Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(96)ECC497; 2004(172)ELT433(SC); JT2004(9)SC12; 2004(8)SCALE570; (2004)11SCC364
Arijit Pasayat, J. 1. These appeals by the Revenue are directed against the common judgment passed by the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, West Regional Bench, Mumbai (in short the 'CEGAT'). By the impugned judgment the CEGAT set aside the imposition of duty, redemption fine, interest and penalty levied under the Customs Act, 1967 (in short the 'Act') levied/imposed on respondent No. 1 M/s Essar Oil Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'assesses'), its officers (Respondents Nos. 2 to 4) and officials of the Customs Department (Respondent Nos. 5 to 7).2. Backgrounds facts as projected by the appellant are as follows:Sometime during 1997 respondent No. 1 imported plants and machineries worth Rupees 600 crores for its refinery project. These imported goods were stored in private bonded warehouses, one of which is closed. The licences for the warehouses were valid upto 24.11.1999. General bond of Rs. 120 crores was executed by respondent No. 1 under Section 59(2) of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC5100; JT2004(8)SC589; (2005)141PLR85; 2004(8)SCALE659; (2004)8SCC1; (2005)1UPLBEC239
R.C. Lahoti, C.J.1. Leave granted.2. Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (hereinafter, the Principal Act, for short) is a State enactment dealing with local self-government through the municipalities. Chapter III of the said Act deals with composition of municipalities. The Haryana Municipal (Amendment) Act, 1994 (Act No. 3 of 1994) inserted Section 13A in Chapter III of the Principal Act which provision reads as under :-'13A. Disqualification for membership. (1) A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as and for being a member of a municipality --XXX XXX XXX(c) if he has more than two living children :Provided that a person having more than two children on or after the expiry of one year of the commencement of this Act, shall not be deemed to be disqualified'.xxx xxx xxx'3. The Amendment Act received the assent of the Governor of Haryana on the 1stApril, 1994 which was published in the Haryana Gazette, (Extraordinary), Legislative Supplement, Part I, dated April 5, 1994 and on that da...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC5152; 2004(5)CTC209; JT2004(8)SC464; (2005)1MLJ105(SC); RLW2005(1)SC19; 2004(8)SCALE601; (2004)11SCC672
S.B. Sinha, J. 1. Interpretation of Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the Code') vis-a-vis Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Madras is in question in these appeals.BACKGROUND FACTS:2. Although these appeals involve common questions of law, the tactual matrix of the matter would be noticed from Civil Appeal No. 689 of 1998.3. The First Respondent herein filed a suit against the Appellant herein in the Court of II Addl. Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore which was marked as O.S. No. 403 of 1974, The said suit was decreed on or about 15.4.1976. An execution petition was filed by the First Respondent-decree holder for executing the said decree. In the said execution proceeding for realization of the decretal amount the property belonging to the Appellant herein was put to auction. The validity of the said auction came to be questioned by the Appellant by filing an Execution Application on or about 8.10.1979 praying therein for setting aside the court auc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2004(9)SC170; RLW2005(1)SC13; 2004(8)SCALE811; (2004)8SCC482
ORDER1. The present appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated November 27, 2001 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla in Civil Revision No. 35 of 1999. By the said order, a single Judge of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed the eviction petition filed by the landlord reversing order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller, Shimla and confirmed by the Appellate Authority (II), Shimla.2. The appellant herein is the owner of a building being House No. 108, Anandele, Shimla ('suit premises' for short). He let the first floor of the suit premises to the respondent. The landlord filed an eviction petition against the tenant in respect of the first floor of the building in November, 1980. The petition was allowed by the Rent Controller by an order dated October 31, 1984. The tenant preferred an appeal and challenged the decree of eviction. On September 17, 1986, however, a compromise was arrived at between the parties. On the basis of the said compromise...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(1)ALD96(SC); (2004)4CompLJ245(SC); JT2004(8)SC340; 2004(8)SCALE551; (2004)8SCC236; [2004]55SCL368(SC)
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J. I.A. NOs. 9-11 in CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 4191-4193 OF 19911. These are applications by Respondent No.2 in the above mentioned appeals. C.A. Nos. 4191-4193 of 1991. The prayer therein is for a clarification of the Judgment in the appeals rendered by this Court on 20.4.1999 by providing that the applicant was also entitled to the amount of Rs. 1,56,21,839.25 being the interest that has accrued on the purchase price of Rs. 2 crores paid by it for the assets of the Bengal Paper Mills Co. Ltd., a company in liquidation. The applications are opposed by the creditors, some of whom were the appellants in the appeals.2. The Bengal Paper Mills Co. Ltd. was ordered to be wound up in a winding up petition filed by its creditors. The order was passed on 24.4.1987. Even before the order for winding up, the assets were put in possession of two joint receivers appointed in a suit by one of the creditors. On the Official Liquidator being appointed in liquidation, the joint receivers...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(4)AWC3721(SC); (2005)1CALLT37(SC); (SCSuppl)2005(2)CHN14; JT2004(9)SC5; RLW2005(1)SC43; 2004(8)SCALE595; (2005)1SCC162
S.H. Kapadia, J. 1. This civil appeal, by grant of special leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.2.1999 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in RFA No. 464 of 1992 decreeing the suit filed by respondent No. 1 herein in the Court of VIth Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, being Suit No. O.S. 8296 of 1980.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the trial Court.3. The facts giving rise to this civil appeal are as follows:--By an agreement for sale dated 14.6.1979, R. Srinivasan, (since deceased) agreed to sell the suit premises bearing No. 15/18/1, Cambridge Road, Ulsoor, Bangalore to Shri Chidambram (respondent No. 1 herein) for a sum of Rs. 16000/-. Under the said agreement, Srinivasan agreed to complete the sale by 13.11.1979. Under the said agreement, the vendor agreed to sell the suit premises free from all encumbrances. The vendor agreed to deliver the title deeds to the plaintiff. On the execution of the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)140; 2004(4)AWC3738(SC); 2005(5)BomCR476; (2005)ILLJ561SC; 2005(2)MhLj38; 2004(8)SCALE794; (2004)8SCC653; 2005(1)SLJ219(SC)
ORDER1. Delay condoned in SLP(C) Nos. 1243-1244 of 2003 and leave granted in both Special Leave Petition (c) No. 1241 of 2003 and Special Leave Petition (c) Nos. 1243-1244 of 2003.2. These appeals have been preferred against the impugned final judgment of the Division Bench dated 22nd December, 1999 of the High Court of Bombay in the Writ Petitions filed by the two employees of the High Court of Bombay, who were dismissed from service. The appellants were working as senior translators in the Office of the Chief Translator of the High Court. In July, 1997 one Ms. Vasanti Joshi, who was practicing as an advocate in the Bombay Courts filed a complaint alleging that the translators working in the office of the Chief Translator had been indulging in corrupt practices and for obtaining official translation of the documents these translators had been demanding illegal gratification. Pursuant to the complaint, the High Court directed an inquiry by the Prothonotary & Senior Master of the High C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)1138; 2004(4)AWC3725(SC); 2005(2)BomCR739; JT2004(8)SC327; 2004(7)KarLJ652; 2004(3)KLT737(SC); RLW2005(1)SC47; 2004(8)SCALE558; (2004)8SCC270; (2005)1UPLBEC
N. Santosh Hegde, J.1. Noticing a conflict between two 3-Judge Benches of this Court in the case of Special Deputy Collector and Anr. v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and Ors. : [1997]3SCR1107 and Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal Revenue Officer v. V. Narasaiah , another 3-Judge Bench of this Court on 31st of July, 2001 considered it appropriate to place C.A.No. 6986/99 for consideration by a larger Bench. It is in this background, the above appeal and other connected appeals are now before us.2. In Kurra Sambasiva Rao's case (supra), this Court held that by introducing Section 51A in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter LA Act) the Legislature only facilitated the parties concerned to produce a certified copy of a sale transaction in evidence and nothing more. This is what the Court observed in the said case.'Section 51A only dispenses with the production of the original sale deed and directs to receive certified copy for the reason that parties to the sale transaction would be reluctan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2004(8)SC562; (2005)ILLJ685SC; RLW2005(1)SC6; 2004(8)SCALE511; (2004)12SCC579; 2005(1)SLJ505(SC); (2005)1UPLBEC725
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, A. P. Secretariat, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh and The Director of Town and Country Planning, Hyderabad are the appellants in this appeal. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No 14358 of 2001 confirming the judgment and order dated 22.2.2001 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad allowing the Original Application No. 6755 of 2000 filed by the respondent herein and setting aside the order issued by the appellant in G.O.Ms. No. 520 Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department dated 28.10.2000.2. The background facts leading to the filing of this appeal be noted briefly and they are as follows:The respondent herein at the relevant time was working as Deputy Director, Town and Country Planning in the Municipal Administration Department at Hyderabad. The Anti-Corr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)149; I(2005)BC79; [2005]125CompCas36(SC); 2004(9)SCALE16; (2004)8SCC640; [2005]140STC280(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. Challenge was to the levy of octroi by respondent No. 1 Talegaon Dabhade Municipal Council (hereinafter referred to as 'Municipal Council') which was established under the Maharashtra Municipal Council') which was established under the Maharashtra Municipal Council Nagar Panchayat and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (in short 'the Act'). The respondent No. 1 - Municipal Council proposed to levy octroi in terms of the Maharashtra Municipalities (Octroi) Rules, 1968 (in short the 'Rules').2. The appellant used to import raw material and components into the octroi limits of the Municipal Council. The appellant took the stand that the three items i.e. plastic powder, plastic components and glass refills were covered under the Residuary Entry 86 of the Rules. The stand of the appellant was that it had paid octroi on th...
Tag this Judgment!