Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004CriLJ941; 2004(91)ECC473; JT2004(2)SC43; 2004(1)SCALE699; (2004)2SCC570; [2004]51SCL26(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Whether representation made by the detenu or on his behalf is required to be considered by all the authorities is the sole question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 19.12.1995 passed by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 5039 of 1995.2. The husband of the first respondent herein was arrested on 17.6.1995 on the charge of having grossly undervalued imported Floppy Disk Drives whereby customs duty to the extent of Rs. 21.53 lakhs was evaded. During investigation of the said case, the detenu made a confessional statement before the Customs Officer but on being produced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, he retracted therefrom. He was granted bail in the aforementioned case. 3. The first respondent herein thereafter filed a writ application before the Calcutta High Court for quashing the statement allegedly obtained from her husband by the Customs Officer. 4. He was thereafte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2004(2)JCR112(SC)]; JT2004(2)SC472; 2005(1)KarLJ168; 2004(2)SCALE1; (2004)2SCC783
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. The grant of 203 cases for quarrying granites in government land under Rule 3 of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules 1969, contrary to the prohibition contained in Rule 3A, was challenged in the Karnataka High Court in public interest litigation. The writ petitions were allowed by the learned single Judge and all the grants were quashed. Writ appeals were dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court. The unsuccessful lessees came up to this Court and by judgment dated January 18, 1996 [Alankar Granites Industries and Ors. v. P.G.R. Scindia, MLA and Ors., : [1996]1SCR721 ] this Court directed the appeals to be dismissed by holding that the grants of leases were made against the prohibition contained in Rule 3A and were rightly held by the High Court to be invalid.2. The appellants before us were holding two quarry leases and were amongst the appellants in this Court in the appeals by special leave referred to hereinabove. On 19.11.1993, by an interim order,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2003(1)SC583; RLW2004(1)SC128; 2004(2)SCALE32; (2004)9SCC257
S.B. Sinha, J. 1. The appellants who are three in number with their father, Virsa Singh (Accused No.1) and brother Tara Singh (Accused No.3) [since deceased] were charged for commission of an offence under Sections 148/302/323/149 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The incident took place at about 10.30 a.m. on 13.6.1987. Admittedly, the family of the deceased and the appellants belong to the same village. They have agricultural lands. The parties had disputes both as regard boundaries of their agricultural land as also as regard irrigation of their respective field. On the day of the incident, Kartar Kaur (deceased) brought food for her sons Avtar Singh and Balkar Singh (PW 5 and PW 6) who were working in their agricultural field. When they finished taking their meals, Virsa Singh (Accused No.1) armed with 'Takwa', Kulwant Singh (Appellant No.1) and Tara Singh (Accused No.3) armed with 'Kirpan' each, Sahiba Singh (Appellant No.2) armed with 'Barchha' and Barbara Singh (Appelant No.3) armed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004CriLJ3349; 2004(2)SCALE104; 2004(2)LC928(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15th May, 1997 passed by the Rajasthan High Court in DB Criminal No. 320/87 whereby and whereunder the respondents herein were acquitted of the charges of commission of an offence under Sections 148 and 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The respondents herein together with Shankerlal and Maniram were charged under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to life imprisonment for alleged commission of an offence under Section 302 read with Section 149. They were further sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- for commission of an alleged offence under -Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. Two accused persons Shankerlal and Maniram were also convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months and a fine of Rs. 400/-.3. Allegedly, there were two groups in Kanwarpura Tehsil; on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC1801; 2004(2)ALD115(SC); 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)360; 2004(2)AWC1505(SC); (SCSuppl)2004(2)CHN152; 2004(2)SCALE82; (2004)3SCC137; 2004(2)LC817(SC)
Arijit Pasayat J. 1. Leave granted.2. The appellants who were plaintiffs in a suit filed before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Srirampur have questioned legality of the conclusions arrived at by the Courts below holding that the plaint filed by them was to be rejected in terms of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the 'Code'). The plaintiffs claimed to be tenants under respondent No. 2. Shaneshwar Deosthan Trust (hereinafter referred to as the 'trust'). Its trustees and the Assistant Charity Commissioner (in short the 'Commissioner') were the other defendants. Plaintiffs claimed that they were tenants of the trust of which the defendants Nos. 3 to 13 were the trustees. Alleging that they have been forcibly evicted notwithstanding continuance of the tenancy, the suit was filed for the following reliefs: A) Plaintiff No. 1 to 17, be declared as the tenants of the properties described in the plaint belonging to temple Trust, of which defendant No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(92)ECC498; 2004(164)ELT394(SC); (2004)6SCC722; [2006]144STC161(SC)
ORDER1. The question involved in these appeals is whether waste, parings and scrap (WPS) arising in the course of manufacture of polyurethane foam blocks were entitled to the benefit of the exemption Notification 53/88 or 54/88 for the period in question. It is the contention of the appellant that WPS of polyurethane foam were covered by Notification 54/88 and not 53/88. The submission is that the WPS of flexible polyurethane foam (PUF) had been specifically excluded from Notification 53/88 (serial No. 42) and has been dealt with expressly in exemption Notification 54/88.2. The Tribunal was of the opinion that both the Execution Notifications applied to the WPS of PUF and that since a greater benefit was conferred on the assessee by Notification 53/88, the Revenue was bound to grant such greater benefit to it.3. The appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the notifications overlapped. Detailed arguments were addressed to us on this basis and there appears to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(73)DRJ647; 2004(28)PTC121(SC); 2004(2)SCALE231; (2004)3SCC90
ORDER1. This Appeal is against the judgment of the High Court dated 20th September, 2001.2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:The Appellants filed a suit for passing off and for infringement of Copyright. In the suit an application for interim injunction under the provision of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed. A learned Single Judge of the High Court in Order dated 31st July, 2001 noted the following facts:'(i) The defendant admittedly worked with the plaintiff prior to launching its business;(ii) The plaintiffs prior and prominent user of the phrase Laxman Rekha as a part of the description of crazy lines as shown by the documents i.e. Advertisements at least of 1991 produced by the plaintiff showing prominent user of the phrase Laxman Rekha.(iii) The defendant's non-denial of plaintiffs assertions in the notice dated 28.2.92 to the effect that the plaintiff used the phrase 'Laxman Rekha' on its product;(iv) The plaintiffs assertion of the ownershi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC1503; 2004(3)ALD1(SC); 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)216; 2004(4)ALT70(SC); JT2004(5)SC217; (2004)ILLJ1045SC; RLW2004(1)SC90; 2004(1)SCALE654; (2004)2SCC433
P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.1. These cases involving the issue as to the effective date of regular appointment and seniority unfold certain disturbing features--non application of mind by the High Court to the crucial aspects of the case, vagueness of the directions issued, the deficiency of pleadings and material placed on record by the contending parties and above all the default of the appellant-Corporation in allowing other similar orders becoming final while contesting certain others including the present matters.2. The undisputed facts common to ail these cases may be noticed:3. Pursuant to the advertisements made by the appellant-Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'APSRTC'), the respondents were selected as conductors and appointed on daily-wages initially for a certain period of time and thereafter their services were extended on the same terms and ultimately regularized after a year or two. They were placed on time scale of pay and their seniority was counted from the date of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC1610; I(2004)DMC231SC; JT2004(1)SC614; RLW2004(1)SC81; 2004(1)SCALE705
S.B. Sinha, J.1. This appeal by the appellant herein arises out of a judgment of conviction and sentence passed by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 606/96 whereby and whereunder the judgment passed by Additional Session Judge, Ranga Reddy District dated 21.6.1996 in S.C. No. 47/93 convicting the appellant herein for commission of an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing her to undergo life imprisonment was modified to one under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years.2. The basic faces of the matter shortly stated are as under : The deceased was married to Radha Krishna, PW 2, brother of the appellant herein on or about 15.5.1990. The appellant and her other Petitioner (since deceased) and one B. Harikrishna had been abusing and harassing the deceased for compelling her to bring T.V. and other articles. Radha Krishna, the husband of the deceased havin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC1489; 2004CriLJ901; 2004(1)SCALE637; (2004)9SCC18
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. Both these appeals arise from the common Judgment passed by the High Court of Rajasthan on 24.9.1996 in D.B. Criminal No. 353 of 1990, whereby the acquittal of three accused persons was confirmed. Criminal Appeal No. 656 of 1997 is filed by the de-facto complainant and the Criminal Appeal No. 657 of 1997 is by the State.2. The respondents Raja Ram, Hari Padam and Pappu @ Raj Kumar were charged under Section 302 read with Section 114 I.P.C. and Sections 25 & 27 of the Indian Arms Act. The case against these respondents is that they caused the death of one Mota Ram son of Dana Ram at about 5.30 p.m. on 3.1.1985. PW 1 Hem Raj, the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 656 of 1997 preferred the First Information statement before the Police on 3.1.1985 itself at about 9.00 p.m. In the F.I. Statement, he stated that he alongwith deceased Mota Ram was proceeding to their field and Mota Ram was walking about 15-20 steps ahead of him. The accused respondents suddenly emerged ...
Tag this Judgment!