Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC245
ORDERCAs Nos. 660, 3841, 5867-68 of 2000, 4082, 4455, 6072, 8455 of 2001 and92 of 2002.1. For the reasons stated in our order passed today in Civil Appeal No. 3783 of 2000 entitled CCE v. Maruti Udyog Ltd., these appeals are dismissed.Civil Appeal No. 3913 of 2001 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we see no reason to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Hence, the civil appeal is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1245; 2002(80)ECC249; 2002(141)ELT3(SC); JT2002(2)SC469; 2002(2)SCALE405; (2002)3SCC547; [2002]2SCR99
1. The respondent is manufacturing motor vehicles and it had availed of MODVAT credit of the duty paid on inputs under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules. As it had not paid any excise duty on the raw material, it became liable to pay excise duty on the waste and scrap of aluminium and iron and steel which scrap had been sold by the respondent.2. The Collector raised a demand of excise duty on the waste and scrap which was sold. The demand was challenged by the respondent who contended that excise duty was not payable. Having been unsuccessful before the Collector, an appeal was filed before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order came to the conclusion that excise duty was payable on the scrap sold by the respondent. It further came to the conclusion that the price on which the waste and scrap had been sold should be considered to be cum-duty price and the assessable value should be determined after deducting the element of excis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1187; [2002(93)FLR278]; 2003(2)JKJ456[SC]; JT2002(2)SC340; 2002LabIC994; (2002)IILLJ836SC; 2002(2)SCALE339; (2002)3SCC219; [2002]2SCR66; 2002(2)SCT397(SC); 2002(2)
The appellants in this appeal have sought to assert their status as employees of the State Government of Jammu and Kashmir with the same rights, privileges and benefits available to other State employees. The High Court has denied the appellants' claims on the ground that they had voluntarily surrendered their status as Government servants in 1963 under Article 207 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Service Regulations, 1956 (referred to hereafter as the Regulations) and that in any event their claim was barred by delay and laches.It is not in dispute that each of the appellants had been appointed prior to 1963 as permanent Government servants under the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956 (hereafter referred to as 'the Rules') and were serving in different capacities in industrial units which were being run by the Department of Commerce and Industries of the State Government.In 1963, the State Government formed a Board of Directors for the admi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2002(2)ALLMR(SC)588; 2002(50)BLJR794; [2006(1)JCR93(SC)]; JT2002(2)SC349; (2002)2MLJ85(SC); (2002)3SCC195; [2002]2SCR77; AIR2002SC1201
Leave granted.Order impugned in this appeal has been passed by a Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court in Letters Patent Appeal upholding order passed by learned Single Judge whereby regular First Appeal filed by the defendants against decree passed in a partition suit involving approximately 116 acres of land allowing claim of the plaintiffs has been disposed of holding that the entire appeal has become incompetent as during the pendency of the appeal, appellant No.2-Kashinath Sao(defendant No. 2), appellant No.3-Buchua Devi (defendant No.3), appellant No.22-Guru Dayal Sao(defendant No. 19) and appellant No. 41-Ugni Devi(defendant No. 35) expired and as no steps for substitution of their heirs and legal representatives were taken within the time prescribed, the same abated and application for substitution of their heirs after setting aside abatement and condonation of delay was rejected after recording finding that no sufficient cause was shown either for condonation of delay or ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1230; 2002(2)ALLMR(SC)581; [2002(93)FLR669]; JT2002(2)SC435; 2002LabIC971; 2002(2)SCALE359; (2002)3SCC586; [2002]2SCR86; 2002(2)SCT381(SC); 2002(2)SLJ396(SC); (200
The question in these appeals is whether, K. Shekar, the appellant in C.A. No. 355 of 2000 (referred to as as the appellant hereafter) is entitled to continue as Additional Professor in the National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (NIMHANS). The appellant was initially appointed as Lecturer. The post of Lecturer was redesignated as Assistant Professor pursuant to the 4th Pay Commission. During the pendency of the proceedings, he has been promoted as Associate Professor on 30th June 1992 and thereafter as Additional Professor with NIMHANS w.e.f. 1st July 1996. Both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, on an application under Article 226 filed by the respondent No.1 have held that he had no such right. This decision has been impugned before us not only by the appellant but also by NIMHANS by way of a separate appeal.The relation of facts can start with 1984 when the Indian Council of Medical Research ( ICMR), New Delhi undertook to set up a p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1212; (SCSuppl)2002(3)CHN1; 2002CriLJ1771; 2002(2)Crimes73(SC); (2002)3GLR1851; JT2002(2)SC333; 2002(2)SCALE324; (2002)3SCC475; [2002]2SCR57; 2002(1)UJ744(SC)
Actuated by jealousy, infuriated on account of self-conceived notions of her infidelity and demonstrating the possessive nature of his mistress-keep Ubadiben Bhurabhai, the appellant committed an unusually usual crime of her murder. To quench his thirst of anger, he sprinkled the blood of the deceased all around by piercing her body with the knife he possessed by inflicting as many as 35 injuries on her person. The trial court acquitted the appellant, apparently, on extraneous considerations and the appeal filed by the State was allowed vide the judgment impugned holding the appellant guilty for the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment. He was also found guilty for the commission of offence under Section 452 IPC but no separate sentence was awarded for that offence.According to the prosecution, the deceased was a resident of Dadiapada, Navinagri where she had some houses. Complainant Saiyed Khan Majid Kh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2002(Suppl1)SC67; 2002(2)LC1257(SC)
ORDER1. The appellants along with Mutiya and Panna, sons of Arjuna were charged under sections 147 and 302 read with Section 149 of the I.P.C. and after the trial, acquitted by the sessions judge, Shivpuri, Madhya Pradesh. In the appeal filed by the state against the appellants and one Panna, the judgment of acquittal was set aside and all the seven accused were convicted for the offence under sections 147 and 302 read with Section 149 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life. No appeal was filed against the acquittal of Mutiya because after the judgment of the trial court, he had died.2. The prosecution case is that on 23rd July, 1984 at about 8-9 p.m., when Kallu-deceased had gone for fishing at the pond, he was caught hold of by the appellants, taken to their house beaten with lathis, in consequence of which he died and his dead body was recovered from the house of Mutiny-accused on the next day. First information report of the occurrence was lodged in police station, Kh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1248; 2002(80)ECC255; JT2002(2)SC474; 2002(2)SCALE430; (2002)3SCC426; [2002]2SCR49
1. Special leave granted.2. On 4th May, 1999, auction for retail vend of arrack for the year 1999-2000 in respect of 272 shops in Mangalore Taluka took place. The respondent was declared successful bidder on 12th May, 1999 and thereafter this bid was confirmed.3. Pursuant to the confirmation of the bid on 12th May, 1999, a temporary licence was given to the respondent on 28th June, 1999 and the licence was extended upto 15th August, 1999. According to the Karnataka Excise (Lease of Right of Retail Vend of Liquors) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules"), when the bid is made it is provisionally accepted and thereafter the confirmation takes place. On the provisional acceptance of bid certain money is required to be deposited and thereafter under Rule 17 security has to be furnished and a lease deed executed. In the instant case, the respondent admittedly failed to furnish the security amount under Rule 17 and also did not execute the lease deed. As a consequence thereof, on 14...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1152; 2002(2)ALLMR(SC)611; 2002(2)AWC1337(SC); (SCSuppl)2002(3)CHN103; [2002(2)JCR100(SC)]; JT2002(2)SC317; RLW2002(2)SC332; 2002(2)SCALE304; (2002)3SCC137; [2002]
Leave granted.The appellant who was forcibly and illegally dispossessed since May 1986 from the tenanted premises by his landlord is moving from pillar to post for getting justice. Unfortunately, after considering all the relevant facts which were brought on record, the High Court remanded the proceedings under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for reconsideration by the trial court. It is apparent that the whole purpose of proceedings under Section 6 of the Act is frustrated by such order. The procedure under Section 6 of the Act is summary and its object is to prevent self help and to discourage people to adopt any foul means to dispossess a person. Dispossession of a tenant should be in accordance with law.It is the submission of the appellant that as Proprietor of India Watch House, he was doing business in tenanted premises situated at 843, Anna Salai Madras for more than 35 years. Subsequently, the respondent the Tamilnadu Handloom ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1279; 2002(2)AWC1402(SC); 2002(1)BLJR780; (SCSuppl)2002(3)CHN50; [2002(2)JCR102(SC)]; JT2002(2)SC410; (2002)2MLJ93(SC); 2002(2)SCALE308; (2002)3SCC316; [2002]2SCR3
The appellant in this appeal has impugned the judgment dated 5.3.1991 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in AS No.951 of 1977.The facts, which are necessary for our purpose, are summarized as below. The parties would be referred to as arrayed in the suit: -The suit land originally belonged to one Alagirisami Chettiar, who was said to have died during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court. His son, Arimuthu died in September, 1940. Angammal, defendant No.1 is the third wife of Arimuthu and Gowrammal was the daughter of Arimuthu through his deceased second wife. Gowrammal was married to one Subramania Chettiar. Gowrammal died in April 1953 and Subramania died in July 1971. Their son, Dhanapal, is the only surviving legal heir of Alagirisami.On 17.10.1937 Alagirisamy executed a settlement deed (Ex.A-1) in favour of his wife Nagammal, daughter Maruthammal and his son Arimuthu Chetty wherein it was provided that the settlees would get the properties a...
Tag this Judgment!