Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC308; 2003(1)ALLMR(SC)777; 2003(1)AWC422(SC); 95(2003)CLT273(SC); 101(2002)DLT164(SC); JT2002(9)SC619; (2003)1MLJ184(SC); (2003)1SCC384; 2003(1)LC331(SC); 2003(2)WL
Bhan, J.1. This appeal has been filed by Vikas Deshpande, advocate hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant', under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961, [for short 'the Act'] against the final order passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India in BCI/TRC No. 51 of 1995 dated 3rd January, 2001. By the impugned order the Bar Council of India has permanently debarred the appellant from the practising as an advocate for the commission of a grave professional misconduct and also imposed the cost of Rs. 25,000/-.Facts:2. Ramrao Chandoba Jadhav, Vidyadhar Ramrao Jadhav, and Chandrakant Rmadeo Jadhav (all deceased), hereinafter referred to as 'the complainants', were prosecuted for committing murder of six persons on 16th December, 1990 at village Mandgi, Taluka-Degloor, District-Nanded. Complainants requested the Sessions Court for appointment of an advocate as amicus curiae to defend them as they were unable to engage an advocate because of their poverty. Sessions Cour...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC691; 2003(1)ALT(Cri)119; 2003CriLJ855; (2003)1GLR112; JT2002(9)SC629; RLW2002(3)SC373; (2003)1SCC73; 2003(1)LC724(SC)
Santosh Hegde, J.1. The appellant in this appeal was found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baroda and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. His appeal against the said judgment and conviction to the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad having failed, the appellant is before us.2. Briefly stated prosecution case is that due to quarrel between him and his wife, the appellant had set her on fire after beating her and pouring kerosene on 14.6.1997 at their residence, consequent to which she died on 15.6.1997 in the hospital, After the incident in question, it is the prosecution case that she was taken to a primary Health center at Sankheda where PW-5 the doctor gave her the initial treatment. Since her condition was very serious, he was requested by the police, who had by then come to the Health center, to record her dying declaration which the doctor did. This declaration is marked as Ex. 20. The said document was attested by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(2)ALD(Cri)128; JT2002(10)SC492; (2002)10SCC20
Santosh Hegde, J.1. Appellants along with ten other persons were charged for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 364, 323, 324, read with Section 149, 148 and under Section 27 and 30 of the Arms Act for having caused the abduction of Sukhchain Singh with a view to commit his murder and for having caused injuries to Nishan Singh PW-4 on 23rd of December, 1990 at about 6 p.m.2. The learned trial Judge transferred the case in regard to one of the accused persons to the Juvenline Court on the ground that the said accused was a juvenile. It is also seen from the records, another accused person died during the trial, while six of the accused persons along with appellants before us were convicted for various offences including under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC and was imposed imprisonment for life along with other punishments for other offences, particulars of which may not be necessary for the disposal of this appeal. Two of the accused were acquitted.3. In appeal by the convicted...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(1)ALD(Cri)3; JT2002(9)SC626; (2002)10SCC35
Variava, J.1. This Appeal is against a judgment dated 20th August, 1992 by which the conviction of the Appellants by the Trial Court by a judgment dated 26-7-1985 has been confirmed.2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows.3. On 8th of April 1979 in the early morning Ramadhin (since deceased) his wife Marri (PW3) and their son Ramasharan (PW1) had gone to the filed allotted to them for collecting Mahua fruits. At that time all the Appellants along with one person named Ramasre came to the field. Appellant No. 2 was armed with a gun, Appellant No. 3 was armed with a spear, Appellant No. 1 was armed with a Pharsa and Appellants 4, 5 and 6 were armed with Lathies. Appellant No. 2 asked Ramadhin as to why he was collecting Mahua fruits. Ramadhin insisted that he was entitled to collect Mahua fruits. On this Appellant No. 1 threw Ramadhin on the ground and the other Appellants started hitting Ramadhin. They chased his son Ramsharan away from the place of incident. Then Appellant No. 1 cut...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 95(2003)CLT201(SC); JT2002(9)SC22; (2003)1MLJ189(SC); (2003)1SCC414
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. A suit for eviction by the appellant-tenant filed by the respondent-landlord on the ground available under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was dismissed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. However, the High Court exercising revisional jurisdiction allowed the prayer for eviction. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the tenant has filed this appeal by special leave.3. In a nutshell, the factual position about which there is no much controversy, is as follows:-The suit premises consist of a ground floor and first floor measuring about 1 ground and 277 sq. feet. Landlord-respondent, as set out in the application R.C.O.P. No. (SIC) of 1998 on the file of Court of Small Causes at Madras claimed that the eviction was required for demolition and reconstruction of the building bearing Door No. 5, Clemens Road, Chennai. It was specifically pleaded that the property ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(1)ALD(Cri)6; JT2002(10)SC19; (2002)10SCC37
Rajendra Babu, J.1. On the allegation that Satya Prakash, elder brother of the appellant, was murdered by Hari Shankar and Jagdish Narain prosecution as launched. However, later on Jagdish Narain was discharged while a charge was framed against Hari Shankar. Father of Jagdish Narain did the 'pairvi' in that case. In those circumstances, the appellant before us is stated to have entertained ill-will against Jagdish Narain.2. On 23rd May, 1978, after attending a feast at the house of Lakshmi Narain in Nagala Saledi, when Jagdish Narain, Mukesh and Krishna Murari were returning to their homes, the appellant was standing near the Pakher tree in front of the Bethak of Raja Beta and he fired at Jagdish Narain as a result of which Jagdish Narain fell down. Mahabir Prasad was sitting at his door and Maya Prakash, Ram Nath and the deceased were also with him. On seeing the assault they rushed towards the appellant and exclaimed 'Arvind Prakash what have you done'!, when the appellant ran toward...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC643; 2003(1)BLJR360; JT2002(10)SC302; (2003)2SCC330
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Failure on the part of plaintiffs to give correct, specific and exact description of the immovable property forming subject- matter of suit, added by omission on the part of the Trial Court to insist on compliance by the draftsman of the plaint with the rules of pleadings, has resulted in a decree which is yet to witness its full execution and satisfaction though the litigation has by this time stretched over two decades.3. The parties are appearing in person and we have heard them at length. We propose to make an order which would finally bury - to the extent we can - the hatchets so far wielded by the parties. The directions which we propose to make, after briefly setting out the facts, are partly in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on this Court by Article 142 of the Constitution of India for doing complete justice in the lis before us.4. Smt. Pratibha Singh, the appellant No. 1 is the wife of Shri Madhusudan Prasad Singh, the appellant No. 2. The appellan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(85)ECC736; 2003(151)ELT12(SC); (2003)9SCC74
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 8-9-1999 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Zone, Madras (for short 'the Tribunal') in Appeal No. E/Stay/94/99 & E/1073/99 whereby the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding that in previous decisions rendered by the Tribunal, it was decided that MODVAT credit is available for high speed diesel oil used as fuel for generation of electricity which in turn is used for running the cement plant for the period prior to 1-3-1997 as well as subsequent thereto up to 1-3-1998. It is also pointed out that Tribunal has all throughout taken a consistent view that MODVAT credit is required to be extended to HSD oil used as fuel for generation of electricity which in turn is used for running of machine for manufacture of final product.3. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Department, referred to all relevant Rul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC616; 2003(85)ECC12; 2002(146)ELT490(SC); JT2002(9)SC635; (2003)1SCC161
Dharmadhikari J.1. These appeals have been preferred by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong representing the Department of Central Excise to assail separate orders passed in appeals by the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as 'CEGAT]. The CEGAT by the impugned orders has rejected the appeals of the Department of Central Excise and held in favour of the respondent - The North-Eastern Tobacco Company Ltd. [for short the company] that it is eligible for claiming exemption from payment of duty under the Central Excise Notification No. 32/99-CE dated 08.7.1999, issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 5A of Central Excise Act of 1944 [hereinafter referred to as the Act].2. The principal question raised by the learned counsel on behalf of the Department of Central Excise is whether the unit or factory established by the company in Export Promotion Industrial Park [hereinafter referred to as EPIP] at Amingaon in North-Eastern State ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(158)ELT550(SC)
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The only question that requires consideration is whether 'Dharmada' charged by the assessees should be included in the assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, or not.3. The learned Counsel for the appellant-Revenue submitted that this question is to be answered in favour of the Revenue, having regard to the decision of this Court in the case of Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Jamshedpur : [2003]263ITR466(SC) . The learned Counsel for the respondents was not in a position to dispute this legal position.4. Under these circumstances, following the said judgment, these appeals are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside.No costs. ...
Tag this Judgment!