Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2003)6SCC500; (2003)3UPLBEC2511
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally.3. A dispute arose as to continuance in the Office of Vice-Chancellor of University of Allahabad in view of the incumbent holding the office having crossed the age of 65 years. Respondent 3 herein filed a writ of quo warranto which was dismissed by the High Court. The special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution preferred by Respondent 3 has also been dismissed.4. The provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 govern the universities in the Slate of U.P. and the Act makes provisions relating to the Office of Vice-Chancellor also. Section 12 of the Act, which deals with the Vice-Chancellor, provides, inter alia, as under:' 12. The Vice-chancellor.--(1)-(6) * * *(7) The Vice-Chancellor shall hold office for a term of three years from the date on which he enters upon his office:Provided that the Vice-Chancellor may by writing under his hand addressed to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(156)ELT161(SC); 2003(6)SCALE123
Srikrishna, J. Civil Appeal No. 2416 of 2000 1. On 5.7.1996 the appellant filed an application for refund claim of Rs. 1,48,58,630.94 after the final assessment was completed. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise issued a show cause notice dated 9.7.1996 as to why the claim should not be rejected for non-compliance with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. After considering the reply filed by the appellant, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise by his order dated 17th July, 1996 rejected the refund claim of the appellant on the ground that the refund claim had been made beyond the period of limitation and that appellant was unable to show that the amount of excise duty for which the refund was claimed, had not been passed on to any other person. On appeal, the Commissioner of Central Excise, in his order dated 19th June, 1998 observed that on the date on which the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise made the above order (i.e. 17.7.1996), the assessment was o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC4062; JT2003(5)SC393; 2003(5)SCALE73; (2003)9SCC336; 2003(1)SLJ122(SC); (2003)3UPLBEC2002
Shivaraj V. Patil J.1. Delay condoned in SLP (C) No. 10363/2003 (CC 1629/2003).2. Leave granted in all the SLPs.3. These appeals are by the State of Uttaranchal assailing the common judgment and order dated 6th November, 2001 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Uttaranchal.4. Resolution of the dispute in these appeals depends on the answer to the question whether the selection made by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, prior to formation of State of Uttaranchal, is binding on the State of Uttaranchal so as to appoint selected candidates to the services in the State of Uttaranchal having due regard to Article 323(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 78(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000.5. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (UPPSC) published advertisement inviting applications for 544 posts of J.E. Civil/Technical (507 Civil + 37 Technical). The result of selection was published on 4.1.2000. The UPPSC sent its recommendations to the U.P....
Tag this Judgment!