Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1326; 2003(2)ALT(Cri)46; 2003CriLJ2025; (2004)1GLR365; 2003(3)SCALE394; (2003)9SCC420; 2003(2)LC793(SC)
Santosh Hegde, J.1. The case of the prosecution against the appellants herein is that in view of some old enmity entertained by the appellants they along with another minor accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and waylaid one Samant Naran on 11th November, 1982 when the said persona long with his daughter-in-law Baik Raji (PW-4) was going to Dwarka to consult a doctor in regard to the ailment of said PW-4. It is the prosecution case that all the accused attacked the deceased with axe and sticks consequent to which said Samant Naran suffered multiple bleeding injuries and fell down. The efforts of PW-4 to save her father-in-law went in vain and after the attack it is stated that all the accused persons ran away from the place of incident. PW-4 who shouted for help could only attract the attention of the father-in-law's brother by name Malde (PW-5) who happened to pass that way. The said PW-5 on hearing the cries of PW-4 came to the place of incident and noticing the condi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1377; 2003(2)AWC1509(SC); [2003(97)FLR556]; JT2003(3)SC322; (2003)IILLJ367SC; 2003(3)SCALE428; (2003)9SCC480
Shivaraj V. Patil, J.1. The appellant was an officer in the Allahabad Bankwhen disciplinary proceedings were initiated againsthim on account of certain alleged irregularities.Following charges were frame against him:-'ARTICLE -IThat the said Shri K.N. Gupta Whilefunctioning as Manager during the period fromMarch, 1983 to April, 1936, allowed advancesto various borrowers without observing thenorms procedure laid down from time to timeby Head Office. Due to his negligence Bank'smoney is in jeopardy. Out of good number ofirregular advances, few cases are takenhereafter.Advances for pump sets have been allowedunder Minor irrigation loan scheme-- (1) without observing the requirement ofpossessing the minimum land holding bythe borrowers. Few cases having suchirregularities are as follow:-Name of the BorrowerDate AdvanceAmount AdvanceLand holdingSri Ram Ratan Ram (Jt. A/c)29.3.85Rs. 4750/- 1.37 acresSri Indra Deo Singh Yadav11.3.85Rs. 1200/-1.64 acresb) Under the aforesaid minor irrigationsc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC4118; 2003(3)SCALE405; (2003)9SCC357
ORDER1. The petitioner has been denied admission on the ground that she hadpassed the qualifying examination from an institution not recognized by therespondent No. 2. We cannot compel an autonomous educational institutionto grant admission to a candidate not holding the requisite eligibilityqualification from an institution recognized but it. Since the admission hasbeen denied at the very threshold, the applicability of the rule of promissoryestoppel is also not attracted. No fault can be found with the view taken bythe High Court. The special leave petition is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1311; 2003CriLJ2021; [2003(3)JCR33(SC)]; JT2003(3)SC249; 2003(3)SCALE398; (2003)5SCC291; [2003]3SCR25; 2003(2)LC799(SC)
G.P. Mathur, J.1. Karamjit Singh has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 2.2.1996 of the Designated Judge, New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 140 of 1991, by which he was convicted under Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act and was sentenced to 5 years R.I. thereunder and was further convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the TADA') and was sentenced to 5 years R.I. and 5 years and six months R.I. respectively under the two counts. The sentences awarded to him were ordered to run concurrently.2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the appellant Karamjit Singh at the relevant time was working as driver in Delhi Police and was residing with his wife in quarter No. B-12 in Police Station Mehrauli, which had been allotted to his father-in-law, Didar Singh, who was also a constable. A secret information was received that the appellant was involved in terrorist activit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(88)ECC6; 2003(154)ELT354(SC); (2003)11SCC689
ORDER1. Heard parties.2. This appeal is against a judgment dated 13-1-2000. The question before the Court is whether the respondents are entitled to the benefit of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 (in short 'KVSS'). 3. Briefly stated the facts are that the respondents were clearing physicians samples. Between the Department and the respondents there was a dispute on the question how the value of the samples were to be worked out. A letter dated 26-7-1995 was issued by the Superintendent, Central Excise calling upon the respondents to calculate the value in a particular manner and to file a revised price declarations accordingly. The respondents were also asked to execute bonds. 4. Subsequently, two show cause notices dated 28-7-1995 and 25-10-1995 were issued to the respondents. Those show cause notices were for the period January to August, 1995. Pending adjudication of these proceedings, the respondents followed the directions issued in the letter dated 26-7-1995 and cleared the sampl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1316; (2003)181CTR(SC)12; 104(2003)DLT216(SC); [2003]260ITR561(SC); JT2003(3)SC267; 2003(3)SCALE406; (2003)5SCC36; [2003]3SCR35
Srikrishna, J.1. The assessee is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act and carrying on business in agricultural activities and dairy farming. The assessee was subjected to levy of income-tax under Section 104 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') for the assessment years 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77, for its failure to distribute the required statutory percentage of dividend during the concerned previous years ending on 31st March 1973, 31st March 1974 and 31st March, 1975, respectively.2. The figures of total income-tax assessed and the distributable surplus as computed by the Income-tax Officer for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76, are as under:Assessment year1974-751975-761Total income assessedRs.3,22,580Rs. 72.1302Less taxes payable thereonRs.2,20,160Rs.49,2283Distributable surplusRs. 1,02,420Rs.22,9024Dividends that ought to have been declared by the company, i.e. 90%Rs.92,223Rs.20,6125Dividend declared by the assessee companyNilNil 6Debit bill a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(88)ECC10; 2003(154)ELT10(SC); (2003)9SCC185
ORDER1. These appeals are against the judgment of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal dated 23rd February, 1999. 2. Briefly stated the facts are :- The appellants are manufacturers of heavy electrical equipment and machinery which they make as per the specific requirements of customers. The Terms and Conditions of sale to the customer contains a warranty clause which provides for free replacement of defective parts within a period of 12 months to 18 months. At the time of sale the appellants charge 2.5%, of the factory cost, as a 'complaint reserve'. This element is added to the price. It is not disputed that the excise duty is paid on the total amount charged to the customer including this element of 2.5% complaint reserve. At a subsequent stage, on some occasions, parts have to be replaced by the appellants during the warranty period. The question for consideration is whether excise duty is payable on the parts which are replaced during the warranty period. Both...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC3422; 2003(86)ECC517; 2003(153)ELT259(SC); JT2003(3)SC316; 2003(3)SCALE386; (2003)4SCC280; [2003]3SCR18
Shah, J.1. It is the contention of the appellant--Company that it is engaged in manufacture inter alia of Ad-vitamin Massage Oil forte (Patent or Proprietary Medicines) since 1949 on the basis of sanction accorded by the Drug Control Authorities. This preparation was brought and classified for levy of duty of Excise with effect from 1.3.1961 falling under Tariff Item No. 14-E of the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). By order dated 26.12.1985, the Assistant Collector classified the said product under Tariff Item No. 14-F (Heading 3304.00) excisable as cosmetics goods. Collector (Appeals) also affirmed the order of the Assistant Collector by order dated 29.4.1986. Against that order, appellant preferred appeal No. E-2226/86-C before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal ('Tribuna' for short) which was also dismissed by order dated 26.10.1988. Aggrieved thereby, appellant filed Civil Appeal No. 138 of 1989 b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1329; (2003)181CTR(SC)1; 104(2003)DLT876(SC); JT2003(3)SC217; 2003(2)KLT890(SC); (2003)3MLJ107(SC); 2003(3)SCALE414; (2003)5SCC23; [2003]3SCR1
Ruma Pal, J.1. The appellant No. 1 is a co-operative society registered under the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 198 with its registered office in Delhi. It is the apex society of a chain of Co-operative Societies which operate at different territorial levels. The chain starts with the farmers who become members of village co-operative societies, the village societies become members of primary marketing co-operative societies (District Societies) and District Societies become members of the State Co-operative Societies (Apex Societies).2. The issue raised by the appellant relates to the construction and Constitutional validity of Section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and grant of deduction of the profits made by societies by the marketing of agricultural produce.3. Under the Income Tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as the 1922 Act) exemption was granted in respect of profits and gains of business of co-operative societies including societies engaged in the market...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2003]260ITR548(SC)
Mrs. Ruma Pal, J.The appellant No. 1 is a co-operative society registered under the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984, with its registered office in Delhi. It is the apex society of a chain of co-operative societies which operate at different territorial levels. The chain starts with the farmers who become members of village co-operative societies, the village societies become members of primary marketing co-operative societies (district societies) and district societies become members of the State Co-operative Societies (apex societies).2. The issue raised by the appellants relates to the construction and constitutional validity of section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and grant of deduction of the profits made by the societies by the marketing of agricultural produce.3. Under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1922 Act') exemption was granted in respect of profits and gains of business of cooperative societies including societies...
Tag this Judgment!