Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2104; (2003)1CALLT10(SC); 2002(81)ECC449; 2002(143)ELT3(SC); JT2002(4)SC619; 2002(4)SCALE462; (2002)5SCC167; [2002]3SCR834
Shivaraj V. Patil, J.1. The appellant imported 100 kits of VTR with colour monitors in disassembled condition. These items were described in invoices and bills of entry as 'sets of assembly, sub-assembly and other hardware items for assembly of complete VTR and colour monitors'. The said goods were subjected to countervailing duty @ 8% ad valorem falling under tariff item No. 68. During the period 2.12.1981 to 26.2.1982, the appellant started assembling these goods into VTRs and colour monitors at their factory at Palghat and cleared the sets without payment of duty, without intimation and without observing the Central Excise formalities.2. The Superintendent of Central Excise, Range-II, Palghat, while perusing advice notes of the factory observed that certain VTRs and colour monitors were manufactured and cleared by the appellant during the period June, 1982 to August, 1982 and issued letter dated 12.8.1982 asking the appellant to furnish details of the sets cleared and to explain why...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2368; 2002(4)AWC2707(SC); 97(2002)DLT908(SC); [2002(93)FLR1211]; [2002(2)JCR147(SC)]; JT2002(Suppl1)SC1; 2002LabIC2188; (2002)IILLJ826SC; 2002(4)SCALE445; (2002)5S
Rajendra Babu, J.C.A. No. 2933 OF 2000 1. The appellants in this appeal are employees of respondent No. 2 who were regularised on Technician Grade II as highly skilled or skilled workers on 9.12.1991 under a scheme formulated by respondent No. 1 pursuant to a decision of this Court in WP (C) No. 6331/88 - Mrs. Kamlesh Kapoor v. Union of India. In that writ petition, a direction was issued to respondent No. 1 to prepare a scheme for the absorption of all persons who were working on casual basis for more than one year and to absorb such of those persons who satisfy the scheme as regular employees in the respective posts held by them. Certain other incidental reliefs were also given by that order. Subsequently, a scheme was prepared pursuant to the order of this Court known as 'Casual Workers Absorption Scheme 1990' and in terms of the said scheme, the appellants were considered for absorption for regularisation against Group II/C posts on which they were already working and after a trade...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2437; 2002(3)ALLMR(SC)920; 2002(6)BomCR184; JT2002(4)SC599; (2002)3MLJ4(SC); 2002(4)SCALE440; (2002)5SCC433; [2002]3SCR866; 2002(2)LC980(SC)
R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. In response to a Notice Inviting Tenders (NIT) issues by the respondent on 12.9.1984, the appellant submitted the tender based on the tender document issued by the respondents. The tender submitted by the appellant was accepted. On 22.2.1985, the appellant signed a letter to the following effect:- 'CA No. (GE) B-10 OF 85 86 SERIAL PAGE No. 23 (GENERAL CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT - IAFW-2249) (1976 PRINT) LUMP SUM CONTRACT FOR IAFW-2159 TERM CONTRACT FOR ARTIFICERS WORK (IAFW-1821) MEASUREMENT CONTRACT - IAFW-1779 & 1779A 1. A copy of GENERAL CONDITIONS OF CONTRACTS (IAFW-2249 1976 PRINT) with Errata No. 1 to 27 and Amendment No. 1 to 27 has been supplied to me/us and is in my/our possession. I/We have read and understood the provisions contained in the aforesaid GENERAL CONDITIONS OF CONTRACTS before submission of this tender and I/We agree that I/We shall before abide by the terms and conditions thereof, as modified, if any elsewhere in these tender ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2089; JT2002(Suppl1)SC118; 2002(2)KarLJ67; 2002(4)SCALE468; (2003)9SCC583; [2002]3SCR854; [2002]127STC105(SC)
Bisheshwar Prasad Singh, J.1. In this batch of appeals by special leave common questions arise for consideration and therefore the appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The question which arise for consideration are whether Sub-section 6 of the Section 17 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as amended by Act No. 5 of 1996 is unconstitutional, and secondly, whether the amendment brought in Clause (i) of Sub-section 6 of Section 17 of the Act by Act No.7 of 1997 retrospectively is also unconstitutional. The High Court of Karnataka has answered both these questions in the negative and against the appellants. The main judgment was rendered in the writ petition preferred by the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 902 of 199. The remaining matters were disposed of by the High Court following the aforesaid judgment.3. To determine the question that arise for consideration, it is necessary to notice the legislati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC630; (2003)96CALLT292(SC); JT2002(Suppl1)SC51; 2002(4)SCALE460; (2002)9SCC144; [2002]3SCR849; 2002(2)LC977(SC)
Rajendra Babu, J. 1. The brief facts giving rise to this appear are as follows:2. Rosa Fonseca had married Antonio D'Costa on 15.4.1889 and a male child Jose Philipe was born to them. The said Antonio D'Costa died in 1892, and almost seven years after his death, his wife Rosa Fonseca gave birth to a daughter in 1899. On 21.2.1903, the baby girl was baptised and named Maria Da Graca Albertina Luiza Fonseca and the date and time of her birth were recorded in the Parochial Book of Records of Baptism of the Taleigao Church. The names of the maternal grandparents were mentioned and the godfather and godmother also signed the register respectively. In 1933, the daughter Maria Fonseca married Camilo Vegas and in 1935 the appellant was born out of this wedlock. Their marriage certificate dated 4.5.1933, stated that Maria Fonseca was an illegitimate child and only mentioned the name of the mother. In 1952, Rosa Fonseca, the grandmother and in 1967 Maria Fonseca, the mother died.3. In 1985, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2221; 2002(3)ALT61(SC); 2002(2)ARBLR241(SC); 2002(6)BomCR181; (2002)3BOMLR613; JT2002(Suppl1)SC214; (2002)3MLJ1(SC); (2002)5SCC417; [2002]38SCL883(SC); [2002]3SCR8
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. Leave granted in both petitions.2. The appellant is a co-operative sugar factory manufacturing sugar from sugarcane. On 17.11.1992 an agreement was entered into between the appellant and the respondent for design, manufacture, procurement and supply of machinery and equipments for modernisation with continuous fermentation process based on 'Encillium Process', developed and patented by Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, New Delhi and National ChemicalLaboratory, Pune. Disputes arose between the parties. The agreement dated 17.11.1992 contained an arbitration clause pursuant whereto the disputes were referred for arbitration by two arbitrators, one appointed by each of the parties. By their award dated 20th June, 1999, the learned Arbitrators directed an amount of Rs. 151.97 lacs to be paid by the respondent to the appellant in full and final settlement of all claims by and between the parties.3. The award was filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2225; 2002(3)ALLMR(SC)579; 2002(3)AWC2509(SC); 2002CriLJ2942; [2002(2)JCR167(SC)]; JT2002(Suppl1)SC286; 2002(4)SCALE455; (2002)5SCC521; 2002(2)SCT1090(SC); (2002)2
1. Leave granted.2. These two appeals arise out of an order made by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 16.3.2001 in Civil Misc. W.P. Nos. 24759 and 28512 of 1999. The original writ petitioner had filed a number of writ petitions challenging the various actions taken by the Department against him. In the said writ petitions he had made very serious allegations against Sri Markandey Chand who was then the Minister for Minor Irrigation and Rural Engineering Services in the Government of U.P. It is seen from the record that the said Minister had filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations leveled against him. In the said writ petitions, originally the High Court had passed certain interim orders staying the action initiated by the Department against which the Department had filed SLPs before this Court which challenge was allowed and this Court as per its order dated 3.4.2000 while directing the parties to maintain status quo as on the date of the said order, requested t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2393; 2002(2)ALD(Cri)157; 2002(2)ALT(Cri)129; 2002CriLJ2980; 2002(3)Crimes10(SC); 2002(81)ECC456; JT2002(Suppl1)SC62; 2002(4)SCALE449; (2002)9SCC13; 2002(2)LC863(S
Rajendra Babu, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant before us has been knocking at our doors on severaloccasions as the trial is stalled in a criminal case in which he is involvedhas been pending before the Court of Special Judge at Balasore in theState of Orissa on the allegation that on or about 27.7.1998 theappellant abetted the commission of an offence by (i) Azad Parvez, (ii)Batu @ Jahid Parvej, and (iii) Allauddin Saha @ Sk. Allauddin or wasparty with them in a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence ofpossessing and/or sale of cannabis ganja and manufactured drugspunishable under the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act,1985 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] within the cognizance of theSpecial Judge at Balasore.3. In the said proceedings 10 accused persons are facing trial ofwhom one accused is now absconding. On 24.3.1999 special Judge atBalasore split the case into two cases separating trial of abscondingpersons as special Cases No. 64 and 64-A of 1998 and on 30.3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2096; 2002(4)ALT17(SC); 2002(3)AWC1825(SC); (2003)1CALLT1(SC); (2002)3GLR2082; [2002(2)JCR138(SC)]; JT2002(4)SC605; 2002(3)KLT474(SC); (2002)3MLJ17(SC); 2002(4)SCA
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. All these cases relate to the establishment and functioning of Courts described as Fast Track Courts and, therefore, are disposed of by this common judgment. The Eleventh Finance Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'Finance Commission') allocated Rs. 502.90 crores under Article 275 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short 'the Constitution') for the purpose of setting up of 1734 Courts in various States to deal with long pending cases, particularly, Sessions cases. As allocation of funds made by the Finance Commission stipulated time bound utilization within a period of five years, various State Governments were required to take necessary steps to establish such Courts. It appears that the Finance Commission had suggested that the States may consider re-employment of retired judges for limited period, for the disposal of pending cases, since these Courts were to be ad hoc in the sense that they would not be a permanent addition to the number of Courts wi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2279; [2002(94)FLR338]; JT2002(4)SC537; 2002LabIC2153; (2002)IILLJ562SC; (2002)3MLJ48(SC); 2002(4)SCALE423; (2002)5SCC669; [2002]3SCR797; 2002(3)SCT1127(SC); 2002(
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. Leave is granted.2. These appeals filed by the Chairman, State Bank of India, Central Office, Bombay and the Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Hand Office at Bhubaneshwar are directed against the judgment dated 24.11.1998 of the High Court of Orissa in OJC No. 8863/1997 and the Order dated 23.7.1999 disposing of the petition for review of the said judgment, Civil Review No. 15/99, filed by the appellants. The operative portion of the judgment dated 24.11.98 reads as follows:'For the foregoing reasons we set aside paragraph 2 of the Staff Circular No. 91 of 1987 if the same is still in force and direct the opposite parties to confer such rights on the petitioner-Association as are available to them under Rule 24 ofthe Verification Rules.The Management of the State Bank of India are also directed to keep in mind the observations made in this judgment while dealing with its employees, officers and their Unions, recognized or unrecognized.'3. The High C...
Tag this Judgment!