the capacity of a tenant, is not disputed. The requirement, as alleged in the pleadings and as was found by the Rent Controller, is that the landlady is a Nurse, presently in occupation of a quarter allotted to her in the hospital where she is serving. There she is residing with her husband and two childre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC397; 2001(3)ARBLR494(SC); [2002(1)JCR63(SC)]; JT2001(9)SC453; 2001(8)SCALE86; (2002)1UPLBEC394
R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. The respondent Siddaiah is a poor person belonging to a downtrodden class of community. His daughter Bairamma was studying in Xth standard as a boarder in a Government School. On 7.1.1991 she died an unnatural death. Probably it was a case of food poisoning in the hostel mess. The respondent filed a civil writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka seeking compensation for the death of his daughter and also grant to 10 acres of land out of Survey No. 78 of village Doddakallu Balu in Kanakpura Taluk. The State of Karnataka disputed the entitlement of the respondent to seek compensation and grant of land putting in issue the cause of death of Bairamma and the liability of the State of compensate in the manner claimed by the respondent. The High Court though that the matter was fit to be adjudicated in the Civil Court. However, by the time the writ petition came up for hearing, the limitation for filling the civil suit had expired. The learned Single Judge of the H...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001IXAD(SC)403; AIR2002SC88; 2002(1)ALLMR(SC)317; 2002(1)AWC49(SC); 2002(50)BLJR37; I(2002)DMC94SC; [2002(1)JCR220(SC)]; JT2001(9)SC429; 2002(I)OLR1; RLW2002(1)SC122; 2001
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. These appeals, filed by the husband of the respondent are directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in AAO Nos. 365 and 718/91, in which the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the wife and dismissed the appeal filed by the husband and set aside the judgment passed by the Subordinate Judge, Narsapur.2. The appellant Adhyatma Bhattar Alwar, and the respondent Adhyatma Bhattar Sri Devi were married on 22nd August, 1978 in Nalamvari Choultry at Rajabmundry. The couple stayed together in village Palacole where the parents of the husband reside. A female child was born to them on 12th December, 1979, whereafter they separated. The wife and daughter lived with her parents at Rajhmundry, while the husband continued to stay with his parents at Palacole. The husband filed a petition for dissolving the marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') praying for a decree of divor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2002)10SCC97
ORDER 1. Mr J.P. Dhanda, Advocate enters appearance for the respondent State. 2. Leave granted. 3. On the fact situation, particularly since the appellant is a lady, and in view of the relatively less serious offence involved, we are inclined to benefit the appellant with an order under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We, therefore, direct that the appellant, if arrested, shall be released on bail on her executing a bond in a sum of Rs 10,000 to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. It is open to the investigating officer to question her under Section 161 of the Code. 4. With these observations the appeals are disposed of. Arising out of SLPs (Crl.) Nos. 3265-66 of 2001...
Tag this Judgment!