Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC453; 2002(101)DRJ1; 2001(79)ECC1; 2002(139)ELT3(SC); [2002]254ITR554(SC); [2002(1)JCR403(SC)]; JT2001(10)SC456; 2001(8)SCALE479; (2002)2SCC127; [2002]126STC122(SC)
Bharucha, C.J.1. The case of Dhiren Chemical Industries (Civil Appeal No. 7937 of 1995) has been referred by a Bench of three learned Judges to the Constitution Bench because it appeared to the Bench that there was a conflict between the view taken in Collector of Central Excise, Patna v. Usha Martin Industries : 1997ECR257(SC) and the view taken in Motiram Tolaram and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. : 1999ECR48(SC) , both being judgments of Benches of three learned Judges. Because of that reference, the other cases (Civil Appeal Nos. 2496-97) were also so referred.2. The only question that we are concerned with relates to the correct interpretation to be placed upon the phrase 'on which the appropriate amount of duty of excise has already been paid'.In the case of Usha Martin, the relevant Exemption Notification read, so far as is relevant, thus:'Exemption in goods falling under Item 26-AA(i-a) made from duty-paid material: In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC444; 2002(1)ALLMR(SC)625; (2002)1BOMLR939; JT2001(10)SC445; 2001(8)SCALE456; (2001)10SCC264; 2002(1)SCT499(SC); (2002)1UPLBEC559
V.N. Khare, J.1. Leave granted.2. This group of appeals gives rise to following two questions for our decisions:1) Whether in view of an extraordinary situation having arisen, the Central Government was justified in rejecting the request of the State Government to grant one time increase in admission capacity in Medicine (MBBS) and Dentistry (BDS) courses run in various medical colleges located within the State of Maharashtra.2) Whether, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution ought to have issued directions to the Central Government to grant one time increase in admission capacity in Medicine (MBBS) and Dentistry (BDS) courses undertaken by various medical colleges (government run as well as private management run colleges) in the State of Maharashtra. 3. The aforesaid questions have arisen in the context of the facts and circumstances stated hereinafter. On 29.4.2001, the Maharashtra Health Scie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC340; 2002(1)ALD(Cri)245; 2002(1)ALT(Cri)173; 2002CriLJ928; 2002(1)Crimes18(SC); JT2001(Suppl2)SC243; 2001(8)SCALE482; (2002)2SCC35; 2002(1)LC137(SC)
Shah, J.1. In Sessions Case No. 152 of 1999, by judgment and order dated 19.5.2000, Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik convicted Prakash Dhawal Khairnar Patil (A-1) and Sandeep @ Babloo Prakash Khairnar Patil (A-2) for the office punishable under Section 302 120-B 201 397 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25(1)(b)(a) of the Arms read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code. Both the accused were sentenced as under:(1) For the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC -sentenced to death.(2) For the offence punishable under Section 397 read with Section 34 IPC- -to RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for six months; (3) For the offence punishable under Section 25(1)(b)(a) read with Section 3 of the Arms Act, read with Section 120-B of IPC- -to RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for six...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2002)10SCC94
V.N. Khare and; R.C. Lahoti, JJ.This appeal arises out of the consolidation operation undertaken under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The respondents filed an objection before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Chakki, Malwan, District Fatehpur claiming co-tenancy right in disputed khata. It appears from the record that the appellants, who earlier were claiming exclusive tenancy rights in the disputed khatas entered into a compromise with the respondents accepting them as co-tenure-holder to the extent of half share in the disputed khata. The said compromise was signed by the parties as well as by the two members of the Management Committee of Gram Panchayat. The Assistant Consolidation Officer, in view of the said compromise, passed an order dated 11-5-1974.The deceased Appellant 1, who is now represented by his legal heirs and other appellants, preferred a belated appeal before the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). Along with the appeal, the appellants also filed a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001(8)SCALE325; (2003)8SCC410
ORDER1. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that in the affidavits tendered on behalf of the State Governments names of the members of the Advisory Committee are not disclosed and in any case are not published at the relevant places. In this view of the matter, the State Governments concerned are directed to publish the names of the members of the Advisory Committee in various districts so that if there is any complaint any citizen can approach them. Further, the statistics and information which are to be given in the affidavit should be given districtwise.2. Mr Krishan Mahajan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India states that despite the necessary warning by the Secretary, Health Department (Family Welfare), Health Secretaries of various States are not responding and are not interested in implementing the Act as well as the various directions issued by this Court. Today, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has produced th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2002)10SCC99
K.T. Thomas and; S.N. Phukan, JJ.Ten appellants have been convicted by the trial court for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code besides Sections 147 and 148 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. All of them were grievance of the appellants is that they should be heard before they are dispossessed. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the prayer on the ground that there being encroachments on the public property, the matter should be expeditiously dealt with. sentenced to imprisonment for life on the main count and for lesser sentences for the lesser offences. The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence passed on all of them and dismissed the appeal filed by them.The prosecution case, in short, is the following: deceased Nathun Gope was a peon attached to a High School. He gave evidence in a criminal case in which the first appellant was on record. On 11-4-1987, when the deceased was proceeding to the school during morning hours all...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC441; 2002(1)ALD(Cri)242; 2002(1)ALT(Cri)198; 2002(50)BLJR984; (SCSuppl)2002(1)CHN108; 2002CriLJ923; 2002(1)Crimes11(SC); I(2002)DMC318SC; JT2001(10)SC361; 2001(8)S
Thomas, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. A mother-in-law figured as the complainant in a case of culpable homicide of her daughter-in-law, but eventually she was transposed as one of the delinquent offenders of the said murder. The High Court has now stalled the case against her on the ground of her first complaint. This was unrecognizable to the brother of the deceased and hence he has come to this Court challenging the said order of the High Court. 3. Sugnia Devi is the unfortunate victim who was killed on the night of 27.6.1988. About 10 years prior to her death she was married to Ram Jatan Choudhary, one of the four sons of the first respondent Sita Devi. She remained childless. On the day which followed here death the first respondent Sita Devi lodged an FIR with Baby Barhi Police Station alleging that a few persons from outside had sneaked into the bedroom of Sugnia Devi and murdered here by strangulation. FIR No. 135 was registered on the basis of the said complaint and investigation was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC382; 2002(1)ALD(Cri)281; 2002(1)ALT(Cri)153; 2002CriLJ938; 2002(1)Crimes1(SC); JT2001(10)SC1353; 2001(8)SCALE448; 2002(1)LC212(SC)
Phukan, J. 1. Four brothers were booked for trial under Section 302 read with Section 34 and other lesser offences of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Judge acquitted don e accused namely. Aas Mohammed and the High Court acquitted another accused (Sher Mohammed). The High Court affirmed the conviction of two other brothers, namely Majid and Bashir who have filed these two appeals by special leave and we are disposing of the appeals by this common judgment.2. On the intervening night of August 11/12, 1995 in the wee hors i.e. about 4 a.m. Smt. Hamidi and her husband Abdul Rahim (PW-7) were subjected to murderous assault and at that time their minor son Hasham (PW-6) aged about 11 years, was the only person p resent. Both Smt. Hamidi and her husband Abdul Rahim became unconscious and fell down. Hasham saw the assault, raised an alarm and persons from nearby houses came to the house of Abdul Rahim. At about 5.50 a.m. Hasham (PW-6) was taken to the Police station by Jamaluddin, Shaurab ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC350; [2002]108CompCas193(SC); (2002)1CompLJ205(SC); [2002(1)JCR339(SC)]; JT2001(10)SC466; (2002)ILLJ550SC; 2001(8)SCALE541; (2002)2SCC333; [2002]35SCL182(SC); 2002
Kirpal, J.1. The validity of the decision of the Union of India to disinvest and transfer 51% shares of M/s Bharat Aluminium Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'BALCO') is the primary issue in these cases.2. BALCO was incorporated in 1965 as a Government of India Undertaking under the Companies Act, 1956. Prior to its disinvestments it had a paid-up share capital of Rs. 488.85 crores which was owned and controlled by the Government of India. The company is engaged in the manufacture of aluminium and had plants at Korba in the State of Chhattisgarh and Bidhanbag in the State of West Bengal. The Company has integrated aluminium manufacturing plant for the manufacture and sale of aluminium metal including wire rods and semi-fabricated products.3. The Government of Madhya Pradesh vide its letter dated 18th March, 1968 wrote to BALCO stating that it proposed that land be granted to it on a 99 years lease subject to the terms and conditions contained therein. The letter envisaged gi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC530; 2002(1)ALD(Cri)82; 2002CriLJ978; 2002(1)Crimes225(SC); JT2001(Suppl2)SC31; 2001(8)SCALE389; (2002)2SCC131
Balakrishnan, J. 1. The five appellants were convicted by the Sessions Judge, Madhubani in Bihar, for the offences under Section 302/34, Section 326/34 and also for the offences punishable under Section 148 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed by the High Court. The appellants and the prosecution witnesses 1 to 4 are agriculturists having properties of their own. It appears that there was a dispute between these two parties regarding irrigation of their fields. Appellants' paddy fields are at higher level. On 30.8.1980, PW2 Babulal Yadav had had cut the ridge of the filed of the appellants to allow flow of water from that filed to his field. As the appellants objected to the cutting of ridge by PW2 Babulal Yadav, the parties on either side agreed to have a Panchayat to settle the dispute. On the next morning, i.e. 31.8.1980 however, the appellants came to their paddy fields and started repairing the ridge. At that time,PW2 Babulal Yadav was...
Tag this Judgment!