Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(1)AWC358(SC); JT2003(9)SC386; 2003(10)SCALE405; (2004)9SCC116; (2004)1UPLBEC674
A.C. Lakshmanan, J. 1. The present appeal was filed against the judgment dated 19.05.1995 pronounced by the Division Bench of the High Court of judicature at Allahabad by which the writ petition of the appellant bearing No. 1607 of 1988 was dismissed. The writ petition was filed by the appellant to issue a writ prohibiting the respondents from recovering Rs. 18,72,821.92 constituting cash subsidy plus interest thereon from the appellant-company as arrears of land revenue after quashing notice dated 15.09.1987 (annexure 8 to the petition) and recovery certificate dated 31.10.1987 (annexure 11 to the petition).2. The sequence of facts and events leading to the filing of this civil appeal are as follows: -2.1. By an order dated 30.09.1982, the government of Uttar Pradesh formulated a scheme known as 'Capital Grant Scheme' (hereinafter referred to as 'scheme') for the grant of subsidies to various industrial units for giving an impetus to the industrialisation of the backward areas i.e. ze...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(1)AWC605(SC); JT2003(9)SC548; 2003(10)SCALE43; (2004)1SCC391; (2004)1UPLBEC855
A.C. Lakshmanan, J.1. The unsuccessful respondents 2, 3 and 4 before the High Court of Allahabad are the appellants in this appeal. The writ petition was filed by the first respondent herein to quash the order dated 12.03.1999 (Annexure 17 to the writ petition) and for mandamus restraining the appellants herein from interfering in the business in certified seeds either before or after processing and further in restraining the appellants from demanding and realising market fee on the transaction of unprocessed or processed certified seeds.2. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court allowed the writ petition following the decision of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Rajasthan Agriculture Input Dealers Association reported in : AIR1996SC2179 which has also been followed by the Division Bench of the said Court in Writ Petition No. 7262 of 1993 dated 18.12.1996. The High Court quashed the Impugned order dated 12.03.1999 and also held that the respondents in the writ petition/appellan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(3)ALT27(SC); JT2003(9)SC316; 2003(10)SCALE33; (2003)12SCC315; (2004)1UPLBEC882
Brijesh Kumar, J.1. All the above noted appeals though filed by different parties, involve the same question relating to the legality of the order dated 11.8.2000 passed by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court as well as the judgments later passed following the above said decision. The controversy revolves around the refusal to sanction the plan submitted by different parties to the Cantonment Board for construction of building over the land in question. The central government raised its claim over the land and tiled objections to that effect through the Defence Estate Officer as provided under Section 181 of the Cantonment Act, 1924 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').2. All the appeals have been heard together along with Special Leave Petition(C) Nos. 406-409/02 in which we grant leave. All these matters are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. The facts in brief, relevant for purposes of disposing of these matters are that: the land over which the responden...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : I(2004)ACC301; (SCSuppl)2004(1)CHN175; JT2003(9)SC540; 2004(3)MPHT175; 2004MPLJ210(SC); 2003(10)SCALE38; (2004)1SCC320
S. Rajendra Babu, J. 1. A batch of writ petitions was filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 16(6), (7) & (8), 20-A and 20-B of the Madhya Pradesh Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'], inserted by the Madhya Pradesh Motoryan Karadhan [Sanshodhan] Adhiniyam, 1999 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Amendment Act'], published in the official gazette on 8.12.1999 received the assent of the Governor on 30.11.1999. 2. The petitioners before the High Court contended that Sections 16(6), (7) & (8), 20A, 20-B and 20-C of the Act are repugnant to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as 'the MV Act'] enacted by Parliament in exercise of its powers under Entry 35, List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, which has been in force since 1st July 1989; that the amendments introduced by Act 27 of 1999, by which the impugned provisions are introduced in the Act, deal with the subjec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(1)ALD103(SC); 2004(1)CTC68; 2003(10)SCALE39; (2004)1SCC641
ORDERD. Raju, J. 1. The above appeals, arising out of a common judgment dated 8.2.1995 of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal Nos. 74 to 80 of 1982, involving identical questions of law and similar facts, are dealt with together,2. The immovable properties, land and building in question, which are the subject-matter of acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1864 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'], forming part of large extent were granted by Competent Authority on behalf of the Government of North Western Provinces of British India by a deed dated 24.12.1862 subject only to the conditions stipulated therein, which included, apart from the payment of the lump sum amount specified therein, the rent/ground rent up 31.7.1869 the periodical payment of on and from 31st July 1869 revised ground rent that may be fixed by the Revenue Collector of Allahabad District, in favour of one Mr. Walter Edmond Davis, Indigo Planter of Bengal. The same was sold to and pur...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(1)ALD(Cri)299; 2004(3)ALT22(SC); 2004(1)BLJR102; JT2004(6)SC42; 2003(10)SCALE349; (2003)12SCC360
Arijit Pasayat, J. 1. One Barhan Das (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) paid price for changing his loyalty from one trade union to another and Surendra (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') was said to be instrumental in taking away his life. Four persons faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the 'IPC'). The trial Court convicted them accordingly. The matter was, carried in appeal before the Jharkhand High Court which by the impugned order dismissed the appeal filed by the accused appellant and held that accusations under Section 302 IPC have been made out against him who was accused No. 4 before the trial Court. Kedar Dusadh (A-1) died during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court. Chandrika Das (A-2) and Krishna Kumar (A-3) were given the benefit of doubt and their acquittal was directed their acquittal was directed.2. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC400; 2004(1)AWC739(SC); I(2004)CPJ12(SC); 2004(1)CTC368; 2004(1)CTLJ552(SC); JT2003(10)SC18; 2003(10)SCALE36; (2003)12SCC497; (2004)1UPLBEC662
Shivaraj V. Patil, J.1. Kanpur Development Authority (KDA) has filed these appeals challenging the correctness and validity of the common order dated 21.5.1997 made by the Division Bench of the High court in writ petitions.2. Three schemes were floated by KDA in September, 1978 with financial support of 'HUDCO' 'on no profit no loss basis'. The three schemes were; (1) for Economically Weaker Section; (2) for Lower Income Group and (3) Middle Income Group. Applications were invited in the prescribed form fixing the last date as 29.9.1978. The applications were to be made in the prescribed form along with the earnest money for each category. A brochure was issued showing the cost of each house and terms and conditions of the schemes. In these cases, we are not concerned with the houses constructed in two other schemes which were allotted to the applicants on the basis of lottery on 25.10.1980 and a cost specified in the brochure and the possession of the houses was delivered to them. How...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(91)ECC9; 2003LC1017(SC); 2003(158)ELT677(SC)
ORDER1. The Commissioner who examined the facts arising in the case adverted to the reply filed by the appellant that the two products engine treatment and gear and differential treatment oils are added to different mineral oils for being used and arc not capable of being used as lubricating oils by themselves, but are in the nature of additives. He noticed that they do not impart better lubrication along but other attributes of additives and hence, cannot claim benefit of Notification 120/84. The two products are classifiable under Heading 3811.00 of the Central Excise Tariff. On appeal against the said order, the Tribunal noticed as under :-'The above mentioned facts show that products are not used as lubricating oils but added to as additives.The process of manufacturing of the products in dispute is that imported PTFE is added/blended and mixed with mineral lubricating oil. Therefore, the products are not petroleum oils and oils obtained from bituminous as described under Heading 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(163)ELT3(SC)
ORDER1. The Tribunal noticed that in the preceding year the aggregate value of clearances had exceeded the limit of 250 MTs prescribed under the Notification 56/88-C.E. on the basis that the exclusion for aggregate value purpose prescribed under Explanation II is not applicable to the aggregate quantum of clearances.2. The Explanation II in the Notification 56/88-C.E., dated 1-3-88 (Central Excise Tarrif 1989-90) clearly sets out that for the purpose of computing the aggregate value of clearances under this notification and by any other notification the clearances of any excisable goods which are exempted from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon by any other notification shall not be taken into account.3. It is not very clear from the order of the Tribunal as to whether the Tribunal reads the parameters into the notification to hold that the larger units by doing job work should not allowed to have the benefit intended for a smaller unit. In this view of the matter, we set...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)143; 2004(3)ALT18(SC); 2004(1)BLJR165; JT2003(10)SC277; (2004)ILLJ450SC; 2003(10)SCALE32; (2003)12SCC29
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. The appellant is a public limited company having its registered office at Bombay, engaged in the business of producing aluminium metal and its alloys and its factory is located at Renukoot in Uttar Pradesh. Bauxite being a raw material required for the manufacture of aluminium, the appellant obtained various mining leases in Bihar under the provisions of the Mines & Minerals Regulation and Development Act, 1957. Appellant was thus having a bauxite mining lease which was known as Mariana Bauxite Mine. The mining operations at the Mariana Bauxite Mine were being done in forest land as well as non-forest land. On 24th July, 1993, the Divisional Forest Officer, Ranchi West Forest Division, issued a letter to the appellant to stop the mining activities in the forest land of the Mariana Bauxite Mines. The appellant was asked to submit map and the records for decision to be taken in the matter. The appellant sent a reply stating that their lease was valid upto January,...
Tag this Judgment!