Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1433; 2003CriLJ1297; JT2003(1)SC635; 2003(3)MPHT122; 2003(1)SCALE610; (2003)3SCC106; [2003]1SCR748
ORDER1. The appellant was convicted by Court of Sessions for an offence under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. He was also convicted for offence under Section 394, IPC and sentenced four years rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appeal of the appellant was dismissed by High Court by the impugned judgment. The appellant is in appeal, on grant of leave.2. The conviction of the appellant is based on circumstantial evidence.3. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant is a village artisan being a carpenter. Deceased Phullobai was a widow. She was a village nurse who used to attend to the health of women and help them during pregnancy. She was living with her son Paltoo (PW8) and mother Jhuttobai (PW15). According to Paltoo the appellant came to their house in the evening of 8th January, 1981 and said to deceased that his mother has developed some stomach pain and her services were required. On this represent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(1)SCALE593; (2003)10SCC189
ORDER1. Leave granted in both the petitions.2. The property known as Saj Resorts, the land and building along with running business, at Mahableshwar, a hill station in the State of Maharashtra, is the subject-matter of the present litigation. The property was owned and operated as a running hotel by M/ s Saj Hotels Pvt. Ltd., a private limited company, hereinafter referred to as 'respondents', for short. Latim Lifestyle and Resorts Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'appellants', for short) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with respondents whereby respondents agreed for sale of the land and building known as Saj Resorts at Mahableshwar as a going concern through the mode of transfer of shares. Appellants purchased 33.33% shares of respondents for a consideration of Rs. 1,50,00,000/-. The possession of Saj Resorts was delivered to appellants. Day-to-day management of affairs of Saj Resorts was taken over by appellants and respondents agreed not to interfere therein. On 27.11.19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(165)ELT485(SC); (2005)10SCC651
ORDER1. CA 4986/2001. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. M/s. Bharat Electronics Limited, a Central Govt. Undertaking has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 28-12-1999 passed in Appeal No. E/798/95-NB by the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal') confirming the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut whereby he determined the differential duty of Rs. 24,44,011.89 recoverable under Section 11A{1) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 read with Rule 98(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. However, he has not imposed any penalty on the appellant as it was a government undertaking.3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that initiation of proceedings under 1st proviso to Section 11A of the Act was wholly unjustified because the appellant submitted classification list on 10-3-1989 wherein it has disclosed the description which is Reproduced herein below :-Sl. No.Full descriptio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1060; 2003(2)ALT58(SC); [2003(96)FLR1039]; JT2003(1)SC465; (2003)ILLJ849SC; (2003)2MLJ49(SC); 2003(1)SCALE556; (2003)4SCC317; [2003]1SCR704; (2003)1UPLBEC563
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Interpretation of an order passed by this Court in R.K. Panda and Ors. v. Steel Authority of India and Ors. : [1994]3SCR1034 is in question in this appeal which arises out of the judgment and order dated 25th May, 2000 passed by the High Court Delhi in L.P.A. No. 335 of 1998 whereby and whereunder an appeal preferred by the appellant from the judgment and order dated 15th July, 1998 passed by a learned Single Judge of the said Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant was upheld.3. The basis fact of the matter is not in dispute. The workers of the Rourkela Steel Plant filed a writ petition before this Court, inter alia, for a direction that they be held to be entitled to be paid the same pay as is paid to the regular employees and be treated as such on the premise that they had been employed by various contractors and were doing jobs which are perennial in nature and identical to what were being done by regular employees of the Plant. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1132; 2003(2)ALLMR(SC)720; (2003)180CTR(SC)81; (2003)2GLR1275; JT2003(1)SC527; 2003(1)SCALE508; (2003)2SCC394; [2003]1SCR695; 2003(1)LC703(SC)
Arun Kumar, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment dated 29th November, 1990 of the Gujarat High Court allowing a Writ Petition filed by the respondent seeking exemption from levy of electricity duty and for quashing the orders of the authorities under the Bombay Electricity Duty Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') whereby exemption had been denied to the respondent. The High Court held that the respondent had set up a new industrial undertaking as contemplated under the Act and was entitled to exemption from electricity duty under Section 3(2)(vii)(b) of the said Act. The State Government has filed the present appeal against the said judgment of the High Court.2. Briefly the facts are that the respondent is engaged in manufacture of portland cement. It installed a manufacturing plant in the year 1960 with a capacity of producing 660 metric tones of clinker per day. The respondent added one more kiln in 1965 and increased its production capacity to 1000 metric tones. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1056; 2003(3)ALLMR(SC)313; JT2003(1)SC485; 2003(1)SCALE494; (2003)2SCC343; 2003(1)LC476(SC)
Bhan, J.1. Leave granted.2. On the submissions made before us the only point required to be determined in these appals is as to whether the tenant-respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent') having started using the premises in dispute for a purpose other than the purpose for which it was let out to him without the written consent of the appellant-landlord (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') is liable to be evicted in view of the provisions of Section 20(2)(d) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')?3. The suit premises consisting of three rooms were admittedly let out for business purpose of selling of copies and books in the year 1970 by the father of the appellant to the respondent-tenant. In the year 1976, the respondent started manufacturing copies, registers, sweet-meat boxes made of card board. In the year 1982 he installed a printing machine and started printing work without ob...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1140; JT2003(1)SC498; (2003)2MLJ16(SC); 2003(1)SCALE499; (2003)2SCC593; [2003]1SCR714; (2003)1UPLBEC848
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Applicability of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in a proceeding under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1952 Act') is in question in these appeals which arise out of judgments and orders passed by Punjab & Haryana High Court in L.P.A. No. 971 of 1999, C.W.P. No. 183 of 1994, L.P.A. No. 914 of 1999 and L.P.A. No. 41 of 2000.3. The factual matrix of the matter may be adverted to from the Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 533 of 2001. The lands of the appellants were requisitioned under the Defence of India Act, 1971 for establishment of Military cantonment in the year 1972. They were later on acquired in terms of Section 23(1) of the Defence of India Act. An award of compensation was pronounced on 6th March, 1975 in the following terms:-1. Area assessed on flat Rs. 16,000/- per acre2. Nahari Chani Rs. 14,000/- '3. Chali Mustan Rs. 18,800/- ' 4. B...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1115; [2003(96)FLR1048]; JT2003(1)SC534; 2003(1)SCALE564; (2003)4SCC104; [2003]1SCR666; 2003(2)SLJ14(SC); (2003)1UPLBEC780
Bhan, J.1. These appeals are directed against a common order passed by a Full Bench of Five Judges of the High Court of Allahabad in Civil Writ Petition No. 4285 (MB) of 1999, Public Services Tribunal Bar Association v. State of U.P. and Anr., Civil Writ Petition No. 871 (MB) of 2000 : [2003]1SCR666 , Afzal Ahmad Siddiqui v. State of U.P and Ors., and Civil Writ Petition No. 1262 (MB) of 2000, Shireesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Ors., wherein the High Court has dismissed the writ petitions challenging the vires of the U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976, as amended from time to time. The High court has upheld the constitutional validity of the Act as well as the subsequent amendments made therein.2. To effectively adjudicate the dispute arising in these appeals it would be necessary to have a look at the events in a chronological order which are given in brief as under:3. The U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act') was promulgated relating to public servan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1437; 2003(51)BLJR1653; [2003(96)FLR1004]; JT2003(1)SC557; 2003(1)SCALE545; (2003)4SCC331; [2003]1SCR729; 2003(2)SLJ43(SC); (2003)1UPLBEC765
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. This appeal is directed against the Order dated 15th June, 1999 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh the respondent was given charge sheet under Rule 153 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 framing five charges relating to misconduct on his part. After enquiry report was submitted holding that all the charges leveled against him were proved. The disciplinary authority agreeing with the findings as recorded by the enquiry officer passed an order of removal of the respondent from service. He unsuccessfully challenged the said order of his removal from service before the appellant and revisional authority. Thereafter he filed writ petition before the High Court challenging the order of removal from service on various grounds. The learned Single Judge after hearing the learned counsel for the parties did not find any good ground to disturb the finding of fact as to the charges which stood proved against the res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(85)ECC716; 2003(158)ELT254(SC); (2003)11SCC446
ORDERShah, J. 1. In December 1990 appellant--M/s. Super Electronics imported two consignments of 500 sets of optical disc drives from Lucky Gold Star International Corporation of Korea. It is the contention of the appellant that optical disc drives were imported for the manufacture of radio cassette recorders in combination with CD players (compact disk. players). The goods were sought to be cleared under Appendix 6 List 8 at Entry Sr. No. 786 (64)(iii) of ITC Import Export Policy 1990 -1993. The said entry reads thus:'(64) Computer Peripherals, the following: (i) Winchester Drives. (ii) Magnetic Tape Drives, (iii) Optical Disc Drives/CDROM/WORM drive.....'2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that optical disc drives could be imported by the manufacturers or actual users and not by the appellant who is manufacturing radio two-in-ones.3. It was also contended that the appellant had industrial licence to manufacture radio/cassette-recorders and combination th...
Tag this Judgment!