Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1786; 2003(1)ARBLR501(SC); 2003(3)AWC2413(SC); 2003(3)CTC317; 2003(86)ECC16; 2003(153)ELT32(SC); JT2003(5)SC64; 2003(2)SCALE463; (2003)4SCC690; [2003]2SCR276; (200
ORDER1. Leave is granted.2. These appeals arise from a common judgment of the High Court at Delhi in Civil Miscellaneous No. 67/4 of 2002 in Civil Writ Petition No. 2002 of 2002 and in Civil Writ Petition No. 2002 of 2002 dated July, 16, 2002.3. The controversy in these appeals relates to the encashment of the bank guarantee by the Union of India, the first respondent. As an import policy during the period 1995-1996, the first respondent introduced an 'Export Promotion Capital Goods (E.P.C.G.) Scheme. The Scheme envisaged exemption from custom duty on the imported goods, plants and equipment, etc., subject to the conditions incorporated in Exemption Notification No. 111/95-CUS dated 5th June, 1995 which was issued under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant in the appeals arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 14657-14658 14657-14658 of 2002, M/s. Daewoo Motors India Limited, availed the Scheme which, inter alia, provided that upon importing plants and equipment, it should fulf...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1261; [2003(97)FLR149]; [2003(2)JCR219(SC)]; (2003)2MLJ127(SC); 2003(2)SCALE712; (2003)3SCC533; [2003]2SCR282; 2003(1)SLJ33(SC); 2003(1)LC738(SC)
ORDER1. These Civil Appeals and the Writ Petition involve a short question as regard interpretation of Rule 20B of the All India Services (Leave) Rules, 1955 read with Rule 2 of the High Court Judges (Condition of Service) Rules, 1956.2. The respondents herein who were the writ petitioners before the High Court as also the writ petitioners before us were appointed as Judges of the High Court. They have since retired. They were elevated to the High Court from Judicial Service quota. Most of them were to reach the age of superannuation in Higher Judicial Services of the respective State a few days or a few months prior to their elevation to the High Court. It is not in dispute that in terms of the rules governing the conditions of service framed by the respective States; retirement benefits as also the leave encashment benefits are deposited in their account. It was so done in the case of all the writ petitioners. After their elevation, most of them expressed their desire to deposit the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1750; 2003CriLJ1554; JT2003(2)SC232; 2003(2)SCALE346; (2003)9SCC12; [2003]2SCR266
Respondents 1 and 2 in this appeal who are brothers were convicted by the Sessions Court for the offence under Sections 452, 307 read with Section 34 and Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Their father, respondent no.3, was also convicted for offence under Sections 452, 307 and Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Their conviction and consequently the sentence that had been imposed on them by the Sessions Court was set aside in appeal by the High Court in terms of the impugned judgment. The State is in appeal to this Court on grant of leave. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent no.3, Devi Das died. The appeal thus abates against him. The prosecution case in brief is that respondents 1 and 2, their father and another person entered the house of Raghubir (PW3) at about midnight of 15th-16th January, 1977 while he was sleeping with his wife and children. After removing the quilt, the respondents held fast PW3 and he was hit on the head with the butt of the country-made pistol...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1783; 2003CriLJ1569; JT2003(3)SC611; RLW2003(2)SC311; 2003(2)SCALE324; (2003)9SCC55
B.N. Agrawal, J.1. The five respondents along with nineteen other accused persons were charged and tried and by judgment dated 3rd February, 1993 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, other nineteen accused persons were acquitted whereas the respondents were convicted under Sections 302/149 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life besides fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. They were further convicted under Section 147 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. The respondents were also convicted under Section 148 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- each and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months. All the sentence...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC4019; 2003(86)ECC20; (2003)3GLR2041; 2003(2)SCALE390; (2003)3SCC599; [2003]2SCR252
ORDER1. This appeal, by the assessee, is from the final order No. 290/94-A of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. E/03/92-A, dated October 17, 1994.2. The short point that arises for consideration is: whether the Tribunal erred in upholding the order of the Excise authorities in invoking the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944; if so, whether the order confirming penalty is sustainable. 3. It will be necessary to refer to the facts giving rise to this appeal.4. The appellant-assessee is a registered small scale unit. It manufactures patent and proprietary medicines. It uses a logo 'P/B'. The assessee claims that the logo was assigned to it by M/s. P&B; Laboratories Ltd. by a deed of assignment dated July 1, 1984. The dispute relates to the period from May 1, 1985 to December 31, 1989. On March 25, 1985, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee proposing to demand duty on the basis of the price at which its distributor, M/s Phar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. The fourth respondent Kariyappa was granted land measuring 1.39 acres by the State on 22.11.1948 free of cost under the Mysore Land Revenue Rules. One of the conditions of the grant was that land shall not be alienated to any third party. Out of this granted land, the appellant herein purchased 20 guntas of land from the 4th respondent on 14.8.1967. On 1.1.1979 the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 came into force and under Section 4 of the said Act, alienation made against the terms of the grant and the law providing for such grant, was declared null & void. In relation to that, the Assistant Commissioner issued notice to the appellant for resumption of the land purchased by the 4th respondent. The appellant had objected to the order passed against him for resumption of the land purchased by him from the 4th respondent. But the Assistant Commissioner rejected the objections and confirmed his proposal. The appel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1789; [2003(96)FLR1166]; JT2003(2)SC162; 2003(1)KLT874(SC); (2003)IILLJ272SC; 2003(2)SCALE254; (2003)3SCC263; [2003]2SCR220; 2003(2)SLJ327(SC); (2003)2UPLBEC1233
The appellant, in this appeal, has assailed the validity and correctness of the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court affirming the order of the learned Single Judge passed in original writ petition upholding the order of termination of his services. The appellant was appointed by the respondent-corporation on 7.10.1994 as Junior Manager (Quality Control) subject to certain terms and conditions. The relevant condition for the purpose of this case reads:"You will be on probation for a period of two years within a continuous service of three years. You will be absorbed in the regular service of this corporation only on satisfactory completion of the period of probation. If yourperformance during the period of probation is found unsatisfactory, the Corporation reserves the full right to terminate your service without any prior notice."It was his duty to inspect all the commodities received by the Corporation at the depots and to verify the quality of goods in conformity wit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1590; 2003(2)ALLMR(SC)352; 2003(51)BLJR721; 2003(1)CTC609; RLW2003(3)SC344; 2003(2)SCALE261; (2003)3SCC502; [2003]2SCR247
Rajendra Babu, J. 1. A Suit C.S. No. 1 of 1960 was filed under Order 1 of Rule 8 of the Codeof Civil Procedure for a declaration in respect of 456 London Mission Churchesand its properties as belonging to London Mission Christians and for injunctionand in respect of certain other properties for recovery of possession. During thependency of the suit. Plaintiff No. 2 died. The suit was dismissed on 1.4.1967 onthe ground that it was not maintainable as plaintiffs had not obtained the consentof the Advocate General under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure toprosecute the suit. However, on merits, it was held that there was a valid mergerof London Mission Society Churches with the SIUC and thereafter SIUCChurches with CSI. 2. Against the said decision in the said suit, an appeal was preferred byplaintiffs Nos. 1, 3 and 5. Plaintiff No. 4 did not join as an appellant. He wasimpleaded as one of the respondents. During pendency of the appeal, all theappellants died. Two persons, Anbiah ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1883; JT2003(2)SC498; 2003(2)MPHT338; 2003(2)SCALE340; (2003)5SCC17; [2003]2SCR212
Shivaraj V. Patil, J.1. Leave granted.2. The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendant for the eviction from the house and shop given to them on rent. The plaintiff No. 1 is a religious institution registered under the Madhya Pradesh Public Trust Act. The defendants resisted the suit on various grounds. The trial court decreed the suit. The defendants filed an appeal before the High Court challenging the decree passed by the trial court. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal finding no merit in it. Hence, this appeal. 3. Before the High Court, findings of fact were not disputed. The only ground urged was that plaintiff No. 1 has failed to plead and prove that it is a religious/charitable trust and it was not entitled to get the benefit of exemption notification issued under Section 2(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'); consequently, it was necessary for the plaintiff No. 1 to have made out a ground under Section 12(1) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1863; JT2003(5)SC502; 2003(3)MPHT64; 2003MPLJ115(SC); 2003(2)SCALE494; (2003)4SCC635; [2003]2SCR259; 2003(1)LC634(SC)
ORDER1. The short question that arises for consideration in this case is as to whether the heirs of a tenant can be deprived of the benefit of proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') if the heirs' father from whom they inherited the tenancy rights had availed of the benefit of proviso of Sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Act. This question arises in the following factual background.2. It is not disputed that the appellant herein is the landlord of a shop in the town Neemuch. As far back as in the year 1960, one Badri Lal, father of respondents took the aforesaid shop on rent at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month. It appears that Badri Lal committed default in payment of arrears of rent with the result that the appellant herein brought a suit for eviction on the ground of default in payment of arrears of rent. However, father of the respondents claimed benefit of proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the A...
Tag this Judgment!