Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1839; 2003(4)CTC571; [2003(97)FLR141]; JT2003(2)SC309; 2003(2)SCALE503; (2003)4SCC65; [2003]2SCR416; 2003(1)SLJ62(SC); (2003)2UPLBEC1228
Arijit Pasayat, J. 1. Challenge in these appears is to the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (in short 'the Tribunal'). The controversy lies within a very narrow compass i.e. the date of seniority of the appellant and, therefore, a brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice.2. Appellant joined as Welfare Officer in Andhra Pradesh Jails Department on 8.9.1978. He completed his probation on 5.10.1981. On 16.6.1983, a nine posts of Deputy Superintendent of Jails were notified to be filled up and on 25.8.1983 an advertisement was issued by requisite Gazette Notification by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (in short the 'Commission') for filling up the aforesaid vacancies by direct recruitment. Five years' service is required for an employee other than a direct recruit to be eligible for consideration on for the said post. On 16.10.1984, 11 prisons welfare officers and jailors were appointed as Deputy Superintendence of Jails on ad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC3560; 2003(5)ALT12(SC); [2003(2)JCR218(SC)]; 2003(2)JKJ40[SC]; (2003)134PLR248; RLW2003(3)SC362; 2003(2)SCALE513; (2003)9SCC83; 2003(2)LC797(SC)
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. Leave granted.2. Chandra Shekhar Panigrahi, the appellant's son, was a candidate forAnnual HSC Examination, 2001 appearing in all subjects of the Board ofSecondary Education, Orissa along with Third Language Oriya (TLO). On20.3.2001 while the examination was being held a flying squad visited theexamination hall wherein the appellant's son was sitting. A piece of papercontaining some Sanskrit scripts was found lying near his table. The flyingsquad seized the paper and prepared a report showing the appellant's son ashaving adopted unfair means in the examination. On 26.5.2001 the Boardof Secondary Education, Orissa (hereinafter, the BSE) issued a show causenotice accusing Chandra Shekhar of being in possession of incriminatingmaterials in the examination hall. Chandra Shekhar controverted theallegation defending himself on all the counts. However, his result waswithheld. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed a writ petition in the HighCourt of Orissa, which was dismiss...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1706; 2003(4)ALD86(SC); 2003(4)ALT60(SC); JT2003(2)SC286; 2003(2)SCALE499; (2003)4SCC488; [2003]2SCR430
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. These appeals involve common points and are directed against a Division Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Factual matrix giving rise to these appeals is as follows:2. Proceedings were initiated by the District Collector. Hyderabad under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act. 1977 (in short 'the Prohibition Act') read with Section 166(B) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act. 1950 (in short 'the Tenancy Act'). The suo motu action was taken on the ground that there were irregular assignments in favour of the original assignees and there were clear violations of several stipulations and conditions provided under the Special Loani Rules (in short 'the Rules). Transfers made by the original assignees were illegal. The land situated in Banjara hills are of (SIC) village, a prime locality and in view of the contravention of the conditions stipulated under Sections 47 and 48 of the Tenancy Act, the assignments wer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2001(1)ALT(Cri)133; JT2003(3)SC120; 2003(2)KLT135(SC); 2003(2)SCALE560; (2003)9SCC700; [2003]2SCR436
Brijesh Kumar, J.1. This is a case in which the appellants before us in Criminal Appeal No. 372 of 2001 and Criminal Appeal No. 373 of 2001 have been convicted under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') for having caused, M/s. Graphite India Ltd. (for short 'M/s. GIL'), Bangalore, to obtain valuable thing namely, electricity by selling it to the said company illegally and by abusing their official position as public servants which also resulted in pecuniary advantage to M/s. GIL to the tune of Rs. 19 lakhs and odd. So far the said two appellants themselves are concerned, it is neither the case of the prosecution nor the finding of any court that they gained or acquired any kind of benefit, pecuniary or otherwise, out of the transaction in question. The High Court, on the other hand, finds that there is nothing to show that for obtaining Kerala electricity any illegal gratification was given to the appellants for any ille...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1987; 2003(2)ALLMR(SC)717; JT2003(5)SC160; (2003)134PLR262; 2003(2)SCALE509; (2003)4SCC481; [2003]2SCR424; (2003)2UPLBEC1718
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. In those three appeals, the controversy lies within avery narrow compass relating to the valuation of landsacquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'theAct'). 2. As the points in issue are common they are dealt withtogether. Notifications under Section 4 of the Act wereissued on 13.11.1959 and 15.7.1960 in the two cases. Theacquired lands according to the appellants are situated onthe main road known as the Mall or Delhi Karnal Road near toNational Highway No. 1. They claimed Rs. 60 per sq. yard alongwith interest and solatium. So far as the acquisitionscovered by the Notification dated 13.11.1959 is concerned,the Land Acquisition Collector divided the acquired landinto two blocks and fixed the market value of land in theseblocks separately. As regards Bagh Nehri land, the rate wasfixed at Rs. 4,000/- per bigha and Gair Mumkin Land@Rs. 3,500/- per bigha in respect of block A. In respect ofBlock B, he fixed the market value of garden land@Rs. 3,500/- ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : I(2003)ACC611; 2003ACJ611; AIR2003SC1292; 2003(3)ALLMR(SC)708; 2003(4)ALT38(SC); 2003(2)AWC1601(SC); (2003)2GLR1771; [2003(2)JCR165(SC)]; JT2003(2)SC595; 2003(2)KLT97(SC);
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Heard parties.3. This appeal is against a judgment of the High Court dated 5.12.2000.4. By this appeal, the Insurance Company seeks to avoid its liability on the ground that the licence of the driver of the car was a fake licence. As is indicated hereafter the question whether an Insurance Company can avoid liability to a third party who is involved in the accident is no longer res integra. It is fully covered by decisions of this Court. We find that in spite of the point being fully covered, in a large number of matters the Insurance Companies are still seeking to get out of liability to third parties on the ground that the licence was fake. We have noticed that many matters are still being brought to this Court on this point. It is therefore necessary to again reiterate the legal position. In this case the Appellants have not even been able to prove that the licence was fake. Yet they have deprived the claimants of use of the money for all these years by fili...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1917; 2003(3)AWC1744(SC); JT2003(2)SC320; 2003(2)KLT638(SC); 2003(2)SCALE518; (2003)4SCC257; [2003]2SCR473
R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. Leave granted in all the SLPs.2. A common question of law arises for decision in all the three appeals. It would suffice to state the facts of one of the cases to have a glimpse of the backdrop events in which the question has emerged for decision. In Civil Appeal No. /2003 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 6098/2002) the appellant contested the last election to legislative assembly from 'No. 5 Badarpur Legislative Assembly Constituency of Assam' held on 10.5.2001. The appellant was declared duly elected. On 27.6.2001 the contesting respondent filed an Election Petition under Section 80/81 of the Representative of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter RPA, for short), laying challenge to the appellant's election. The Election Petition was presented before Stamp Reporter-cum-Oath Commissioner of the High Court of Assam. The Stamp Reporter received the election petition, conducted the preliminary scrutiny thereof, and, along with his note, put up the same before the Designated El...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(153)ELT493(SC); (2003)11SCC343
ORDER1. These appeals are directed against an order made by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate, Tribunal in respect of certain goods which have been imported. The issue involved in these appeals is whether 'optional accessories' can be treated as spare parts or components.2. The Tribunal proceeded to consider the matter on the basis of the decision in Jindal Strips v. Collector of Customs, Bombay and also adverted to Section 19 of the Customs Act and the Accessories (Conditions) Rules, 1963. It is not clear from the order of the Tribunal as to the nature of the goods with which they were dealing with and which of the provisions should apply and in what manner. Except making a sketchy reference to facts, there is no finding as such given by the Tribunal. In that view ofthe matter, we set aside the order made by the Tribunal and remit the matterto the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The appealsare allowed accordingly....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1775; 2003(86)ECC1; 2003(153)ELT11(SC); [2003(3)JCR91(SC)]; JT2003(2)SC272; 2003(2)SCALE474; (2003)3SCC559; [2003]2SCR404
Shah, J.1. M/s Hindustan Metal Pressing Works removed the excisable goods at the effective rate of duty awaiting approval of their classification list No. 2/88 in which they claimed benefit of exemption Notification No. 175/86-CE dated 1.3.1986. In pursuance of the approval of the classification list on 21.6.1988, the Range Superintendent granted the refund of excise duty for the months of April 1988 to August 1988.2. Thereafter, a show-cause notice dated 22.2.1989 was issued for recovering the said amount on the ground that it was erroneously refunded. By order dated 8.2.1990, the Assistant Collector, Central Excise confirmed the demand of a sum of Rs. 2,36,515.55 on the basis of principles of unjust enrichment by the assessee. The appeal against the said order was dismissed by the Collector (Appeals) by judgment and order dated 20.11.1990. The Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') also dismissed the appeal by impugn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(153)ELT494(SC); (2003)11SCC341
ORDER1. This appeal is against the judgment dated 19-11-1999 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT). The respondents have been served but have remained absent. This appeal has, therefore, been set down for hearing ex parte as against the Respondents. On seizure of the goods at various places and on the basis of visit by the officers, the show case notice was issued to the Respondents claiming differential duty on glass cleared by the Respondents as it was found that in the classification list it was shown that the glass cleared and sold by the Re-spondents was of a particular thickness whereas what was actually cleared and sold was glass of a greater thickness. The thicker glass fell into a different Tariff item and higher duty was payable on it. Therefore, differential duty and penalty were claimed.2. The Collector confirmed the duty and penalty. CEGAT also held on all points in favour of the Department. However, CEGAT felt constrained by the Const...
Tag this Judgment!