Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2002(83)ECC3; 2002LC794(SC); 2002(143)ELT13(SC); JT2002(5)SC497; (2002)10SCC527
ORDER1. The assessee held a stock of exigible goods in fully manufactured condition on 1st March, 1989. On this date the special excise duty leviable on such goods was enhanced. The goods were cleared after 1st March, 1989. The question in this appeal is : Are the goods exigible to special excise duty at the rate that was in force prior to 1st March, 1989, when they were manufactured, or at the rate in force after 1st March, 1989, when they were cleared? The authorities held that they were liable to special excise duty at the enhanced rate, basing themselves upon the judgment of this Court in Wallace Flour Mills Company Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise 44 E.L.T. 598 . The Tribunal took the contrary view, relying upon the judgment of this Court in Ponds India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras : 1997(90)ELT3(SC) .2. In our view, the Tribunal was right in the view that it took. Special excise duty is an annual levy, as has been explained in the judgment in Ponds. It ceases to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(2)ALT1(SC); [2002(94)FLR386]; JT2002(Suppl1)SC454; 2003(1)KLT886(SC); (2002)IIILLJ169SC
1. Leave is granted.2. The appellant M/s Saraswath Films is the lessee of the cinema hall named 'Padma Movie House' at Ernakulam owned by Mr. A.L. Sreenivasa Shenoy. The controversy raised in the case relates to the point whether the establishment is covered under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. Served with the demand of contribution the appellants approached the Employees' Insurance Court seeking a declaration that its establishment is not covered under the Act since the number of employees employed therein are only 14. In that connection a dispute arose whether two security guards working on the premises could be considered as employees of the appellant. The case of the appellant was that the security guards were not to be included as employees of the establishment for the purpose of determination of the controversy raised. In support of the plea it was pleaded that the security guards concerned were employees of the agency which used to send two security guards by rotation ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2430; JT2002(Suppl1)SC70; 2002(4)SCALE432; (2002)5SCC416; [2002]3SCR694
ORDER1. Proceedings for eviction of tenant from the suit premises were initiated under Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 before the court. The High Court has allowed the landlord's claim for recovery of possession of the suit premises on the ground of sub-letting by the tenant. The decree passed by the High Court has been put in issue by the tenant by filling this appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution by special leave. During the pendency of the appeal the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 has come into force with effect from 31st December, 2001. Section 70 of the 1999 Act-dealing with repeal and savings provides as under:'70. Repeal and Savings - (1) The Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (Karnataka Act 32 of 1961) is hereby repealed.(2) Notwithstanding such repeal and subject to the provisions of Section 69 -(a) all proceedings in execution of any decree or order passed under the repealed Act, and pending at the commencement of this Act, in any Court shall be continued a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2002(5)SC387
ORDER1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The appellant who was earlier acquitted by the trial court and later convicted by the High Court was charged for the commission of offence punishable under Section 20(b)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS Act') and sentenced to three years' Rl besides paying a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, has assailed the judgment mainly on the ground of noncompliance of the provisions of section 50 of the Act.3. The prosecution had alleged that appellant was found in possession of 1.650 kgs. of ganja and as before the search, a gazetted officer was present on spot, the provisions of section 50 of the Act are claimed to have been complied with. The High Court accepted the contention of the prosecution and convicted and sentenced the appellant as noted earlier.4. A constitution bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, : 1999CriLJ3672 has held that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC1998; 2002(2)BLJR1185; 2002CriLJ2796; I(2002)DMC773SC; JT2002(Suppl1)SC248; RLW2002(4)SC551; 2002(4)SCALE270; (2002)5SCC371; [2002]3SCR668; 2002(1)LC769(SC)
Sema, J.1. Leave granted.2. Heard Mr. R.P. Gupta, learned Senior counsel on behalf of the appellant and Mr. B.S. Banthia, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent.3. The appellant felt aggrieved by an order dated 2nd July, 2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sihora, in sessions trial No. 469 of 1998 whereby the appellant has been charge-sheeted for an offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the charge before the High Court without any result, hence the appeal.4. Basic facts may be noted.5. Appellant is the brother of Neelam Sengar, wife of the deceased Chander Bhushan @ Babloo. It is stated that the marriage between the sister of the appellant and the deceased took place in 1993. It is also stated that immediately after marriage she was subjected to continuous ill-treatment by the deceased and the family members forcing her to live separately along with her husband and children fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2002(83)ECC293; 2002LC923(SC); 2002(144)ELT3(SC)
ORDER1. The issue of classification has become final insofar as this appeal is concerned inasmuch as the judgment of the High Court was challenged by the Revenue belatedly and the special leave petition was dismissed. In an unconnected appeal to this Court, the issue that was raised was identical to the issue raised before the High Court in this appeal and this Court reversed the view taken by the High Court. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the respondent (Revenue) that, therefore, we should dismiss the claim of the appellant to refund the excise duty that it paid. In that behalf, reliance is placed upon the judgment of this Court in Shenoy and Co. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Circle II, Bangalore Also : [1985]155ITR178(SC) . It is also submitted that we should not interfere in a case like this under Article 136.2. In the first place, in the judgment in the case of M/s. Shenoy & Co. several writ petitions raising the plea of unconstitutionality had been allowed by the High Court b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2137; 2002(2)ALT(Cri)65; 2002(2)BLJR1399; 2002CriLJ2819; 2002(2)Crimes417(SC); 2002(4)SCALE285; (2002)5SCC724; [2002]3SCR676
Raju, J.1. The above appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 30.7.1999 of a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 1987 confirming the judgment dated 18.12.1986 of the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga, convicting and sentencing the appellants for various offences in Sessions Trial No. 30 of 1983. Of the seven accused, who were charged and stood trial before the Sessions Court, the fifth accused, by name Ram Prasad Yadav, died on 2.7.1994 and during the pendency of the appeal in this Court, the second accused Malhu Yadav died on 5.6.2001.2. The case of the prosecution is that on 1.2.1981 at about 7.30 a.m., Rajendra Yadav, the informant, (PW-10), who is the brother of the deceased Sotilal Yadav, had gone to see the standing Kerao crop on his land and noticed the first accused Lal Bachan Yadav (A-1), son of Shibu Yadav (A-3), stealthily uprooting the crops, resulting in a scuffle between them when he caught hold of A-1. On hearing the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC2076; JT2002(4)SC478; 2002(4)SCALE277; (2002)5SCC20
D.P. Mohapatra, J.1. Leave granted.2. Champa Lal, the appellant herein, is the tenant in occupation of the shop which is a part of the premises bearing No.16 South Street (Dowlath Khan Garden), Yellagundapalyum, Bangalore. Respondent No.1 Shaik Najmuddin @ Gulsheer Pasha and his wife Azeezunnissa are the owners of the suit premises. In this appeal the appellant assails the order passed by the High Court of Karnataka in HRRP No. 1346/96 in which the High Court in exercise of its revisional power set aside the order passed by the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore in HRC No.10792 of 1987 and ordered eviction of the tenant from the premises in question.3. The proceeding before the Small Causes Court was initiated on the petition filed by the landlord under section 21(1)(h) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement for personal occupation. The bonafide requirement pleaded by the landlord was that the respondent No.1 in...
Tag this Judgment!