Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC897; 2003(1)AWC669(SC); 102(2003)DLT639(SC); JT2003(1)SC138; 2003(1)SCALE145; (2003)1SCC758
ORDER1. This is a peculiar and extraordinary petition filed purportedly under Article 136 of the Constitution by a person who is bent upon denigrating the Judges of the Civil Court, the District Court and the High Court either for passing orders not to his liking in a civil suit and the writ petition preferred by him and the alleged inaction of the concerned Judges in initiating disciplinary and contempt proceedings against the Civil Judge who admitted the summary money suit filed against him. The language used in the SLP as well as in the writ petition filed in the High Court demonstrates the no-holds barred approach adopted by the petitioner in espousing his alleged grievances. The SLP as well as the written submissions given by the petitioner at the time of hearing contains nothing but a pack of wild, irresponsible and irrelevant allegations against the Judges of Civil and Criminal Courts, the then District Judge (impleaded as 1st respondent) and the learned Judges of High Court. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC2713; 2003(3)ALLMR(SC)1141; JT2003(1)SC438; 2003(1)SCALE147; (2003)2SCC320; [2003]1SCR329; 2003(1)LC726(SC)
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. A decree for eviction in a landlord-tenant litigation upholding availability of ground for eviction under Section 13(1)(g) of The Bombay Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (hereinafter 'the Act' for short) but denying the relief of eviction based on the finding on issue as to comparative hardship within the meaning of Section 13(2) of the Act is under challenge in this appeal by special leave filed by the appellant-landlord.2. The suit premises are situated in the city of Pune and are described in city survey as No. 573, Ravivarpet. The premises are the part of a building having two wings and three floors, i.e. the ground floor and two upper floors. The eastern wing is in the occupation of the landlord-appellant. The ground floor is used as a shop. The first and the second floor are used as residence for the appellant and his family. The western wing is in the occupation of the tenant-respondent who runs a shop on the ground floor and resides with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC931; 2003CriLJ1218; JT2003(2)SC126; 2003(1)SCALE299; (2003)3SCC51; [2003]1SCR363
1. This appeal by Special leave is preferred by the sole accused in the Sessions Trial No. 583 of 1980 on the file of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur. The accused was convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. on the charge of murdering his relation by name Hidayat Hussain at about 8 A.M. on 28.6.1980 on a public street. The accused was sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence.2. The prosecution case is that on the crucial day at about 8 A.M. the deceased was going to a meat shop with his son Aizaz @ Guddu (P.W.2). As they came close to the meat shop, the accused fired a shot from his country-made pistol in front of the house of one Sidhu. The victim collapsed before the meat shop of Achhan (P.W. 3) and succumbed to the injuries then and there. Though some people tried to overpower the accused, he reloaded his pistol and threatened them not to risk their lives. Thereafter, he fled away from the scene. P.W.1, the father o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(2)AWC1287(SC); 95(2003)CLT611(SC); [2003(96)FLR582]; JT2003(1)SC179; (2003)ILLJ816SC; (2003)2SCC212; [2003]1SCR386; 2003(2)SLJ32(SC)
ORDER1. The respondent was a Conductor, and hence a workman, in the employment of the appellant Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. He remained absent from duty between 5.6.1982 and 8.8.1982 on the first occasion and again between 13.10.1992 and 1.11.1992 on the second occasion. A chargesheet was served on him alleging the period of absence to be an unauthorised absence from duty. The respondent pleaded that he had remained absent because of ill health - due to jaundice for the first period of absence and due to chest pain and fever for the second period of absence from duty. In the departmental inquiry proceedings the two charges referable to two periods of absence from duty framed against the respondent were found to be proved and the explanation for absence as offered by him was found not to have been substantiated. The respondent was inflicted with the punishment of removal from service. 2. The respondent raised a dispute under Section 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Dispute...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC938; 2003(85)ECC485; 2003(152)ELT22(SC); JT2003(1)SC159; 2003(1)SCALE137; (2003)2SCC494; [2003]1SCR320
Dharmadhikari, J.1. The appellant M/s. Kedia Agglomerated Marbles Limited is engaged in manufacture of floor tiles which are marketed by them in the trade name 'Marbella Agglomerated Marbles' and 'Marbellam Tiles.' The product of the appellant is classified under tariff heading 68.07 for the purpose of excise duty under the Central Excise Tariff Act (for short 'the Act'). The above classification of the appellant's product under Tariff heading 68.07 has been confirmed by order dated 21.6.1993 passed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad. 2. On the basis of the aforesaid classification of its product under Tariff heading 68.07, appellant claimed exemption from payment of duty under Notification No. 59/91-CE dated 20.3.1990 issued by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 5A of the Central Excise Act. Under the aforesaid exemption notification, 'mosaic tiles that is to say tiles known commercially as mosaic tiles...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC935; 2003(85)ECC491; 2003(152)ELT16(SC); JT2003(1)SC130; 2003(1)SCALE118; (2003)3SCC111; [2003]1SCR313; [2003]131STC9(SC)
Dharmadhikari, J.1. The present two appeals have been preferred under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944 against the three-member Judgment [reported in (Tribunal)] of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal [for short 'CEGAT'], Principal Bench 'C', New Delhi. The Tribunal by majority opinion of two against one held against the appellant that its manufactured product with trade name 'Lip Salve' is classifiable for payment of excise duty under Heading 33.04 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 [hereinafter referred as 'Act'] as 'a preparation for care of skin' and not a 'medicament' under Heading 30.03 of the Act.2. The minority view expressed by one Member of the Tribunal in favour of the appellant is that its manufactured product 'Lip Salve' is classifiable as 'medicament' under Chapter 30.03 of the Act although the sub-classification is required to be re-determined by remanding the case of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise.3. In the impugne...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC2748; 2003CriLJ4801; JT2003(1)SC184; 2003(1)SCALE171; (2003)3SCC641; [2003]42SCL275(SC); [2003]1SCR119
ORDER412. In the result it is held that:-1) Criminal Appeal No. 521 of 2000 filed by the State against A2 Ambuj Sushil Kumar Jain is dismissed.2) Criminal Appeal No. 1097 of 1999 filed by A-4 Ram Narayan Popli is allowed and he is acquitted of all the offences alleged against him.3) Further, in view of the judgment rendered by the Majority, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1117 of 1999, 1141 of 1999 and 1150 of 1999 filed by A1 Pramod Kumar Prital Lal Manocha, A-3 Vinayak Narayan Deosthali and deceased A-5 Harshad Shantilal Mehta respectively are partly allowed. The order of conviction awarded by the Special Court in respect of A1, A3 and A5 is confirmed. However, sentence of A1 and A3 is reduced to the period already undergone....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2004)186CTR(SC)115; [2003]264ITR564(SC); (2003)9SCC285
ORDER1. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. The appellant shall pay Rs. 10,000 as costs because of the delay of 247 days in filing these special leave petitions.3. Delay condoned.4. Leave granted.5. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated September 20, 1999, passed by the Income-tax Settlement Commission holding that for the assessment year 1993-94 waiver of interest chargeable under Section 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is restricted to 50 per cent. It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant-Revenue that the said order is illegal and erroneous, in view of the judgment rendered by this court in CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala : [2001]252ITR1(SC) and also the decision rendered by this court in C. A. Nos. 7966-7967 of 1996 entitled CIT v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers on December 17, 2002, : [2003]259ITR449(SC) .6. As against this, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that in the judgments rendered by this court in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2005(104)FLR108]; (2004)ILLJ232SC; 2003(10)SCALE476; (2003)9SCC221
ORDER1. The respondent herein was the Secretary to the Society, Hissar Central Co-operative Bank. Series of charges were framed against him alleging that he had caused embezzlement of money of the Society. The enquiry officer found him guilty of the charges and he was thereafter removed from service. The matter by way of reference reached the Labour Court where the dismissal of the respondent from the Society was challenged. The Labour Court found that the enquiry was not done properly and there was no proof to the effect that the respondent had caused embezzlement and the respondent was ordered to be reinstated in service with full back wages.2. The award passed by the Labour Court was challenged by the appellant Society before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. When the matter was admitted, the Division Bench was pleased to issue notice only regarding the question of payment of back wages to the respondent. The award of the Labour Court directing the appellant to reinstate the res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC788; 2003(1)AWC653(SC); 95(2003)CLT473(SC); [2003(96)FLR682]; JT2003(1)SC101; 2003(1)SCALE115; (2003)2SCC147; [2003]1SCR91; 2003(1)LC302(SC)
Acts/Rules/Orders: Constitution of India - Articles 145, 316, 316(2), 317, 317(1) and 318Cases Referred: Union of India and Ors. v. Gopal Chandra Misra and Ors., Citing Reference: Union of India and Ors. v. Gopal Chandra Misra and Ors MentionedREPORT1. This Reference has been made by the President of India to this Court under Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India seeking immediate suspension and removal of Shri Ravinder Pal Singh Sidhu, former Chairman, Punjab Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission'), by taking action against him levelling several allegations of grave misconduct and mal-practices. In the Reference, it is stated that the matter requires an examination by this Court in terms of Article 317(1) of the Constitution. In the course of the letter sent by the Governor of Punjab to the President on 29th April 2002, certain details as to the conduct of Shri Ravinder Pal Singh Sidhu while functioning as Chairman of the Commission are set out. T...
Tag this Judgment!