Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC3450; 2003(3)ALLMR(SC)331; 2003(3)ALT41(SC); 2003(2)AWC1534(SC); 2003(2)BLJR1420; 2003(2)CTC760; I(2003)DMC627SC; [2004(1)JCR98(SC)]; JT2003(3)SC399; 2003(2)KLT243
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Whether a party to a divorce proceeding can be compelled to amedical examination is the core question involved in this appeal. Thisquestion arises out of a judgment dated 17.11.1999 passed by the High Courtof Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.1414/99 dismissing an application filed by the appellant herein questioningan order of the Addl. District & Session Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh CampSangaria dated 8.10.1999 directing to submit herself to medical examinationon the question as to whether she is of unsound mind.2. The parties herein were married on 26.6.1991 according to the Hindurites. On or about 3.6.1995, the respondent filed an application for divorceagainst the appellant under Section 12(1)(b) and 13(1)(iii) of the HinduMarriage Act, 1955. He filed an application seeking directions for medicalexamination of the appellant on 5th May, 1999. The appellant objectedthereto inter alia on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(2)AWC1530(SC); (2003)3CALLT39(SC); JT2003(3)SC333; RLW2003(2)SC279; 2003(3)SCALE453; (2003)4SCC665; [2003]3SCR99
Ar. Lakshmanan, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 1.4.1997 passed by a single Judge of the Gauhati High Court in Second Appeal No. 136 of 1985 filed by the appellants herein challenging the judgment and order dated 17.4.1985 passed by the Assistant District Judge No. 11 at Silchar allowing Title Appeal No. 90 of 1983 filed by the respondents herein against the judgment dated 16.5.1983 of the Sadar Munsif No. 11 at Silchar dismissing Title Suit No. 88 of 1982 filed by the respondents herein.2. The respondents herein filed Title Suit No. 88 of 1982 against the appellants herein for declarations that deity Sir Sri Kachakanti Devi installed in a temple at Udarband in Cachar District is their private deity gifted to one of their forefathers 200 years ago by the then King of Catchar-Maharaja Krishna Chandra Dhevaj Narayan that they are the shebaits of the said deity which they inherited from their forefathers and that the defendants in the suit, namely, the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1322; 2003(4)ALD82(SC); 2003(4)ALLMR(SC)312; 2003(2)AWC1597(SC); 2003(2)CTC59; [2003(4)JCR213(SC)]; JT2003(3)SC307; (2003)134PLR249; RLW2003(2)SC301; 2003(3)SCALE4
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. Leave is granted.2. In this appeal, from the Judgment and Order of the High Court of Delhi in C.R. No. 138 of 2001 dated October 15, 2001, the short point that arises for consideration is: whether the High Court committed jurisdictional error in declining to set aside the ex parte decree on the application of the appellant under Rule 4 of Order 37, on the ground that he failed to disclose facts sufficient to entitle him to defend the suit.3. The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal may be noted here.4. The appellant-tenant had taken on rent residential flat No. C-470, Sarita Vihar, Ground Floor, New Delhi - 110 004, from the respondent-landlord for a period of nine months under an agreement of lease reduced to writing on November 26, 1993. After the expiry of the term of tenancy she continued to occupy the said premises as tenant till January 11, 1997. Alleging that the appellant did not pay the electricity and water consumption charges for the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC2736; JT2003(3)SC346; 2003(3)SCALE457; (2003)5SCC399; [2003]3SCR75
G.P. Mathur, J.1. This appeal by special leave has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 7.3.1995 of a Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh by which the letters patent appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed and the judgment and order dated 2.9.1994 of the learned Single Judge by which the writ petition filed by Pandit Durga Prasad, the predecessor-in-interest of respondent Nos. 1(a) to (e) had been allowed was affirmed.2. There is a temple known as Shri Madan Mohan Mandir in Jawahar Nagar, Harda in the District of Hoshangabad. There are some shops in the precincts of the temple which have been let out to different tenants. According to the appellant, the temple and the shops are owned and managed by a public trust known as Maheshwari Panchayati Mandir. While according to Pandit Durga Prasad, the predecessor-in-interest of respondent Nos. 1(a) to (e), the temple and the shops are property of his family and they do not belong to any public trust. 3. Pandi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(3)ALLMR(SC)1193; (2003)3CALLT44(SC); JT2003(3)SC338; (2003)2MLJ143(SC); 2003(3)SCALE446; (2003)6SCC151; [2003]3SCR90; 2003(2)LC914(SC)
G.P. Mathur, J.1. These appeals by special leave have been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated July 24, 1992 of the High Court of Karnataka by which the Second Appeals preferred by the respondents were allowed and the suit filed by the appellants was dismissed on the ground that the same was barred by Section 80 of Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act').2. The question in issue relates to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit, which was instituted by the appellants in the Court of Principal Munsiff, Bijapur. The case of the appellants in brief was that they are the ancestral Pujaris of the Amogsidda Temple situated in Survey No. 214, particularly Survey No. 214-B of Jalgeri Taluka Bijapur, and prior to them their father and grand-father performed Puja by turns. The appellant No. 1 has eight annas right of Puja and other appellants have the remaining right to Puja which right the appellants and their ancestors ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC2413; 2003(86)ECC510; JT2003(3)SC447; 2003(3)SCALE515; (2003)4SCC334; [2003]3SCR57
ORDERSyed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. In this appeal against the final order No. 601 of 1995-A ofCustoms Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, NewDelhi (for short, 'the Tribunal') in appeal No. E/1745/83-Adated 03.11.1995, the only point that arises for ourconsideration is : whether the Tribunal is right in reversing theorder of the Assistant Collector as confirmed by the Collector.3. To appreciate the controversy in this appeal it isnecessary to refer to Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944(for short, 'the Act') as it stood during 1975-76, which, insofaras it is relevant for our purpose, read as follows:-'4. Valuation of excisable goods for purposes ofcharging of duty of excise-(1) Where under this Act, the duty of excise ischargeable on any excisable goods withreference to value, such value shall, subject tothe other provisions of this section, bedeemed to be - (a) the normal price thereof, that is to say, theprice at which such ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC4047; [2003(97)FLR638]; 2003(3)SCALE681; (2003)4SCC661; [2003]3SCR60; 2003(3)SLJ316(SC)
ORDER1. The order dated 18th January, 1996 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal is under challenge in these appeals. The controversy relates to selection of Police Constables for training for further promotion to the rank of Lance Naik. Admittedly in the Police Manual, there is no provision for regulating the selection of Police Constables for training for promotion to the rank of Lance Naik; however, the same is regulated by the Police Order No. 266 of 1981 in which criteria for selection of candidates and procedure have been prescribed. According to the Police Order, a Constable can be promoted to the rank of Lance Naik provided : (i) he has put in three years' service after recruits training; (ii) is below 35 years of age; (iii) has passed the district drill test; and (iv) has a good record of service. The selection Board constituted as per the aforesaid Police Order would conduct the test. The subjects on which the test is to be conducted as specified in the said Order are ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(164)ELT236(SC)
ORDER1. This appeal is against the judgment of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal dated 4th March, 1999. The question is whether the parts used for repair or replacement during the warranty period are excisable. This question is answered by a decision of this Court rendered on 25th March, 2003 in Civil Appeal Nos. 3643-3644 of 1999 : 2003(154)ELT10(SC) . On the principles laid down in that decision, it is held that duty is payable on the parts.2. However, in this case a further question arises i.e. whether in respect of the concerned show cause notice dated 27th May, 1994, the respondents were entitled to invoke the extended period of limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal negatived the contention of the appellant and hold that there was suppression and therefore the extended period of limitation was available.3. Some few facts necessary for a decision on this point are as follows :-The appellants were using parts, in respect o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(155)ELT209(SC); (2003)11SCC798
ORDER1. A common question arises in all these matters. All these appeals are thus being disposed of by this common order.2. In all these appeals, the respondents purchased duty paid wire rods and drew the wire into a thinner gauge. The question is whether by drawing wire into a thinner gauge, manufacture has taken place. The question is whether the wire of the thinner gauge is excisable to duty.3. This question came to be considered by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. In the case of Vishvaman Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi (Tribunal). By an order dated 2nd November, 2000, it was held that the process of drawing wire from wire rods did not amount to manufacture. The Tribunal based its decision on an earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Jyoti Engg. Corpn. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1989 (42) E.L.T. 100 (Trib). In Jyoti's case (supra) the concerned tariff entry was 26AA(i-a) which included Bars, Rods, Coils, Wires e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1383; 2003(86)ECC512; 2003(153)ELT244(SC); JT2003(3)SC528; 2003(3)SCALE440; (2003)5SCC106; [2003]3SCR48
Bhan, J.Civil Appeal No. 7531 of 19951. Union of India has filed this appeal against the order of the Gauhati High Court in Civil Rule No. 1940 of 1989 wherein the High Court at the instance of respondent No. 1 has quashed the order passed by the Collector Customs and Central Excise, Shillong, (for short 'the Collector') dated 15th May 1990 and remanded the case to the Collector for a fresh decision with the following directions:'In view of the above, the adjudication order dated 15.5.90 is set aside. The collector shall resume the proceedings and summon the aforesaid three persons viz. Sri R. Salio. Sri Liangtilinga and Sri Lalchungunga for necessary examination in accordance with the observation made above and thereafter proceed to decide the matter afresh. The other materials obtained and already on record shall be available for the purpose. We also direct that further proceedings shall be taken by an officer other than the one who has made the adjudication order dated 15/16 May, 19...
Tag this Judgment!