Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(1)ALD(Cri)84; 2003(1)ALT(Cri)210; 2003CriLJ483; JT2002(10)SC186; (2003)1SCC648; 2003(1)LC317(SC)
P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. The appellant-accused was working as a domestic servant in the house of retired Brigadier Shyam Lal Khanna. According to the findings of the Sessions court and the High Court, the accused put an end to the life of three members of the family including Mr. Khanna and endeavoured to kill the informant Mrs. Khanna. The ghastly incident occurred in the morning hours of 15.11.1994 in Vasant Vihar area of Dehradun. The appellant was charged under Sections 302 and 307 IPC. Another person byname Nitish with whose sister the appellant had illicit intimacy was also charged under Section 120B IPC. The learned additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun, convicted the accused-appellant under Sections 302 and 307 IPC. For committing the offence of murder, death sentence was imposed. Under Section 307 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years. The other accused was acquitted of the charge. The Sessions Judge mae a reference under Section 366 Cr.P.C. for confirmation of dea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC578; [2003(1)JCR137(SC)]; JT2002(10)SC363; (2003)2SCC355
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court, which was rendered in a First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'the CPC'). Since was directed against the judgment and decree passed by the First Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City in Original Suit No. 582 of 1982. The suit one for declaration and injunction was filed by respondent No. 1 B.K. Lakshmaiah, against his sons B.L. Ganesh-defendant No. 3, B.L. Sudhakar-defendant No. 4, B.L. Babu-defendant No. 5 and B.L. Sreedhar-defendant No.6, and defendant Nos.1 and 2, 7 to 9 who were alienees of certain properties which were alienated by defendant No. 3. Lands were alienated first to defendants 7 to 9 who subsequently alienated them to defendant No.1 and 2. The factual background needs to be noted in detail:2. Plaintiff had two wives, 9 sons, 4 daughters and in addition, two pre- deceased daughter and son....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(151)ELT13(SC); (2005)10SCC659
ORDER1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. In our view, the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal in Final Order No. 372/1994-D holding that the product 'Aprot' manufactured by the appellant-Company cannot be held to be 'prepared and preserved food' under Tariff Item No. 1B eligible for exemption under Notification No. 17/70 cannot be said to be, in any way, illegal or erroneous. Hence, this appeal is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(85)ECC9; 2003(151)ELT14(SC); JT2002(10)SC27; (2003)1SCC142
Santosh Hegde, J.1. The sole question for our consideration in these appeals is whether the Central Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal') was justified in accepting the contention of the respondent Department that the three appellants herein are so inter-connected and have mutuality of interest among themselves, as to club their production for the purpose of either denying them the benefit of the exemption limit or to assess them as one unit for the purpose of levy of central excise duty.2. The tribunal while dismissing the appeals of the appellants herein agreed with the collector of Central Excise, Pune that the three units (the appellants herein) procured raw materials together, they had common credit facilities from the suppliers, had common stock accounting and planning, they are inter-dependents in manufacturing operations, had common stock of raw materials and semi furnished goods, were having common use of the machinery between the three units, were having...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(90)ECC438; 2003(151)ELT481(SC); (2003)9SCC230
ORDER1. This appeal is against the order dated 19th April, 1999. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows :- The respondents were called upon to show cause as to why they should not be made liable to pay duty and penalty for not having disclosed that they were manufacturing densified wood. The Commissioner, after hearing the respondents, held that the respondents were not manufacturing densified wood and that therefore they were not liable to pay duty. 3. The Department filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT). By an order dated 24th July, 1998 it was held that the respondents were manufacturing densified wood. It was further held that the respondents had not suppressed any material or mis-stated any fact and that therefore the extended period of limitation was not available to the Department. The matter was then remanded to the Commissioner for determination of the duty payable for the period of six months which was available to the Dep...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(1)ALLMR(SC)744; [2003(1)JCR184(SC)]; JT2002(10)SC50; (2003)ILLJ561SC; (2003)1MLJ79(SC); (2003)1SCC184; 2003(1)LC325(SC); (2003)1UPLBEC247
Santosh Hegde, J.1. Heard learned counsel. Leave granted.2. The appellant in this appeal is the widow of a Railway employee who died in harness on 21st November, 1969. According tot he appellant, she was entitled for family pension on the death of her husband, but because of ignorance and lack of legal assistance, she could not stake her claim for family pension till 12.3.1991. When she made an application for grant family pension to the Divisional Railway Manager (Personal) of South Central Railway (Vijaywada), her claim for said pension was rejected by the Railways on 24.3.1992 on the ground that her husband on the date of his death was not in the service of Railways because (SIC) earlier medically invalidated. The appellant pursued her claim by representations to the Railways which having failed, she filed writ petition before the High Court of Judicature: Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in the year 1992 which came up for consideration before a learned Single Judge of the High Court who...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC636; (2003)1GLR757; JT2002(10)SC175; (2003)1SCC529; 2003(1)LC132(SC)
Shivraj V. Patil, J.1. These appeals are by the State of Gujarat, aggrieved only by that part of the common order dated 28.10.1983 passed by the High Court of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No. 583 of 1978 and several connected applications by which the proviso to Rule 81(2) of the Gujarat Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1977 was quashed.2. The few facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are that several Special Civil Applications were filed before the High Court of Gujarat challenging the validity of Gujarat Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 1977 (for short 'the Rules') on various grounds but during the hearing only the following issues were pressed before the High Court:-'(3) Whether the impugned Amendment Rules of 1977 are bad in law and void since they seek to levy revenue on the land used for non-agricultural purposes retrospectively, that is, with effect from September 1, 1976 without the power or authority to enact the rules retrospectively under Section 214 of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC588; (2002)4SCC246; [2002]2SCR913
Ruma Pal, J.1. A tangled web of facts and law would best describe this case which involves the question of the seniority of doctors in the Uttar Pradesh Medical Services. To untangle the factual aspect, we need to start from 1945.2. Prior to 1945 there were to medical services in the state of U.P. - the Provincial Medical Service (PMS) and Provincial Subordinate Medical Service (PSMS). On June 14, 1945 the Government of U.P. framed rules known as 'The United Provinces Medical Service (Men's Branch) Rules, 1945' (referred to thereafter as the '1945 Rules'). In 1946, two new medical services were constituted, namely, PMS Grade I and PMS Grade II. On 2nd November, 1964 PMS Grade I and Grade II were merged with effect from 1st November 1964. However, there were no rules for fixing inter-se seniority of the officers of the two erstwhile services which were so merged. The issue of the inter-se seniority between the members of the new service as merged i.e. between PMS I and PMS II, was resol...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC702; 2003(1)ALD(Cri)22; 2003(1)ALT(Cri)150; 2003(1)ALT(Cri)164; 2003CriLJ866; JT2002(10)SC123; (2003)1SCC734; 2003(1)LC185(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. The complainant is the appellant herein. He lodged a First Information Report against the respondent on 19th July, 1997, alleging, inter alia, therein that a sale-deed and acknowledgment purported to have been executed by him were forged and fabricated documents and the respondent wrongfully trespassed into the lands bearing Survey Nos. 100/1 and 101/ situate at Serlingampaly in the District of Ranga Reddy, Andhra Pradesh. the Forensic Science Laboratory to whom the said sale-deed and acknowledgment were sent for a scientific opinion allegedly in its opinion dated 31st October, 1997 stated that the said sale-deed and acknowledgement were forged documents. 3. However, in the meanwhile being not satisfied with the investigation carried out by the police authorities, he filed a criminal complaint in the Court of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, (West and South), Saroornagar in the District of Ranga Reddy against the respondent herein, alleg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC632; JT2002(10)SC235; (2003)1SCC472
ORDER1. In the year 1981, the landlord-respondents filed a suit for eviction of the tenant-appellant from a shop situated on the ground floor and a room situated on the first floor alleging that the premises were required bonafide by the landlord for his own occupation mainly for commencing cloth business in the shop, a ground available under Section 5(1)(c) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972. The ground for eviction was held to be proved by the Trial Court as also by the Appellate Court. A revision preferred by the tenant in the High Court was also dismissed. This is an appeal filed by the tenant by special leave.2. So far as the finding of the Trial Court upheld by the first Appellate Court and by the High Court in revision based on the averments made in the plaint is concerned, no fault can be found therewith. What we are called upon to consider in this appeal is the impact of subsequent events to which the tenant-appellant invited the attention of the first Appellate C...
Tag this Judgment!