Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2002(140)ELT4(SC)
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The order under challenge has been passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal on appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee. After a detailed discussion, the Tribunal has said that a more detailed study should have been made as also a careful analysis of the discrepancies said to be found in the assessee's explanation. Therefore, the Tribunal has, after allowing the appeals, set aside the orders under challenge before it and remanded the matter to the jurisdictional Commissioner for re-adjudication, giving the parties an opportunity of being heard and placing relevant material on record.3. It is submitted before us on behalf of the assessee that relevant material was before the Tribunal and, if required, it could have asked for more but it should have disposed of the appeal itself instead of making the order of remand. The learned Attorney General has agreed that this is the appropriate course to follow. If the Tribunal required more...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC463; 2002(1)ALD(Cri)285; 2002(1)AWC380(SC); 2002(1)BomCR343; 2002(1)Crimes4(SC); [2002(94)FLR757]; [2002(1)JCR310(SC)]; JT2001(10)SC369; RLW2002(1)SC96; 2001(8)SCA
Thomas, J.1. Leave granted.2. A female child, by name Shalmali, was admitted in a school run by a religious minority at Aurangabad. her father, and advocate by profession, filed a criminal complaint before the local Judicial magistrate against the Principal and six office bearers of the school alleging that they have committed the offence under Section 7 of the Maharashtra Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee Act, 1987, (for short 'the Act'). The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and ordered process to be issued against all the seven accused who are arraigned in the complaint. Those accused challenged the said order first before the magistrate himself and later before the Sessions Court and still later before the High Court. At all those levels they failed to get the order quashed. The impugned judgment passed by a single Judge of the High Court of Bombay has upheld the order passed by the Magistrate.3. When the special leave petition, in challenge of the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC335; JT2001(Suppl2)SC24; 2001(8)SCALE503; (2002)1SCC749; 2002(1)LC163(SC)
P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. After notice the SLPs have been heard at length.2. The common judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in RFA (OS) No. 32/2000 and RFA (OS) No. 35/2000 is being assailed in these appeals by the plaintiff who instituted two suits No. 544 of 1991 and 597 of 1991 in the High Court. The first suit was filed against 48 defendants and the other suit against 52 defendants who were alleged to be unauthorised occupants of plots/houses located in Khasra No. 393/264 situated in Ashok Nagar (Chilla Village). Inter alia it was alleged in the plaint that the members of the Association (some of whom are the defendants) jointly and severally agreed to relinquish their respective rights in favour of the first plaintiff and further empowered the second plaintiff to institute requisite legal proceedings in order to safeguard the land in dispute. It is also alleged that the defendants were inducted into possession unauthorisedly by certain persons named int he plai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC491; 2002(1)ALD(Cri)296; 2002(1)ALT(Cri)138; 2002CriLJ590; 2002(1)Crimes63(SC); JT2001(Suppl2)SC79; 2001(8)SCALE522; (2001)10SCC340; 2002(1)LC307(SC)
R.C. Lahoti and; P. Venkatarama Reddi, JJ.[1] The three appellants herein faced trial in the Court of Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 392 read with Section 34 IPC. They were charged of committing murder of one Baburao Nana Lagdive (hereinafter referred to as “Baburao”) at his field and robbing him of golden earrings and silver “lingakar” worn by him in the early hours of 30-5-1984. Both the accused and the deceased were the residents of Village Shekapur.[2] The learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused of the charges under Sections 302 and 392 but found them guilty under Section 411 IPC and sentenced each of them to rigorous imprisonment for two years. On appeal by the State as well as by the accused, the High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) having found the accused guilty of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 392 read with Section 34, set aside th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2001(10)SC376; RLW2002(1)SC110; 2001(8)SCALE501; (2002)2SCC109
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. The core of the dispute raised in these appeals relates to specific performance of the agreement dated 10.1.1968 for sale of land, entered into between the Hasankhan Shye Mohammed Khan (dead represented by Lrs.) (hereinafter referred to as 'the owner') and the Hubli Dharwar Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Municipal Corporation'). Both the parties filed suits; the Municipal Corporation filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale and the owner filed the suit for declaration of title to the property and for injunction. The trial Court dismissed both the suits.2. Both the parties filed appeals before the district court. The first appellate court reversed the judgment of the trial Court dismissing the suit files by the Municipal Corporation and decreed the said suit, and confirmed the judgment of the trial Court dismissing the suit filed by the owner.3. The owner of the property filed two Second Appeals, RSA No. 642/97 and RSA...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2002)9SCC372
K.T. Thomas and; S.N. Phukan, JJ.1. These two special leave petitions are filed, one by Laloo Prasad Yadav and the other by Jagannath Mishra (both were Chief Ministers of the State of Bihar during different periods) and they are now accused in RC No. 47-A of 1997. This is one of the cases connected with “Bihar Fodder Scam”. They now challenge the orders passed by the Special Court, Ranchi refusing bail to them. In this case both the petitioners surrendered before the Special Court on 26-11-2001 and they continue in detention.2. When these petitions were taken up Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Additional Solicitor-General raised a preliminary objection that the petitioners must first approach the High Court of Ranchi in challenge of the impugned orders before approaching this Court with the special leave petition. Shri Kapil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Laloo Prasad Yadav submitted that in view of the special circumstances of this case this Court may be pleased t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC456; 2002(1)ALLMR(SC)912; 2002(2)BomCR33; JT2001(10)SC379; 2001(8)SCALE509; (2002)2SCC318; 2002(1)LC169(SC)
Banerjee, J.1. The issue presently before this court pertains to the scope and ambit of Section 7 of the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955 and its applicability therefore viz.-a-viz an order of 'dropping of proceedings' in terms of a notice issued under Section 4 of the Act of 1955 and resultant dismissal of the proceeding initiated for dispossession from the government premises. The High Court however, answered it in the negative and in favour of the occupants. Hence the appeals before this Court upon the grant of special leave.2. Adverting to the factual score broadly it appears that various plots of land belonging to the State Government in Byculla Division, Bombay was leased out to several occupants and were in their occupation since 1968. Since the Government wanted the plot for a public purpose, the Competent Authority issued a show-cause notice to the occupants under Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act, on 26th November, 1979 and the former however, dropped the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2001)10SCC635
S. Rajendra Babu and; Ruma Pal, JJ.1. Certain writ petitions were filed by the appellants before the High Court for forwarding their names by employment exchange for consideration for appointment as teachers in primary schools.2. The High Court disposed of the said writ petitions with a direction to consider their cases subject to certain conditions. On disposal of the writ petitions, writ appeals were filed. However, when the appeals were disposed of by the High Court, the matter was carried to this Court by way of special leave petitions and this Court by an order made on 29-4-1999 set aside the judgment of the High Court by consent of parties and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. When the matter was taken up for consideration submission was made on behalf of the appellants to withdraw the appeals. That request was rejected by the High Court and the matter was disposed of on merits. Against that order these appeals have been filed.3. Now all that is urged before us is that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2002)10SCC171
S. Rajendra Babu and; Ruma Pal, JJ.1. A suit was filed by the respondent who is Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Police Department of the appellants for a declaration that the order forfeiting two years' approved service is illegal on the ground that the Senior Superintendent of Police has no jurisdiction to pass this order.2. The trial court proceeded on the basis that the respondent had been appointed as a Constable and later on he was promoted to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector pursuant to the order made by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ferozepur and therefore, he was the appointing authority and hence he alone could have passed the order in question. On that basis it passed a decree in this suit declaring that the said order is null and void, set aside the same and held that he is entitled to all consequential benefits. The matter was carried in appeal.3. The learned District Judge in the first appeal and the High Court in the second appeal considered the matter but aff...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC451; 2002(1)AWC395(SC); (SCSuppl)2002(1)CHN113; [2002(1)JCR315(SC)]; JT2001(10)SC463; RLW2002(1)SC113; 2001(8)SCALE476; (2002)3SCC156; 2002(1)LC148(SC)
B.N. Agrawal, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is against the order dated 30th November, 2000 passed by Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.R. No. 397 of 1998 whereby order passed by trial court restoring the suit which was dismissed for default, has been set aside and application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') has been dismissed.3. The plaintiffs/appellants filed a suit for declaration that deed of conveyance dated 10th October, 1980 executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 was void and for recovery of possession of the property conveyed thereunder. The plaintiffs had settled abroad in Thailand and appointed one Shri Gurdip Singh as their attorney who appointed one Shri Suresh Sharma, Advocate, to represent them in the suit. On 13th June, 1988, the suit was adjourned to 20th July, 1988 but as during the night intervening between 19th and 20th July, 1988, father of the aforesaid Shri Suresh Sharma suffered heart...
Tag this Judgment!