Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(3)ALD39(SC); 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)808; 2004(5)ALT5(SC); 2004(2)AWC1136(SC); II(2004)BC1(SC); (SCSuppl)2004(2)CHN81; [2004]118CompCas546(SC); 2004(4)CTC554; JT2004(1)SC621;
S.N. Variava, J.1. This Appeal is against a Judgment dated 5th October, 1995.2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:The Appellant received a cheque for Rs. 1,00,000/- from the 3rd Respondent. The cheque was drawn on the 2nd Respondent Bank. The Appellant sent the cheque by post along with some other cheques. However, the cheque in question was stolen in post and was altered to road era if it was payable to Shri K. Narayhanan. A person calling himself K. Narayhanan opened a bank account with the 1st Respondent Bank on 24th December, 1982. The account was opened with a sum of Rs. 20/-. The customer then asked for a cheque book and was informed that the minimum balance had to be Rs. 100/- to obtain a cheque book. He therefore put in Rs. 80/- into the account. He was then issued a cheque book. Thereafter on 29th December, 1982 the cheque for Rs. 1,00,000/- was deposited into the account and the same was collected by the 1st Respondent on behalf of its client. On 30th December, 1982 a s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC1796; 2004(3)ALD20(SC); 2004(4)ALT42(SC); JT2004(2)SC236; 2004(2)SCALE77; (2004)2SCC794; [2004]135STC258(SC)
G.P. Mathur, J.1. The controversy raised in all these appeals is similar and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common judgment. We will state the facts of Civil Appeal No. 13217 of 1997. The appellant is a public limited company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Calcutta. It is engaged in the business of processing and exporting of marine products and for that purpose it has established a branch office at Kakinada in the State of Andhra Pradesh, from where it carries on the business activities in respect of prawns. The appellant purchases dead prawns from various locations like Bhimili, Vizag, Vakapadu, Bhimavaram, Kakinada, Narsapur, Kodur, Nagayalanka, Machilipatnam, Repalla, Amalapuram in the State of Andhra Pradesh and after getting them processed, exports the same to various countries. The appellant had obtained licenses from the respondents under the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce & Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (hereinaf...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(3)ALD29(SC); 2004(4)ALT66(SC); 2004(2)SCALE164; (2004)2SCC459; 2004(2)SLJ205(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellant questions correctness of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which by the impugned judgment held that respondent No. 1 was to be ranked senior to the appellant in the seniority list. The view taken by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal') holding that the appellant was senior to respondent No. 1 was upset.3. Factual scenario which is also almost undisputed is as follows :The Andhra Pradesh Service Commission (for short 'the Commission') issued an advertisement inviting application from eligible candidates to be appointed to the post of Road Transport Officer (for short 'the RTO'). Appellant and Respondent No. 1 and others responded to the advertisement. On 13.5.1987 appointment order was issued to the appellant and other selected candidates including respondent No. 1 after they were successful in the selection process conducted by the Commission. In the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC1591; (SCSuppl)2004(2)CHN88; JT2004(2)SC202; RLW2004(1)SC140; 2004(2)SCALE92; (2004)12SCC368
S.H. Kapadia, J. 1. Ashok Kumar Bose (since deceased) was the owner of the premises No. 119/1 A, Harish Mukherjee Road, Bhowanipore, Calcutta - 700 026. He died leaving behind him his wife Smt. Madhuri Bose, (since deceased), Shri Ajoy Kumar Bose (son) and a daughter. Ashok Kumar Bose left a Will dated 1st March, 1974 bequeathing all his properties to his widow Smt. Madhuri Bose for the period of her natural life, but with no right to alienate the property and thereafter to his son Ajoy Kumar Bose (respondent No. 4 herein). On 5th July, 1976 Smt. Madhuri Bose executed an agreement of licence for 11 years in favour of M/s Nanee Printers, a proprietary firm carried on by one Ranaji Ganguly (respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein). On 10th October, 1980, the appellant herein bought the entire property No. 119/1A including the suit premises consisting of a Printing Press in a Katcha shed from Ajoy Kumar Bose (respondent No. 4) to which the deceased Smt. Madhuri Bose was a confirming party. On 7th ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(2)SCALE295; (2004)3SCC263
ORDER1. Issue notice to Respondent 1 Union of India, Respondent 2 Ministry of Law, Respondent 3 Central Bureau of Investigation, Respondent 4 State of Gujarat and Respondent 5 Gujarat High Court.2. The learned Attorney General accepts notice on behalf of Respondents 1 and 2, Mr. P. Parameswaran, Advocate on behalf of Respondent 3 and Ms Hemantika Wahi, Advocate on behalf of Respondents 4 and 5.3. Notice shall go also to: (i) M.S. Brahmabhatt, Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 10, Meghaninagar, Ahmedabad; (a) Suresh Kumar Jethalal Sanghvi, Ambamata Lane, near loghwad, Kadianaka, Dariyapur, Ahmedabad; (iii) Harish D. Bhawaniwala, Advocate, 10, 'Rudra', Opp. Chadanad Police Chowki, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad 6; (iv) Narendra Chowdhary, Advocate, I.G. Office Compound, Near O-15, Meghaninagar, Ahmedabad; and (v) Iqbal Katia, Advocate, address not known (all to be served through Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Meghaninagar Court Complex, Meghaninagar, Ahmedabad 16). One set of notices shall be hand...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(2)SCALE70; (2004)9SCC271
Shivaraj V. Patil J. 1. The Himachal Pradesh Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (for brevity 'the Act') came into force on 22.11.1973. A draft statement was served on 24.3.1975 on the appellant by the Collector under Rules 9 and 10 of the Rules framed under the Act stating that he had surplus area of 108.3 bighas and that he could file his objections, if any, within 30 days. The appellant did not file any objection. The Collector passed the order on 14.7.1975 in the absence of any objection confirming the surplus area of 108.3 bighas of the appellant. The appellant was detained under MISA between the period from 8.7.1975 to 1.1.1977. An appeal could be filed against the order of the Collector dated 14.7.1975 within 60 days. Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 (for short 'the Land Reforms Act') came into force on 4.10.1975. The appellant could apply for resumption of land under the provisions of the said Act to the extent he was entitled to, within one month from the dat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004CriLJ1415; JT2004(2)SC146; 2004(2)SCALE160
Arijit Pasayat, J. 1. In this appeal challenge is to the correctness of judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which affirmed the conviction under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'the IPC') as recorded by the Trial Court in respect of respondent 1 to 10 and did not accept prosecutions' plea that it was a case covered by Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Eleven persons faced trial and the Trial Court held A-11 Toran Singh to be not guilty. The accused persons were charged for commission of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 323 IPC for allegedly committing homicidal death of one Ramdin (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') and causing injuries on Harbhan (PW-5), Brijbhan (PW-10) and Bina Bai PW-9). Trial Court while acquitting accused Toran Singh held that the other accused persons were to be convicted under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. The State of Madhya...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC1525; 2004(2)ALD124(SC); 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)225; 2004(4)AWC3451(SC); 2004(1)BLJR802; (SCSuppl)2004(2)CHN146; [2004(2)JCR107(SC)]; JT2004(2)SC601; 2004(4)KarLJ338; RLW
D.M. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Leave granted.2. In these two appeals, the subject matter of dispute between the married couple, now separated by decree of divorce obtained on mutual consent under the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is their rival claim to the exclusive custody of their daughter - Aaruni who is now little above 9 years of age and is prosecuting her education in a well-known school in the city of Bangalore where the parties reside.3. After obtaining divorce on mutual consent, the wife - Smt. Chethana Ramatheertha is re-married to Mr. Anil Kumble, a Cricketer of national and international repute. The Family Court of Bangalore by its judgment dated 20.4.2002, after considering the evidence led by the parents of the child, came to the conclusion that as the wife is remarried to a famous cricketer and is leading a different style of life involving frequent tours with her second husband for attending cricket events, there is likelihood of child developing distance and disl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(1)ALD(Cri)467; JT2004(2)SC124; 2004(4)KarLJ322; 2004(2)SCALE112; (2004)2SCC694
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.1. The challenge in these appeals is to the conviction of the appellants in relation to killings in occurrence which took place on 9th April, 1993. On Police receiving information about the place of hiding of notorious criminal Veerappan and his gang, a Police party headed by Superintendent of Police, K. Gopalakrishnan (PW97), on 9th April 1993, proceeded to nab them. The party comprising of police personnel, forester watchers and informants went in two buses. As a result of blasting of land mines that had been laid, the bus which was in front exploded. The explosion resulted in injuries to many and death of 22 persons. The incident took place at about 11.00 a.m. For treatment, the injured were shifted to hospital by transporting them in the second bus. After the explosion of the land mines, there were exchange of fire also. The FIR was recorded at 2.45 p.m. on the date of the occurrence. The case was filed against 121 persons, 50 persons wars arrested and prosecuted....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(92)ECC502; 2004(164)ELT397(SC); (2004)4SCC244
ORDER1. In this appeal, we are concerned with the two questions which are as follows:(1)Whether the amendment to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by Section 110 of the Finance Act, 2000 is a valid piece of legislation?(2)Whether after the appellate authority had decided the appeal of the appellant herein and that having obtained finality, is it permissible for the Department to issue a show cause notice on the basis of a circular issued by the Board dated 5-5-1989 subsequently revised by Board's circular dated 13-7-1989?2. So far as the first question is concerned, the same stands concluded by the decision of this Court in ITW Signode India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, : 2003ECR783(SC) .3. As regards the second question, it is not disputed that although the appellant claimed NIL duty, however it paid the duty under Tariff Item No. 39.23 in Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellant herein being not satisfied with the assessment, filed an appeal before the...
Tag this Judgment!