Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC312; (2002)178CTR(SC)387; [2002]258ITR627(SC); 2003(2)MhLj729; 2003MPLJ236(SC); (2003)1SCC145; 2003(2)LC804(SC)
Srikrishna, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay dated 04.12.2000 dismissing the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by which the appellant challenged the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')2. The brief facts necessary to decide this appeal are as under:3. On 26th February, 1993 the appellant filed its return for assessment year 1992-93 and followed it up with a revised return. The Assessing Officer made an order dated 27th March, 1995 under Section 143(3) of the Act disallowing certain claims and rejecting the contentions of the assessee. The appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Appellate Authority by its order dated 25.09.1998 confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer in respect of the following items:a) Premium amount of Rs. 3,57,153.00b) Depreciation to the extent of Rs. 2,13,000.00c) Interest of Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(51)BLJR580; JT2002(9)SC486; (2002)8SCC481a; (2002)3UPLBEC2961
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. On October 31, 2002, while recording my answers to the eleven questions referred to the Bench of eleven learned Judges of this Court, I noted in a separate judgment, concurring with the majority except in regard to answers to question Nos. 5(b), 8, 10 and 11, that I would give my reasons later for agreeing on those aspects with the opinion of our learned sister Ruma Pal, J. and dissenting with the majority opinion as well as the opinion of learned brother Variava, J., with whom leaned brother Bhan, J. agreed. Here follow the reasons.2. The difference of opinion mainly relates to the true interpretation of Clause (2) of Article 29 and Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 30 of the Constitution and their interaction.3. Article 30 is a much discussed provision in Courts. It has been the subject matter of consideration by various High Courts as well as by this Court. I have already quoted Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 30 and Clause (1) of Article 29 in the said j...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC344; 2003CriLJ475; JT2002(9)SC528; (2002)10SCC28; 2003(2)LC814(SC)
P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. The appellant alongwith nine others faced trial before the Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay on the charges under Sections 143, 144, 302 read with Section 149 and 326 read with Section 34 of IPC for committing the murder of one Prakash Gopal Katkar on the night of 12th February, 1981 and for causing injuries to five others who are prosecution witnesses 3 to 7. Amongst those injured witnesses, excepting PW7, others are close relations of the deceased living in the same or opposite house i.e., at Khatkar Chawl No. 1 and 2, Hanuman Nagar, Ghatkopar. PW 7 was the neighbour. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused. On appeal by the State, the High Court convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. Three other accused who are not appellants before us were held guilty of the offence under Section 324 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Accordingly, the State's appeal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC323; 2003(1)ALD(Cri)110; 2003(1)ALT(Cri)303; 2002(84)ECC712; [2003(1)JCR172(SC)]; JT2002(9)SC479; (2002)10SCC448; 2003(1)LC96(SC)
Rajendra Babu, J.1. T. Mohamed Nazeer, husband of the petitioner herein, (hereinafter referred to as 'the detenu') was detained under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (Central Act 52 of 1974) (for short 'the Act') by an order made on 7.5.2002. He is at present confined in Central Prison, Chennai, Tamil Nadu.2. The gist of the allegations made against the detenu is that the Customs Authorities seized 200 cellphones, 4 cordless phones (base and handset), 4 cordless phones and 350 earphones totally valued at Rs. 13,19,500/- from the baggages of the detenu after he came from Singapore and landed at Chennai Anna International Airport along with his baggages on 20.3.2002; that in the declaration filed by the detenu goods valued at Rs. 80,000/- had been disclosed, while he was bringing goods valued at Rs. 13,19,500/- into India without payment of appropriate customs duty by misdeclaration and concealment: that he made a s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC237; (2003)2CALLT18(SC); 2002(84)ECC718; 2002(146)ELT248(SC); JT2002(9)SC435; (2003)1SCC156
Santosh Hedge, J. 1. The appellants in the above appeal were issued with a show cause notice by the Collector of Central excise, Cochin for having manufactured rubber products falling under sub-heading 4006.10 of Central Excise Tariff Act (the 'act'), for having not maintained proper accounts of such manufacture, for evading payment of duty on such manufacture and certain otherconsequential violation of the Act and the Rules. They were called upon to show cause why proceedings should not be initiated against them for the contravention of the provisions ofSection 6 of the Act as also Rules 173B, 173C, 173F, 173G(i) of the Act and Rule 174 read with Rule 9(i) Rule 173G(2) read with Rule 52A, Rule 173G(4) read with Rule 53 and 226 of the Central Excise Rules, (the Rules). The said Collector after holding the necessary adjudication proceedings came to the conclusion that the appellants have manufactured and cleared 1,61,122 kgs of tread rubber and remove the same without payment of central...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC265; 2003(2)ALD(Cri)137; 2003CriLJ441; JT2002(9)SC425
Santosh Hegde, J.1. The appellant in this case has been convicted by the Sessions Judge, Kollam, for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC for having committed the murder of his mother Saramma on 28.7.1996 at about 10 a.m. at their house in Kottarakkara village by pouring kerosene on her and setting her ablaze. It is the prosecution case that suspecting his mother would give away her entire earnings to her 3 daughters to his exclusion, the appellant committed this crime. It is the prosecution case that even though the deceased was set afire while she was sitting in a chair at about 10 a.m., nobody, witnessed the incident in question and it is only about 4.30 p.m. when PW-2, the grand-daughter of the deceased, came to the house, she came to know of the incident. The prosecution also alleges that by that time the concerned Police had received an anonymous telephone call intimating of the incident in question as having been caused by the deceased's son. Registering a case on the sai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC349; 2002(84)ECC722; 2002(146)ELT481(SC); JT2002(9)SC419
S.N. Variava, J.1. These Appeals are against an Order dated 8th October, 1999 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter called the 'Tribunal').2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:3. The Appellates are engaged in construction activities. As part of their business they crush boulders into 'bajari' which is then used in the construction work. The Appellants did not consider the activities of crushing boulders into bajari to be a manufacturing activity. They, therefore, did not apply for any licence nor paid excise duty. 4. On 26th February, 1992 a Show Cause Notice was issued to them demanding duty of Rs. 17,565/- on the crushed bajari for the period October, 1991 to January, 1992. Another Show Cause Notice was issued to them on 3rd May, 1993 demanding duty of Rs. 12,05,187/- for the period 1st April, 1988 to 30th September, 1991. The Appellants filed a reply to both the notices. 5. On 14th June, 1993, the Assistant Collector, Central Excise c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC304; 2003(1)ALLMR(SC)736; [2003(1)JCR179(SC)]; JT2002(10)SC30; (2003)1SCC390
Dharmadhikar J.1. This is an appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 [for short 'the Act'] against the judgment dated 19.11.2001 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Election Petition No. 6 of 2000.2. The appellant lost election to the Legislative Assembly seat for Constituency No. 52, Mewala Maharajpur by a margin of 161 votes.3. The appellant filed an election petition seeking relief of recount of votes on the ground that serious irregularities were committed in counting of votes on electronic voting machines which were used in the above said election.4. The main grounds urged inter alia for seeking recount of votes are non-compliance with the provisions of rules 63 and 56A of the conduct of Election Rules, 1961 [hereinafter called as Rules]. It is pointed out from the record produced in the election petition that in some of the result sheets of counting, there are no signatures of counting supervisors and in some of them only names of countin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC300; 2003(1)ALLMR(SC)751; 95(2003)CLT337(SC); JT2002(9)SC535; (2003)1SCC379; 2003(1)LC26(SC)
Arun Kumar, J.1. These appeals are directed against a judgment and decree passed by the High Court in Letters Patent Appeals No. 110 of 1993, 111 of 1993 and 112 of 1993. So far as the legal aspect of the case is concerned it relates to interpretation of Section 313 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Rest of the matter relates to finding of fact arrived at by the High Court which do not call for interference in these Civil Appeals.2. Briefly, the facts are that the appellant is running a tea-stall for which he has put up a structure on the street at the junction of Kalbadevi Road and Jambulwadi Lane. Respondent No. 1 is the owner of the building on that corner. The tea stall set up by the appellant on the street abuts the building owned by Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 filed a suit for declaration, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction with the following prayers:'(a) For a Declaration that the suit structure put up by the 3rd de...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC320; 2003(1)ALLMR(SC)785; 2003(3)AWC2563(SC); [2003(1)JCR164(SC)]; JT2002(9)SC474; 2003(1)MPHT292; 2003MPLJ215(SC); (2003)1SCC108; 2003(1)LC75(SC)
S.N. Variava, J.1. Leave granted.2. These Appeals are against the judgment dated 27th March, 2001. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:-On 20th January, 2000 the election for the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Ringnodiya, Indore was held. After the counting of the votes, the Appellant was orally informed that he had won the elections. However when the result was officially declared, Respondent No. 1 was shown to have won. The Returning Officer then issued a certificate showing that Respondent No. 1 had won.3. The Appellant, therefore, filed an election petition before the Sub-Divisional Officer. Respondent No. 1 evaded services. By an ex-parte Order the Sub-Divisional Officer directed recounting of ballot papers. On such recounting it was found that in respect of booth No. 151 the votes polled in favour of the Appellant had been erroneously shown as having been polled in favour of Respondent No. 4. On a recounting of the votes it was found that the Appellant had won. The Sub-Div...
Tag this Judgment!