Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC3419; 2003(86)ECC505; 2003(153)ELT276(SC); JT2003(3)SC515; 2003(3)SCALE517; (2003)4SCC762; [2003]3SCR188
Arun Kumar, J.1. This civil appeal under Section 138E of the Customs Act, 1962 is directed against an order dated 24.8.2002 passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'CEGAT').2. Briefly the facts are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of acrylic sheets. The appellant imported raw material for its said manufacturing activity from Japan. The raw material is known as Methyl Methacrylate Monomer (regenerated) [for short 'MMM']. A contract in this behalf was entered into by the appellant on 17.3.1996 with a Hongkong firm for supply of 106.40 metric tonnes of MMM regenerated second grade at the rate of US $ 300 per metric tonne CIF. The goods had been dispatched vide a Bill of Lading dated 29.5.1996. The Invoice and Packing List both dated 18.6.1996 accompanied the consignment. The Bill of Lading mentions the words 'RMA' i.e. Regenerated Methyle Methaedylete. Likewise in the invoice as well as in the packing list it is stated ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(154)ELT347(SC)
ORDER1. Leave granted. 2. The issue here relates to the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Customs, under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. By the impugned order, the appellants have been directed todeposit an amount of Rs. 30 lakhs by way of pre-deposit. The reasoning given in support of such order is wholly unsatisfactory. The appellate authority has not at all considered the prima facie merits and has concentrated upon the prima facie balance of convenience in the case. The Appellate Authority should have addressed its mind to the prima facie merits of the appellants' case and upon being satisfied of the same determined the quantum of deposit taking into consideration the financial hardship and other such relevant factors. 3. We accordingly set aside the decision of the High Court as well as the impugned order dated 14-8-2002 and remand the matter back to the appellate authority for re-determining the issue under Section 35F of the Act after af...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(10)SCALE11; (2003)8SCC412
ORDERWP (C) No. 344 of 20021. The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks leave to withdraw this petition. Permission granted. The writ petition stands disposed of as withdrawn.WP (C) No. 301 of 20002. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioners points out that on 14-2-2003, the Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 was amended and it is now named as the Preconception and Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act. She submits that very few persons arc aware of the new amendment. According to her submission the said amendment is in conformity with the various directions issued by this Court and, therefore, the amended Act also requires to be properly implemented. For this purpose, the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks the following reliefs:'(i) direct the Union of India, State Governments/UTS and the authorities constituted under the PNDT Act to prohibit sex-selection techni...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC3553; 2003(3)ALT17(SC); 2003(2)AWC1648(SC); [2003(97)FLR608]; JT2003(3)SC436; (2003)IILLJ359SC; 2003(3)MhLj9; 2003MPLJ529(SC); 2003(3)SCALE533; (2003)4SCC27; [2003
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. A number of workers were engaged as casual labourers for me purpose of expansion of telecom facilities in the district of Belgaum, Karnataka, during the years 1985-86 and 1986-87. The services of these workers were utilized for digging, laying cables, erecting poles drawing lines and other connected works. It appears that the services of these workmen were terminated sometime during the year 1987 and they were not engaged on work thereafter. In Daily Rated Casual Labour employed under P & T Deptt. through Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch v. Union of India and Ors., : (1988)ILLJ370SC , the Supreme Court by its judgment dated 27.10.1987 directed the Department to formulate a scheme under which all casual labourers who had rendered more than one year's continuous service could be absorbed. Pursuant to the said directions, the Department of Telecommunications formulated a scheme called 'Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1989' which came...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(3)CTC502
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The appellants filed a suit claiming their mother's interest in the suit property. The trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the appellants. The first appeal filed by the respondents herein was also dismissed. In second appeal, the High Court, without framing a question of law, set aside the decisions of the lower Courts. It is the submission of the appellants that there was, in fact, no substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, that the High Court has erred in setting aside the decisions of the lower Courts after reappreciation of the material on record as if it were sitting in regular appeal. This submission is denied by the respondents who contended that although no question of law was formally framed, the High Court had, in fact, decided a question of law which arose out of the decisions of the lower Courts.3. In view of the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, we are of the view that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC3413; JT2003(3)SC426; 2003(3)SCALE466; (2003)4SCC1; [2003]3SCR143; (2003)2UPLBEC1806
Rajendra Babu, J.1. In the Statement of Objects and Reasons in the Bill ultimately leading to the enactment the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993 [hereinafter refereed to as 'the Act'], it has been stated as follows:'There has been a long-standing dispute relating to the erstwhile Ram Janma Bhumi-Babri Masjid structure in Ayodhya which led to communal tension and violence from time to time and ultimately led to the destruction of the disputed structure on 6th December, 1992. this was followed by wide-spread communal violence which resulted in large number of death, injuries and destruction of property in various parts of the country. The said dispute has thus affected the maintenance of public order and harmony between different communities int he country. As it is necessary to maintain communal harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst the people of India, it was considered necessary to acquire the site of the disputed structure and suitable adjacent land for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC2427; 2003(3)ALD42(SC); 2003(3)ALT26(SC); 2003(3)SCALE523; (2003)5SCC150; [2003]3SCR173
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. A decree for eviction passed in favour of the respondent No. 1 on the grounds available under Section 10(2)(i) and 10(3)(b)(iii) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1960 by the Courts below and upheld by the High Court is under challenge in this appeal by special leave, filed by the persons in occupation of the premises. The facts of the case are complex and litigations between the parties are multiple. It will be useful to notice in brief the several litigations between the parties which will have an incidental bearing on the principal controversy and would enable precise appreciation of the facts.2. The suit premises are non-residential bearing Door No. 18-7-4 situated in Ponniamman Koli Street of Chittoor town. This property was initially owned by one P. Nayarana Reddy. In the year 1959 a suit was instituted for partition of certain joint family properties wherein the suit property was one of the items. P. Narayana Reddy had two sons, namely, P....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC3542; 2003(3)ALD37(SC); 2003(3)ALT36(SC); JT2003(6)SC249; 2003(3)SCALE543; (2003)4SCC705; [2003]3SCR197
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. The suit premises forming part of the building No. 25, 5th Cross, Annamma Temple Extension, Ramakrishnapuram, Bangalore, measuring 8x20 sq. ft. are the subject matter of these proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, (hereinafter 'the Act', for short) by the respondent claiming himself to be owner-landlord and seeking eviction of the appellant alleging him to be tenant in the suit premises. Eviction has been ordered under Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act by the Rent Controller and upheld by the High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 50(1) of the Act.2. The singular issue surviving for decision at this stage and around which the learned counsel for the parties have centered their submissions is: whether the appellant is entitled to protect his possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and hence not liable to suffer eviction based on landlord-tenan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC2362; 2003(3)ALLMR(SC)330; (2004)137PLR542; 2003(3)SCALE569; (2003)9SCC478
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. Leave granted.2. A suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell an immoveable property, which is an agricultural land, was directed to be decreed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. In Second Appeal preferred by the defendant the High Court has upheld the agreement but while dealing with discretion to decree specific performance the High Court has held that it was not a fit case where the Court could have exercised discretion in favour of decreeing the specific performance and rather it was a fit case where the Court ought to have directed only refund of consideration. For the purpose of arriving at such a finding, the High Court has noted during the course of its judgment :-'It is, however, not in dispute that the defendant is a farmer and the plaintiff is a Commission Agent and dealing in fertilizers. It is true that agreement dated 4.7.1987 has been proved by the plaintiff but the plea of the defendant that the plaintiff had obtained her thum...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Delay condoned.2. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!