Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC2491; 2001(77)ECC10; 2001LC229(SC); 2001(132)ELT8(SC); JT2001(6)SC117; 2001(4)SCALE642; (2001)9SCC96
Santosh Hegde, J.1. The appellant in these appeals imported stainless steel rolled special blades sections and filed a Bill of Entry claiming classification of the said imported goods under Tariff heading 73.15(1). The Assistant Collector classified the said goods under Heading No. 73.33/40(2) of the Customs Tariff on the ground that the chromium content of the goods imported is 10.81 per cent which made the imported goods classifiable as stainless steel. On appeal, the Collector held that since the chromium content of the stainless steel 15 more than 8 per cent, it will have to be considered as an alloy of stainless steel, therefore, he classified the said imported goods under Tariff Heading 73.15(2) as stainless steel.2. Against the said order of the Collector, the appellant preferred appeals before the Customs, Excise the Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the tribunal'). The tribunal agreed with the Collector and held that he was justified in classifying the goods under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC3132; 2001(5)SCALE5; (2001)6SCC597
ORDER1. Delay is condoned. Leave is granted.2. The appellant before us challenges the order passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissing C.W.P.No. 248/1997 on August 27,1997 and the order dismissing Review Application No. 359/1997, filed in the said writ petition, on September 7, 1999.3. A narration of relevant facts would be necessary to appreciate the controversy in these appeals. The subject matter of he dispute is an extent of 36 sq. yards of land comprising Shop No. 14, Near Button Factory, Subhash Chowk, Sonepat (under the Municipal Committee, Sonepat, an A-class Municipality) hereinafter referred to as 'the demised land' which was given on lease by the Municipal Committee under Haryana Municipalities Management of Municipal Properties and State Properties Rules, 1976 to one Prem Kumar Sardana. It appears with the Permission of the Municipality the said Sardana raised construction, Shop No. 14 (ground floor and first floor). In 1971, he leased out t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC3129; 2001(77)ECC6; 2001(132)ELT10(SC); JT2001(6)SC146; 2001(4)SCALE638; (2001)6SCC284
Y.K. Sabharwal,J. 1.The respondent in discharge of its export obligation under quantity based advance licence, filed shipping bills for export of stainless steel utensils.One of the conditions of licence was that the utensils shall be made of AISI-202quality stainless steels by using the raw material 'non-magnetic stainless steel sheets/coils AISI-202 - indigenous' under proper declaration. The allegations against the respondent was that the goods exported under the export obligation were misdeclared inasmuch as the respondent had used the material of inferior grade to the one required in the manufacture of utensils.The Commissioner of Customs came to the conclusion that the charge against the respondent had been proved.The Commissioner for his conclusion relied upon the report of the Chemical Examiner.The demand of the respondent for retesting of samples was declined but in order to obviate any unfair treatment to the respondent the Commissioner gave option to the respondent to cross-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC2456; 2001(2)ALD(Cri)360; 2001ALLMR(Cri)2205(SC); 2001(2)ALT(Cri)262; [2001]107CompCas1(SC); (2001)4CompLJ17(SC); 2001CriLJ3952; 2001(3)Crimes441(SC); JT2001(6)SC2
S.N. Variava, J.1. Leave granted.2. Heard parties.3. These Appeals are against Orders dated 16th April, 2001 and 19th April, 2001 passed by the Bombay High Court.4. Briefly stated the facts leading to these Appeals are as follows: due to large scale diversions of public funds, belonging to banks and financial institutions, to the individual accounts of certain brokers, the Government first promulgated on Ordinance. Subsequently the Special Court (Trial of Offenses Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 was passed. This Act will hereinafter be referred to as the Special Courts Act. ) Under this Special Courts Act one Special Court came to be established. In the beginning there was only one Judge. All civil and criminal matters, even if they arose from the same transaction were before the same Judge. The same Judge had, in fact, tried both civil and criminal matters even though the arose out of the same transaction or same set of facts. It is only because the work load was fou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2001(6)SC183; 2001(4)SCALE680; (2001)7SCC358
Pattanaik, J.1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted in all the SLPs.3. This batch of cases related to the Cess and other Taxes on Minerals (Validation) Act, 1992 [hereinafter referred to as `the Act]. The question for consideration is, by the aforesaid Act, what in fact has been validated, is it only the taxes on minerals already realising under he invalid law or the right apt levy tax and relays the same, which became due up to 4th of April, 1991? Several cases arising from different States have been tagged on the main matter arising out of the Judgement of the Patna High Court, were listed together, but we think it appropriate to decide the Bihar matter, so that the law laid down there in would be followed in other cases. Incidentaly, the earlier judgment of this Court arising out of the said Validation Act in relation to the levy of tax on minerals in the State of Tamil Nadu in the case of P. Kannadasan and Ors. vs . State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. : AIR1996SC2560, is required to be recons...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2002(1)ALT(Cri)299
Thomas, J.1. Leave granted in SLP (Cr.) 297 of 1999.A septuagenarian Ram Narain Singh was killed by cutting the throat on the night of 16th April, 1992. The ferocious act has been attributed to appellant Shambhu Nath Singh. He alongwith four other persons were convicted by the Trial Court under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment passed on them. These appeals are by Shambhu Nath Singh, Raj Gir Singh and Ram Narain who were arrayed as A3, A4 and A5 respectively. We are told that the other accused viz., Jag Lal Singh and Nokha Singh (who are arrayed as A1 and A2) died during the pendency of these appeals. Thus we have only to deal with the case of the three appellants named above.2. The whole case depends upon the veracity of one eye-witness PW8-Kaushal Kishore Singh, the 19 year old son of the deceased. His narration, in brief, is the following. All the 5 accused met his father at the mango orchard....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC2493; 2001(2)ALD(Cri)392; 2001ALLMR(Cri)1975(SC); 2001(2)ALT(Cri)216; 2001CriLJ3514; 2001(3)Crimes490(SC); JT2001(6)SC130; 2001(4)SCALE625; (2001)6SCC620
Raju, J. 1.This appeal filed against the judgment dated 7.7.1998 of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No.880 of 1980 by the second accused (Accused Nos. 1 and 3 having died during the pendency of the appeal in the High Court) relates to an occurrence on 9.1.1979 at about 4 p.m. in Mashika village resulting in the death of one Ram Chandra. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found all the three accused guilty of the charge against them punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC, and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. All the three accused pursued the matter before the High Court on appeal and, as noticed earlier, the appellants 1 and 3 before the High Court died during the pendency of the appeal and the appeal was heard and disposed of confirming the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge.2.The case of the prosecution is that on 9.1.1979 at about 4 p.m. when the deceased Ram Chandra along with Ram Lalak (PW.1), Krishna Murari (PW...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC2464; 2002(1)ALD(Cri)20; 2001CriLJ3960; 2001(3)Crimes425(SC); JT2001(6)SC17; 2001(4)SCALE630; (2001)6SCC674; 2001(2)LC1531(SC)
S.N. Variava, J.1. These SLPs are filed against the judgment dated 12th April, 2001. When these SLPs were called out Mr. Ramamurthy, Senior Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu, prayed for an adjournment of four weeks. He submitted that, as Accused Nos. 2 to 5 have been acquitted by the impugned Judgment, the State was going to prefer an Appeal against the same Judgment. Mr Rao opposed the Application on the ground that the Petitioner was in jail. He submitted that if the State wanted an adjournment, for such a long period, then the Petitioner should be released on bail. We, therefore, felt that the best course to follow would be to hear these SLPs today. When the State files its Appeal it can be heard separately.2. Accordingly leave is granted 3. Heard parties.4. By these Appeals the Appellant is challenging his conviction under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.5. Brief facts leading to these Appeals are as follows:6. The Appellant was electe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC2469; JT2001(6)SC77; (2002)1MLJ9(SC); 2001(4)SCALE621; (2001)6SCC473
Shah, J.1. Leave granted.2. It is the say of the appellant that he let out suit premises admeasuring 10ft. x 8 ft.which is part of his residence to the respondent at the rent of Rs.200/- per month.After retiring from service he started practice as an Advocate in a small room admeasuring 8 ft. x 7 ft.in the rear side of the suit premises which is let out to the respondent. He filed H.R.C. No.2757 of 1992 for bonafide requirement on the ground that his sone needed it to start a new business and also for his office purposes as he required access to his chamber by providing door in the common wall and for keeping library books. The tenant Balraj promised that he would vacate the premises and hand over vacant possession of the premises.Therefore, by memo dated 6th December, 1994 the appellant submitted as under:'The petitioner does not press the petition for the present and he prays that the petition may be disposed of accordingly.'3. The tenant Balraj died on 3rd February, 1997 and the pre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2001SC2488; 2001(2)ALT(Cri)234; 2001CriLJ3942; 2001(3)Crimes411(SC); JT2001(6)SC360; 2001(4)SCALE617; (2001)6SCC423
Shivaraj V. Patil J.1. This appeal by special leave, is aggrieved by and directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 4.9.1997, upholding the order of conviction and sentence passed on the appellant by the trial court.2. The appellant was tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala, for the offences under Section 376 read with Section 511 IPC and for an offence under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution case,.as unfolded during trial is that at about 1.30 P.M. on 17.11.1993, Betty,the deceased, informed her friend Caroline (Pw-4) that Ramkat Ronald (the accused), the appellant who was Betty's friend, wanted her to see him at his house No.8232, Sector 2, Panchkula. Accordingly Betty went to the said house. At abut 2.30 P.M., Caroline informed Elisha Siele (Pw-5), Betty's brother that his sister had been stabbed in house No. 823, Sector 2, Panchkula. She did not in form who gave that information to her. PW-5 then rushed to the place and found the a...
Tag this Judgment!