Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001(4)SCALE461; (2002)10SCC436
B.N. Kirpal and; Ruma Pal, JJ.Special leave granted.After hearing the counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that on the facts of this case the decision to require Rs. 5, 00, 000 (Rupees five lakhs) being deposited prior to permitting the filing of the written statement was incorrect. On summons being issued, the defendant has 30 days, as of right, to file his reply pursuant to the show-cause notice and no condition can be imposed at least till 30 days are over.The order of the High Court as well as that of the Debts Recovery Officer are set aside. The appellants are permitted to file their written statement in the Tribunal within two weeks from today. If the written statement is filed, the case will proceed thereafter. If the written statement is not filed within two weeks from today, then the decree passed by the trial court will stand. Parties to appear before the Tribunal on 16-4-2001.The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001(75)ECC8; 2001(129)ELT273(SC); (2002)1GLR485
Santosh Hegde, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, (the 'tribunal'), est Regional Bench, Mumbai dated 15th July, 1999 made in Appeal No.C/366/94A.2. The appellant which is an approved unit situated in the Kandla Free Trade Zone (KFTZ) was authorised to manufacture one lakh ton of Cold Rolled Closed Annealed (CRCA) and Tin Mill Black Plate (TMBP) Coils per year under a licence issued by the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India on 30.3.1981. The said Ministry by a letter dated 2.7.1982 approved the proposal of the appellant for import into the KFTZ of second-hand machinery for the purpose of the manufacture of the CRCA and TMBP under certain conditions which included that the imported machineries should not be over 10 years old and it should have a residual life of at least 5 years. Based on the said permission, the appellant imported between the period 1983 and 1987 second hand machineries as capital goods fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2343; 2002LabIC2184; (2001)IILLJ818SC; (2002)9SCC749
A.P. Mishra and; B.N. Agrawal, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The appellant has challenged the order of the High Court which has dismissed the letters patent appeal though holding the questioned appointment of 11 persons who were medically examined and were found to be underage in the year 1973, the year of their appointment. In spite of this it further held, underage disability now vanishes. We do not find such a finding could be sustainable in the eyes of law. Once this is found, they were underage in the year 1973, their regularisation based on such appointment cannot be upheld, specially when there is specific provision, no person can work in the mines who is underage. If this be so there is no justification for upholding the order as their age now is 30 years. The question is not of their employment on compassionate ground after attaining the requisite age. The right which is claimed is the right from the date of initial appointment, namely, in 197...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
S.N. Variava, J. 1. Leave granted.2. Heard parties.3. This Appeal is against an Order dated 29th February, 2000 by which the Writ Petition filed by the Appellant has been dismissed.4. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:The Respondent held an auction sale on 28th November, 1995. At this auction sale the Appellant was the highest bidder. In terms of the conditions of the auction sale the Appellant, on the same day, deposited a sum of Rs. 6,54,500/-. As per the terms of the auction sale the balance 75% of the amount had to be paid within 60 days from the issue of the Demand Letter. However, if sufficient cause was shown then the Chairman could extend time up to a maximum period of 180 days, subject to payment of interest on the balance amount at the rate of 18% per annum. The Demand Letter was issued on 3rd January, 1996. The balance sum of Rs. 19,63,545/- had to be paid, in terms of the auction sale, within 60 days of the said letter.5. The Appellant deposited a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2339; 2001(4)SCALE460; (2002)9SCC727
K.T. Thomas and; R.P. Sethi, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for murdering his brother. He is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The Division Bench of the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal.3. As we granted leave by limiting the scope of the appeal to the nature of offence, we do not propose to go into the evidence of the case in detail. For that limited purpose it will suffice to point out the prosecution case as narrated by the Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment. It is thus:“... The accused who from the family house overheard the conversation between the deceased and DW 1 came out of the house in an aggressive mood and by this time the deceased stepped out of the room and within minutes there was an altercation between the accused and the deceased. During the course of the quarrel the accused took out MO 1 knife kept with him and stabbed the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC2175; II(2001)DMC189SC; 2001(4)SCALE458
1. Leave granted. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The appellant-wife has challenged the order passed by the High Court in which the divorce between the appellant and her husband was held to be void. The parties entered into a compromise and as per compromise the wife foregoes her right of maintenance instead to take the sons with her. The High Court held no divorce can be decreed based on compromise until it fall within four corners of law as required under the statute. Thus held such a compromise to be void. However, the High Court thereafter upheld another part of the compromise, namely, wife foregoes maintenance for taking the son with her. 4. We fail to understand, how a part of any compromise could be said to be valid when the compromise has been held to be void. Hence, the order of the High Court upholding the said part to be valid, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the impugned order to that extent is set aside. The effect is that both compromise ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC1877; [2001(89)FLR599]; JT2001(4)SC306; 2001LabIC1406; 2001(3)SCALE150; (2001)4SCC309; [2001]2SCR927; 2001(2)SCT1085(SC); 2001(3)SLJ257(SC); (2001)2UPLBEC1163
Shah, J.1. Leave granted in S.L.P.(C)Nos. 16644-45 of 1999.2. The question involved in these appeals is-whether members of BSF who have resigned from their posts after serving for ten or more years but less than 20 years are entitled to pension/pensioner benefits under the relevant provisions of the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the BSF Act') and the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the BSF Rules') or the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CCS (Pension) Rules')?3. Brief facts of Civil Appeal No.6166 of 1991 are that-respondent filed Civil Writ Petition No.761 of 1998 before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh praying for writ directing the appellants to forthwith release the pension due to the respondent w.e.f. 1st March, 1994 and for release of past arrears of pension with interest. It is the case of the respondent that he joined Board Security Force (hereinafter referred to as 'BSF'...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2341; 2001(4)SCALE459; (2002)9SCC353
B.N. Kirpal and; Ruma Pal, JJ.1. Special leave granted.2. The only question involved in this case is whether there was an arbitration agreement between the parties or not. It appears that there was a charter party contract dated 13-6-1991 which was entered into between the parties in which clause 47 provided that in case of disputes between them the same will be referred to arbitration under the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. Some disputes having arisen, the Union of India appointed Respondent 2 as arbitrator. Thereupon, Respondent 1 filed an application in the Civil Court, Cuddalore under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, contending that there was no arbitration agreement between the parties, inasmuch as the bill of lading did not refer to any such arbitration clause.3. This plea was accepted by the trial court and the application of the respondent allowed. The High Court affirmed this view. Hence, this appeal by special leave.4. Mr Mukul Rohatgi, the learned A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001(3)SCALE630; (2002)9SCC354
U.C. Banerjee and; Shivaraj V. Patil, JJ.1. It is placed on record that Premises No. 3, Aurangzeb Road, as ordered earlier, shall be sold by way of a public auction. Parties would be at liberty to bring offers if they so like. Public auction, however, shall have to be under the guidance of a registered auctioneer under the supervision of the Registrar-General of this Court or under the supervision of such officer of this Court, as may be nominated by him. The Registrar-General is directed to draw out a tentative list of auctioneers and their terms and conditions so as to enable this Court to deal with the matter further. It is made clear that since the lease of the Embassy of Israel is going to expire by 1-10-2001, the Embassy of Israel would also be at liberty to bid at the auction.2. Be it clarified that Mr Andhyarujina, learned Senior Counsel, upon instructions, informs this Court that his clients (Embassy of Israel) are prepared to offer Rs 22 crores (Rupees twenty-two crores) for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001(4)SCALE585; (2002)9SCC731
G.B. Pattanaik and; U.C. Banerjee, JJ.1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court disposing of a criminal appeal and affirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the Sessions Judge. The appellant stood charged under Section 302 for having given knife-blow on the abdomen and chest of the deceased. There were as many as 4 eyewitnesses PWs 5, 8, 10 and 11. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence convicted the accused-appellant under Section 302 and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. On an appeal being carried, the Appellate Authority, instead of examining and reappreciating the evidence of all these eyewitnesses, disposed of the matter by holding that it is not necessary to give detailed reasons as the Court agrees with the conclusion of the trial Judge in convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant. This, in our view, cannot be held to be a consideration of the evidenc...
Tag this Judgment!