Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1894; [2003]116CompCas577(SC); 2003(85)ECC510; 2003(151)ELT241(SC); (2003)2SCC86; [2002]SUPP5SCR698
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. Both these appeals are filed by Messrs. Flash Laboratories Limited, acompany engaged in the manufacture of tooth paste ('Prudent'), falling under chapter Heading 3306.00 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant has been selling its products to their holding company, Messrs. Parle Products Limited, which is subsidiary company of Messrs. Parle Biscuits Limited. The appellant was found paying duty at the price at which the goods were being sold to the holding company, namely, Parle Product Limited. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant company alleging that Messrs. Parle Products Limited and Messrs. Parle Biscuits Limited were 'related persons' and were purchasing goods at lower prices and selling the same at higher prices and that the appellant had not filed the price list in Part IV for the sale to a related person, rather they filed the price list in Part I. The Revenue took objection that this amounted to mis-statement. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003ACJ393; (SCSuppl)2003(2)CHN126; [2003(97)FLR577]; (2003)ILLJ558SC; (2003)2SCC138; [2002]SUPP5SCR642
Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. The challenge in this appeal is to a Division Bench judgment of the High Court at Madras. The point involved, though short, is interesting and relates to the question as to who can be treated as an 'insured person' under Section 2(14) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 [in short, 'the Act'].3. A brief reference to the factual position, which is almost undisputed, would suffice.4. One Balakrishnan [hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased employee'] was employed by the appellant [hereinafter referred to as 'the employer'] on and from 20th May, 2987. He lost his life in an accident which was claimed to be arising out of and in the course of his employment with the employer. Respondent No. 1 [hereinafter referred to as 'the claimant'] filed an application for compensation before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Trichy, under Workmen's Compensation Act 1923 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Compensation Act']. The employer questioned the m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC823; 95(2003)CLT692(SC); (2003)2SCC26; [2002]SUPP5SCR694
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. The suit premises is part of a building situated in the pilgrimagecity of Haridwar. The building was in occupation of four sets of tenants occupying different portions. Swami Ashanand, the respondent No. 1, who is admittedly the landlord-owner, initiatedproceedings for eviction against all the tenants on the ground available under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. The eviction was ordered against all the tenants, three tenants have given up the possession over the premises in their occupation to the landlord-respondent. One of the tenants, namely Sheel Chandra, who has also expired during the pendency of these proceedings and whose widow and two sons are respectively the two appellants and proforma respondent No. 3, are pursuing the proceedings. The appellate authority has dismissed their appeal and the High Court too has dismissed their writ petition. This appeal is by special leave. 2. The case pleaded...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC829; 2003(2)ALD30(SC); 2003(85)ECC241; 2003(151)ELT5(SC); (2003)1MLJ158(SC); (2003)2SCC169; [2002]SUPP5SCR633
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. These appeals are directed against common judgment of the Customs Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (in short 'the Tribunal').2. Background factual matrix involved is undisputed and is essentially as follows:3. M/s H.M.M. Limited (subsequently known as M/s. Smithkline Beecham Consumer Health Care Ltd.), (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') was availing set off under notification No. 201/79 dated 4.6.1979 in respect of inputs, namely, Malt and Malt extract under T.I. 68, received by it from M/s Malt & Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Barmalt Ltd. and M/s. A.K. Malt (P) Ltd. during the years 1977 to 1985. The said notification was issued in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. By the said notification, all excisable goods on which duty of excise is legible and in the manufacture of which any goods falling under Item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (presently...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(3)AWC2288(SC); 2003(51)BLJR682; (SCSuppl)2003(2)CHN116; I(2003)DMC1SC; JT2002(10)SC571; 2003(1)KLT348(SC); (2003)1SCC730; [2002]SUPP5SCR689; 2003(1)LC215(SC)
D. Raju, J.1. The plaintiff (1st respondent herein) filed the suit claiming for 1/6th share in Schedules A to D properties and 1/3rd share in Schedule E properties. From the indisputable facts on record, the ancestral properties have to be divided firstly between Sahadeo Manjhi, his brother Mahadeo Manjhi (defendants Nos. 1 & 2) and their mother Dukhani Keotain (defendant No.7) each one getting 1/3rd share. Out of the 1/3rd share of Sahadeo Manjhi, the properties again will be equally divided in four parts each one of the sharers getting 1/4th share. Defendants 8 to 11 are said to be not entitled to any share on account of the fact that the marriage of the 1st defendant with the 8th defendant was void for the reason that his first wife, Smt. Kamli Devi, was alive and the first marriage still subsisting. The second marriage - remarriage, of 1st defendant with the 8th defendant after the coming into force of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 cannot be valid. The learned 2nd Additional Subordi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC2103; 2003(1)ALLMR(SC)1196; 2003(51)BLJR666; [2003]113CompCas374(SC); [2003(2)JCR156(SC)]; (2003)2SCC455; [2003]41SCL418(SC); [2002]SUPP5SCR666; (2003)1UPLBEC901
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. The only question that falls for determination in this case is whether the proceedings for recovery initiated by U.P. Financial Corporation thereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') under the Uttar Pradesh Public Monies (Recovery of (SIC) Act. 1972. (in short 'the U.P. Act') on 6.1.2001 are maintainable in view of Section 34(2) of the Recovery of Debts Due to Bank and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (in short 'the Act'). 3. Factual position (SIC) unnecessary details is as follows.4. Certificate was issued under the U.P. Act for recovery of certain dues from the appellant for its alleged failure to comply with the terms and conditions of loan granted to it; similar failure was alleged by three Directors and three guarantors. On 14.2.2001 Citation for recovery was issued by the Tehsildar, Varanasi, for recovery of the alleged dues as arrears of land revenue. Appellant challenged the said action before the Allahabad High Court in CMWP No. 13738 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC2112; (2003)179CTR(SC)89; (2003)2SCC295; [2002]SUPP5SCR648
Ruma Pal, J.1. The appellant's challenge under Article 226 to the order passed by the Appropriate Authorities under Section 269UD (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (referred to hereafter as 'the Act') was turned down by the Andhra Pradesh High Court.They have therefore assailed the decision of the High Court before us.2. The property which was the subject matter of the order under Section 269UD(1) was part of premises situated at Road No. 3. Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. The entire premises covered an area of about 7100 sq.mtrs and was jointly owned by one Leila D. Lean and her two sisters. On 13th March 1988, the three owners agreed to sell the entire premises to the appellants. Before the conveyance could be executed, Leila Lean died. The executor named in her will, through a general Power of Attorney Holder, one Sri Armugham, entered into a fresh agreement with the appellants on 27th April 1989 agreeing to sell Leila Lean's 1/3 undivided share in the property. The two other sisters appoin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC2081; 2003(51)BLJR434; 2003CriLJ4914; [2003(1)JCR298(SC)]; (2003)1SCC605
Santosh Hegde, J.1. The appellant herein was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in Sessions Trial No. 182/89 for offences punishable under Section 366A and 376 of the IPC and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years on each of those counts but the sentences were directed to run concurrently. On appeal, the High court of Patna has confirmed the said sentence. It is against that judgment and conviction the appellant is before us in this Criminal Appeal.2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that the appellant was giving tuition to the prosecutrix Geeta Kumari and her sister at their residence. It is stated that on 30th April, 1989 at about 7 PM the appellant came to their house and in the presence of the family members told Geeta Kumari P.W.1 that he won't be giving tuition on that day and went away. Immediately, thereafter, it is stated that PW-1 left the house telling the members of the family that she was going to grand-father's house to watch television. It is...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(1)ALD(Cri)202; JT2002(10)SC482; (2003)2SCC649; [2002]SUPP5SCR677; 2003(1)LC627(SC)
B.P. Singh, J.1. Special leave granted in all matters.2. these appeals arise out of three orders passed by the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 380/2001, a writ petition filed in public interest, dated 10th, 11th and 16th January, 2002. The aforesaid writ petition has been filed by the Maharashtra Antibiotics & PharmaceuticalsEmployees Association and others in which a grievance has been made that though the Provident Fund Commission has lodged a complaint against several Directors of the Maharashtra Antibiotics& Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'MAPL'), the investigation has made no progress on amount of the fact that the Directors are government servants and enjoy considerable influence. In the aforesaid writ petition the impugned orders have been passed on different dates which are the subject matter of challenge before this Court. Criminal Appeals arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 301-302 of 2002; Criminal Appeals arising out of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(2)AWC1664(SC); I(2003)DMC192SC; 2003(66)DRJ366; JT2002(10)SC569; (2003)1SCC476; [2002]SUPP5SCR712; 2003(1)UJ210(SC); 2003(2)WLN705
1. Despite service of notice, none appears for Respondent No. 1.2. Leave is granted.3. This appeal is filed against the order of the High Court at Delhi in Civil Revision Petition No. 25 of 2000 made on January 11, 2000.4. The impugned order was passed by the High Court on the application of the appellant-legal representative of deceased Defendant No. 2 who is said to have died on 1st February, 1995. He sought stay of execution of the decree in proceedings under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. That application was dismissed. He approached the High Court by filing civil revision petition. The High Court dismissed the revision on the ground that the deceased Defendant No. 2 had not chosen to appear before the trial court and the matter proceeded ex-parte during his lifetime. The order of the High court is under challenge in this appeal.5. It would be necessary to refer to Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, insofar as it is relevant, which reads...
Tag this Judgment!