Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC1851; 2004(2)ALD(Cri)258; (2004)3CALLT55(SC); [2004(4)JCR137(SC)]; JT2004(5)SC157; 2004(1)SCALE641; (2004)4SCC129
S.B. Sinha, J.INTRODUCTION:1. Applicability of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing a proceeding for confiscation of forest-produce etc. under the provisions of Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as amended by the State of West Bengal is in question in these appeals which arise out of a common judgment and order dated 27.6.1996 passed by the Calcutta High Court.BACKGROUND FACTShortly stated the fact of the matter is that the forest-produce belonging to the State and/or the vehicles carrying the same were seized by the Forest Officer. The report of such seizure was made to the authorized officer.2. Except Criminal Appeal No. 453 of 1997 - State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Sujit Kumar Rana, show cause notices issued by the forest authority purported to be issued under the provision of Section 59-B of the Act, as amended by the State of west Bengal or the seizure of the forest-produce of the vehicle carrying the same, came to be quest...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(2)ALD95(SC); 2004(2)ALT1(SC); 2004(2)AWC1186(SC); (SCSuppl)2004(2)CHN13; 2004(4)CTC549; JT2004(2)SC196; 2004(2)SCALE17; (2004)2SCC601
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. Leave granted.2. During the pendency of a civil suit relating to an immovable property respondent No. 4 herein purchased the suit property from the defendants (respondent Nos. 2 & 3) by a registered deed of sale dated 24.9.1995. The respondent No. 4, it appears, was not aware of the pendency of the suit; rather the vendors stated in the deed of sale that the property was not a subject matter of any litigation. On 27.11.1995, the suit was decreed-ex-parte against the defendants (respondent Nos. 2 & 3). On 30.5.1998, the respondent No. 4 filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC seeking setting aside of the decree and also making a prayer under Order 22 Rule 10 of the CPC for being brought on record. Prayer was also made for condoning the delay in filing the application inasmuch as the ex-parte decree was not in the knowledge of the respondent No. 4. The trial Court has allowed the application condoning the delay in filing the same and held that a sufficient...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC1834; (2004)2GLR1027; JT2004(2)SC210; 2004(1)SCALE584; (2004)2SCC392; 2004(1)LC689(SC)
Ruma Pal, J.1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.2. The Jamnagar Marine National Park and Sanctuary lie along the lower lip of the Gulf of Katchch in the State of Gujarat covering reserve forests and territorial waters. Essar Oil Ltd., Bharat Oman Refineries Ltd. (BORL) and Gujarat Positra Port Co. Ltd., seek to lay pipelines to pump crude oil from a single buoy mooring in the Gulf across a portion of the Marine National Park and Marine Sanctuary to their oil refineries in Jamnagar District On the basis of separate public interest litigation petitions filed by Halar Utkarsh Samity and Jansangharsh Manch the High Court, by the impugned judgment, has held that BORL may lay its pipelines but the others may not and has restrained the State Government from granting any more authorizations and permissions for laying down any pipeline in any part of the sanctuary or national park. BORL was allowed to lay its pipelines by the High Court, since permission to do so had already been granted to it by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(2)ALD99(SC); 2004(2)AWC1190(SC); 2004(1)SCALE409; (2004)4SCC220
ORDER1. Whereas Sri Velluri Venkateswara Rao, Vijayawada hold vacant land measuring 2438.60 sq. mts., in NTS. No. 142, Block-6, Ward-11 of Vijayawda Village in Vijayawada Urban Agglomeration which is in excess of the ceiling limit prescribed in Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 (Central Act, 33/1976. Which also includes in the extent of 5949 sq. mts. Of land leased out in favour of M/s. Ushodaya Publications consequent on an ur-regd. lease deed executed in their favour on the 1st May. 1975 for a period of thirty three years and hand over the possession of the said extent of land to set up 'EENADU' complex for running the News paper industry.2. And whereas the entire extent of land measuring 2438 sq. mts., is needed to be retained in favour of Sri Valluri Venkeswar Rao, Vijayawada till the lease period expires consequent upon establishing the news papers industry by the lease on the lease hold land and running the business.3. And where the Government consider it expedient in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(4)ALT47(SC); (SCSuppl)2004(2)CHN76; JT2004(2)SC413; 2004(1)SCALE579; (2004)2SCC274; 2004(2)SLJ223(SC); (2004)2UPLBEC1609
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. The question before us is: Whether the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as 'APP') was a Civil Post under the State of West Bengal in terms of Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.BACKGROUND FACTS2. By Notification dated 9th April, 1975, the Governor of West Bengal was pleased to appoint the petitioner to act as an Assistant Public Prosecutor with effect from of his assuming charge in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Malda. The Notification was issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 25(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitioner took charge as Assistant Public Prosecutor on 23rd April, 1975. On 29th January, 1977, he was posted in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate at Malda as Assistant Public Prosecutor. During this period the petitioner completed two years probation. As per Rule 4(d) of the Assistant Public Prosecutors (Qualifications, Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rule...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(3)ALT11(SC); 2004CriLJ1359; 2004(2)KLT812(SC); 2004(1)SCALE418; (2004)2SCC362; 2004(2)LC795(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. By the impugned judgment the Bombay High Court directed cancellation of bail which was granted earlier to the appellant.3. In a nutshell, the accusations against the appellant and the background scenario so far as relevant for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:4. On 11.10.2002 a complaint was lodged by one Sunil Nyaneshwar Yadav alleging that while he had gone to Solapur there was communal riot. In the evening he had gone to Vishnu Nagar for witnessing installation of Shakti Idol along with five others. They were sitting on the stage in the evening. At about 5.00 p.m., a group of persons came there and removed the idol of Shakti. At that time one Chanderkant Arjun had come by a motorcycle. When the offenders learnt that the police had come they started fleeing. The said Chanderkant was chasing the offenders. There was scuffle between Chanderkant and the offenders. One of the offenders pierced the knife in the stomach of Chanderkant and he ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(91)ECC425; 2004(164)ELT133(SC); JT2004(2)SC39; 2004(1)SCALE633; (2004)9SCC128
ORDERAshok Bhan, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellant No. 1 is an 'Export House' and is a small scale industrial unit. It carries on the business, inter alia, of manufacturing, importing and exporting of garments and other textile products. In connection with the said business the appellant has to import diverse quantities and qualities of fabrics and yarn from outside India which fabrics and yarn upon due processing are exported. It is not disputed that import of fabric and yarn into India is controlled by the respondent authority by issuance of annual advance licence.3. On 17.3.2001 the appellant applied to the respondent authorities for issuance of the annual licence in the requisite form. Annual advance licence No. 0210021075 dated 28.3.2001 was issued to the appellant firm in terms of Para 7.54 of the Hand Bank of Procedure with a condition that the licence shall be valid for 12 months for imports and 18 months for exports from the date of issue of licence. However, the licence was mad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2004)187CTR(SC)219; [2004]266ITR721(SC); JT2004(1)SC375; 2004(1)SCALE425; (2004)10SCC201
CASE NO.:Appeal (civil) 1532 of 1993PETITIONER:State of West BengalRESPONDENT:Kesoram Industries Ltd. and Ors.DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/01/2004BENCH:V.N.Khare CJI & R.C.Lahoti & B.N.Agarwal & S.B.Sinha & A.R.LakshmananJUDGMENT:JUDGMENTDELIVERED BY:R.C.LAHOTI, J.S.B.SINHA, J.WITHCivil Appeal Nos. 3518-3519 and 5149-54 of 1992, 1532-1533 and 2350 of 1993and 7614 of 1994 and C.A. Nos. 297, 298 and 299 of 2004 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 3986 of 1993, 11596 and 17549 of 1994) with W.P. (C) Nos. 262,515, 641 and 642 of 1997, 347 and 360 of 1999, 50 and 553 of 2000, 207, 288and 389 of 2001 and 81 of 2003 and Civil Appeal Nos. 5027, 6643 to 6650 and6894 of 2000 and 1077 of 2001Decided On: 15.01.2004JUDGMENTR.C. Lahoti, J.This batch of matters, some appeals by special leave under Article 136 ofthe Constitution and some writ petitions filed in this Court, raise a fewquestions of constitutional significance centering around Entries 52, 54and 97 in List I and Entries 23, 49, 50 a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC1694; 2004CriLJ904; JT2004(2)SC37; 2004(1)SCALE604; (2004)1SCC778
ORDER1. This appeal is against the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 18 of the Food Adulteration Act. The appellant was prosecuted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhari along with first accused Naresh Kumar and he was found guilty of the charge against him. The trial Magistrate acquitted, the first accused Naresh Kumar and the present appellant was found guilty and was sentenced to undergo the imprisonment for a period of one year with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default further imprisonment for a period of 3 months. He preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court which confirmed the conviction and sentence. The revision filed before the High Court was dismissed in-limine.2. The prosecution case is that on 24.2.1988 PW-1 Food Inspector of Chhachhrauli along with Doctor working in the local authority visited the shop of 1st accused Naresh Kumar and purchased 3 packets of Iodized Tata Salt. He prepared samples in a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(92)ECC489; 2004(164)ELT225(SC); (2004)12SCC505
ORDER1. These appeals are against the judgment of the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') dated 27-8-1997. The question for consideration is whether the product manufactured by the appellant-assessee namely Dimethicone is classifiable under Tariff Item No. 3003.20 (as claimed by the appellant) or under Tariff Item No. 3910.00 (as claimed by the Respondent-Revenue). The Assistant 4Collector held that the product was classifiable under Tariff Item No. 3910.00. The Collector (Appeals) allowed the appeal and held that the product was classifiable under Tariff Item No. 3003.20. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment has reversed the order of the Collector (Appeals) and has held that the product is classifiable under Tariff Item No. 3910.00.2. For consideration of the question, it is necessary to note the Tariff Items. They read as follows :-'4.1.1 Heading No. Sub-heading Description of goods39.10 3910.00 Silicones in primary forms 4.1.2 Note 6 to Ch...
Tag this Judgment!