Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2002(146)ELT483(SC); JT2002(8)SC376; (2004)12SCC70
ORDER1. The appellants before us have impugned the decision of the tribunal by which the tribunal upheld the decision of the excise authorities to classify the product manufactured by the appellant under tariff heading 24.04 viz., 'manufactured tobacco'. According to the appellant the product was properly classifiable under heading 24.01 i.e. 'un manufactured tobacco'.2. It is not in dispute that the appellants' product is chewing tobacco. It is also not in dispute that chewing tobacco is not necessarily manufactured tobacco or classifiable under tariff heading 24.04. The classification of chewing tobacco as 'un manufactured' or 'manufactured' tobacco will ultimately depend on the process adopted for and the composition of the chewing tobacco. The appellants have relied upon the instance of a particular manufacturer of chewing tobacco, namely, M/s. Chandulal K. Patel and company who also manufactures chewing tobacco under the trade name 'Karta Chhap Zarda' and whose product has been cl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC3217; 2002(2)ALD(Cri)900; 2002CriLJ4688; 2002(4)Crimes254(SC); II(2002)DMC505SC; JT2002(7)SC58; RLW2003(1)SC99; 2002(6)SCALE363; (2002)8SCC18; [2002]SUPP2SCR337; 2
Banerjee, J. 1. The appellant Gurpreet Singh an Indian Air Force personnel had a love marriage with one Kalpna, a Nurse in a Military Hospital (since deceased). Later the facts reveal that Gurpreet left his job from Indian Air Force and joined as Assistant Vigilance Officer in Maruti Udyog in Gurgaon and Kalpna was also adjusted in the same Maruti Udyog in a section known as Bharat Seats. They lived in House No. C-2-113/4 D.L.F. Phase-I, Qutab Enclave, Gurgaon and had a son Sundeep out of their lawful wedlock.2. It appears that the parties to the said marriage did not pull on well and the deceased and the appellant made a joint petition (Ex.P.N.) before the learned District Judge, Gurgaon under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce by mutual consent on 14.12.1993; though concededly they lived under one roof till Kalpna breathed her last as noticed hereinbefore in this judgment. The next date fixed in the petition was 17.7.1994.3. Incidentally, on the further factual sc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC3240; 2002(4)ALLMR(SC)585; 2002(6)ALT73(SC); 2003(1)AWC85(SC); 2002(50)BLJR2516; 95(2003)CLT140(SC); [2002(3)JCR211(SC)]; JT2002(7)SC42; (2003)1MLJ174(SC); RLW2003
G.B. Pattanaik, J.1. In this bunch of cases, the provisions of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] crop up for consideration. Two learned Judges of this Court, in course of hearing of Civil Appeal No. 9477 of 1994 (Union of India and Anr. v. Smt. Hansali Devi and Ors.) formulated two questions to be answered by a larger Bench. The said questions are:'1.(a) Whether dismissal of an application seeking reference under Section 18 on the ground of delay amounts to 'not filing an application' within the meaning of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?(b) Whether a person whose application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is dismissed on the ground of delay or any other technical ground is entitled to maintain an application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act.?2. Whether a person who has received the compensation without protest pursuant to the award of the Land Acquisition Collector and has not filed an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC3372; 2002(2)ALD(Cri)887; 2003(1)ALT(Cri)77; 2002CriLJ4343; 2002(4)Crimes261(SC); 2003(3)CTC503; JT2002(7)SC30; 2002(3)KLT389(SC); 2003MPLJ1(SC); RLW2003(1)SC61; 2
Shah, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant and others who are accused in CC No. 513/95 filed Criminal Miscellaneous Case Nos. 2209/95, 2361/95 784/96 before the High Court of Kerala for quashing the prosecution against them. Those petitions were rejected by the High Court by judgment and order dated 11th June, 1998. Hence, this appeal. 3. The prosecution was launched against the present appellant which arose out of an incident which occurred because of a new item in the evening Daily 'Sudinam' on 2nd February, 1988. The news item was printed and published by one Madhavan at Kannur as per which one tribal girl - Manja, aged about 16 years was raped by one Rajan. Marja and her parents lodged a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, who transferred the complaint to the appellant herein, who was a Superintendent of Police - Kannur for investigation. On that complaint, a case was registered in Crime No. 50/88 under Section 228A IPC and Section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Right...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC3299; 2003(1)ALT(Cri)67; 2002CriLJ4322; JT2002(7)SC25; 2003(1)MPHT286; 2002(6)SCALE347; (2002)7SCC239
Shivraj V. Patil J.1. The appellants were tried for offences under Sections 147, 148, and 302 IPC on the allegations that about four months prior to the incident, some quarrel had taken place between the deceased Baburam and the appellant No. 4 Dataram in relation to raising of boundary wall. On 12.4.1983 at about 7.00 P.M. the deceased accompanied by Ramhet, had gone to Vidyaram (PW-8) to engage some labourers for cutting crop in his field and while returning from the house of Vidyaram, when the deceased came near the Chabutra of appellant No. 4, he shouted to the remaining accused who werethere that the deceased was their enemy and he should not be allowed to go and kill him. The appellant No. 6 Ramjilal assaulted the deceased with the lathi on his head. when he fell down on the ground, all the appellants assaulted him. In spite of Ramhet intervening, the appellants did not stop assaulting. When they found that the deceased had died, the appellants dragged his body from the spot to p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(2)WLN692
ORDER1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of Kerala High Court. The present appellants approached the High Court making a grievance that the provision of Section 39 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is not being given effect to inasmuch as the Government educational institution as well as institution receiving aid from the Government are not reserving three percent of seats for persons with disabilities, as contemplated under Section 39 of the Act. The High Court by the impugned judgment on analysing the provisions of the Act has come to the conclusion that since Section 39 occurs in Chapter VI dealing with employment, the expression 'seats' in S, 39 would really mean 'post' and the question of reservation of seats for appointment in educational institutions would not arise under Section 39, as, the education has been dealt with in Chapter V...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC3569; 2003(1)ALT(Cri)179; 2002CriLJ4734; (2003)1GLR415; JT2002(7)SC402; 2002(7)SCALE72; (2002)8SCC165; [2002]SUPP2SCR255; 2002(2)LC1486(SC)
ORDER1. In an incident which took place in village Singpur ofTaluk Songadh, Gujarat on 6.7.1989 at about 8.30 p.m. oneLallubhai Naranbhai died on account of injuries inflicted onhim. Nine accused persons were charged with having committedoffences punishable under Sections 302/149 and 147/148/452IPC. Four accused persons, namely, accused Nos. 2, 4, 5 and8 were directed to be acquitted by the Trial Court as thecharges against them were not proved and they were entitledto the benefit of doubt. Accused Nos. 1, 3, 6, 7 and 9 wereheld guilty of having committed the offence punishable underSection 302/149 IPC. These five accused persons weresentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.250/- each and in default to further undergo rigorousimprisonment for one month each. They were further sentencedto undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each for havingcommitted offences under Sections 147/148 and 452 IPC andalso to pay a fine of Rs. 125/- and in default of payment toundergo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2002(8)SC357; (2003)1UPLBEC140
1. This appeal by the Dental Council of India is directed against the impugned judgment dated 25.10.2000 of the division bench of Patna High Court in letters patent appeal No. 824/2000. The governing body of Budha Institute of Dental Science filed a writ petition before the High Court of Patna making a grievance that the publication of the council dated 9.4.1994, indicating admission intake capacity at 40 students, as well as the subsequent letter emanating from the office of the governor of Bihar to the vice chancellor of Magadh University dated 1.2.1997 and the ultimate decision of the vice chancellor of the university dated 3.7.1997 permitting the institute to admit only 40 students per year, are erroneous and based upon several misconceptions.2. The Dental Council appeared before the High Court and took a stand that at no point of time, there has been any application on behalf of the institute seeking admission of more than 40 students per year and there are large number of documen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC3247; 2002(2)ALD(Cri)895; 2003(1)ALT(Cri)71; 2002CriLJ4694; JT2002(7)SC91; RLW2002(4)SC584; 2002(6)SCALE403; (2002)8SCC73; [2002]SUPP2SCR247; 2002(2)LC1380(SC)
ORDER1. Six accused, including the four appellants, were forwarded by the police to the concerned court to stand trial for offences under various provisions of I.P.C., The Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (in short 'the TADA Act') and The Arms Act. One of them(Gurbachan Singh) was declared proclaimed offender. Another (Jagmail Singh) died. The remaining four, namely appellants were convicted for the offences for which they were tried. For offences under Sections 307/149 IPC andSections 3 & 5 of the TADA Act, rigorous imprisonment for five years for each of these offences and fine was imposed on each of the appellants. For offences under Section 148IPC two years' rigorous imprisonment and for offences under Section 363/149 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act one year'srigorous imprisonment and fine was imposed on each of the appellants. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appellants have challenged the judgment and order of learned Additional Judge, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC3230; 2002(4)ALLMR(SC)593; 2002(3)BLJR2132; JT2002(7)SC1; 2002(6)SCALE332; (2002)7SCC258; [2002]SUPP2SCR228; 2002(4)SCT444(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. This appeal filed by the Medical Council of India (in short the 'MCI') raises important questions regarding desirability of belated admissions to medical colleges in different courses, both pre-graduate and post-graduate. The questions assume importance because filing a large number of petitions before various High Courts and this Court has become an annual feature. When time of admission to medical courses arrives, immediately comes to mind Shakespeares' Othello, where it was written 'Chaos is come again'. Inevitable result is that considerable time is lost by candidates chasing vires instead of virus. This Court in Convenor, MBBS/BDS Selection Board and Ors. v. Chandan Mishra and Ors. observed as follows:'...The learned Judges of the High Court, if we may say so in a well-considered opinion expressed their anguish at the insensitivity of the authorities administering medical admission in the State to the need to prevent occasions for repetitive grievances from th...
Tag this Judgment!