Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(165)ELT3(SC)
ORDER1. The grievance made by the appellant in this appeal is that when the matter was posted for hearing on 8-9-1997, the name of the Advocate on record was not shown in the cause list and, therefore, due arrangement could not be made for appearance and in such circumstances the appeal came to be disposed of by the Tribunal. The respondent is not in a position to controvert this position. In the circumstances, we set aside the order made by the Tribunal and remit the matter to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed accordingly....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(92)ECC1; 2004(164)ELT390(SC); JT2004(2)SC266; (2004)2MLJ162(SC); 2004(2)SCALE391; (2004)2SCC727; [2004]135STC219(SC)
S.N. Variava, J.1. This Appeal is against the Judgment dated 31st December, 1997 passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short CEGAT).2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:The Appellants carry on the business of fixing rubber linings on pipes, tanks and other such articles. The articles were supplied to them by their customers. They fixed the lining and returned the articles. They were issued a show-cause-notice claiming that they were manufacturing dutiable goods and that they were not declaring the correct value inasmuch as the value of the articles supplied to them and the packing, forwarding charges and rubber lining charges had not been included in the assessable value. The Appellants reply was accepted and the Assistant Collector dropped the show-cause-notice.3. The Department preferred an Appeal to the Collector (Appeals). The Appeal was allowed by the Collector (Appeals). The Appellants filed an Appeal to CEGAT which has been dismi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC1686; 2004CriLJ1446; JT2004(2)SC292; 2004(2)SCALE377; (2004)11SCC180
N. Santosh Hegde, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Leave granted.3. Based on a letter of request issued by the Government of Canada addressed to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Chandigarh filed an application before the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI, Punjab, Patiala purporting to be under Section 166B of the Cr.P.C. (The Code) seeking directions to the appellant to make a statement and give blood samples for sending the same to the Canadian Authorities as desired by them in their letter of request.4. The said Magistrate by his order dated 21st of October, 2000 rejecting the objection of the appellant allowed the said application of the CBI. Being aggrieved by the said order of the trial court, the appellant moved the Addl. Sessions Judge, Patiala by way of a revision which came to be dismissed by an order dated 15th of March, 2001 and a Crl. Misc. Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code before the High ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC1497; 2004(1)ALD(Cri)757; 2004CriLJ1399; JT2004(2)SC274; 2004(2)SCALE356; (2004)4SCC379
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Two appellants faced trial for having allegedly committed rape on a girl of tender age whose name need not be indicated and she can be described as the victim or the prosecutrix. The trial Court found the accused persons guilty of offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). They were each sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each with default stipulation. In appeal, the conviction and sentence were upheld.2. Prosecution version in a nutshell is that on 5.8.1993 the prosecutrix had gone to the field to ease herself at about 10.00 a.m. When she had reached near the field, the accused persons caught hold of her right arm and dragged her forcibly to the field. Accused Shiv Dayal shut her mouth with her chuni and both the accused persons thereafter forcibly raped her. They threatened to kill her if she told about the incident to anybody. She went to her house weeping and narrate...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC1690; JT2004(2)SC247; 2004(2)SCALE385; (2004)9SCC56
G.P. Mathur, J.1. Leave granted.These appeals by special leave have been preferred against the common judgment and order dated 27.9.2000 of a Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court by which a batch of writ petitions were disposed of with certain directions.2. We will state the facts of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20787 of 2000. Seeds man Association, Hyderabad and two other seed companies filed writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution impleading the Principal Secretary to Government, Agricultural Department, Director-cum-Commissioner of Agriculture Marketing Committee, Hyderabad and 16 Agricultural Market Committees of some Districts in the State of Andhra Pradesh as respondents. The main prayer made in the writ petition is that the action of the respondents especially those of respondent Nos. 3 to 18 in compelling petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 to pay market fee under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 be declared as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (SCSuppl)2004(3)CHN5; JT2004(3)SC255b; 2004(6)KarLJ179; 2004(2)SCALE363; (2004)9SCC174
Doraiswamy Raju, J. 1. Leave granted.2. The above appeals have been filed against the common Order dated 21.09.2000 of a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court made in L.R.R.P. No. 3317 of 1990 (filed by the appellant herein before the High Court) and L.R.R.P. No. 4033 of 1990 (filed by the first respondent herein), whereunder the learned Single Judge, while affirming that portion of the order passed by the Appellate Authority granting partial relief to the 1st respondent to which the challenge was made by the appellant, also allowed the claim made by the first respondent herein challenging the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Authority wherein that Authority granted relief in favour of the appellant, for the remaining extent covered by the lease under consideration.3. The salient and relevant factual details necessary for appreciating the contentions of the parties in these appeals are as hereunder: -The lands in question comprised in Survey No. 70/1(2 acres 02 cents); Su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC1699; 2004CriLJ1451; 2004(3)CTC676; JT2004(2)SC233; 2004(2)SCALE374; (2004)3SCC388
Santosh Hegde, J.1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. Leave granted.3. Pursuant to a criminal complaint filed by the respondent-wife herein alleging offence punishable under Section 498A IPC against the appellant-husband herein being registered and cognizance taken, the said appellant on 6th October, 1999 surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 78 of 1999 and sought for grant of bail. On hearing both the sides and noticing the fact that there was a possibility of compromise between the parties, the appellant herein was released on bail by the said Magistrate on his furnishing a bail bond for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each. On 13.1.2000, on an application made by the respondent herein alleging that the appellant is not cooperating in the compromise talk, the learned Magistrate cancelled the bail. On a revision filed against the said cancellation of bail by the appellant herein, the High Court of Judicature at Patna,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(1)BLJR717; I(2004)DMC354SC; JT2004(2)SC242; 2004(2)SCALE379; (2004)9SCC431; 2004(2)LC775(SC)
N. Santosh Hegde, J.1. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, the appellant has preferred this appeal. By the said judgment said High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the Court of Sessions Judge at Nasik for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 IPC. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows :The appellant herein was married to one Jayashree about 10-11 years before the death which took place on 8.5.1998. The cause of death was suicide by consuming pesticides. It is the prosecution case that about 15 days before the death of said Jayashree she had visited her parents who were staying in village Chitegaon which was a neighbouring village to the one in which the appellant and Jayashree were staving with their family namely village Konambe. During the abovesaid visit to her parents, it is stated she told her brothers that she was sent by her husband to bring a sum of Rs. 5,000. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC1492; 2004(1)ALD(Cri)617; 2004CriLJ1394; I(2004)DMC575SC; JT2004(2)SC339; 2004(2)SCALE348; (2004)4SCC236
B.N. Agarwal, J. 1. The appellants were convicted by trial court under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. On appeal being preferred, their conviction and sentence have been upheld by the High Court.2. The short facts are that on 4.5.1986 at 5.30 p.m. one Tirath Behera, who was Gramrakhi of Village Golabandha, submitted a report at Buguda Police Station disclosing therein that on the same day at 12.30 p.m. one Sarasu Jena @ Salu, wife of appellant No. 2 - Prasana Kumar Jena, committed suicide by hanging herself in her house. On the basis of this written report, Unnatural Death Case No. 3 dated 4.5.1986 was instituted, but subsequently, after a few days, on receipt of postmortem report of the dead body of Salu, a case under Section 302 of the Penal Code was registered against unknown persons. The police, after registration of the case, took up investigation, examined witnesses and upon completion thereof, having found the in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(2)AWC1879(SC); (SCSuppl)2004(3)CHN14; [2004(102)FLR636]; 2004(3)MhLj688; (2004)2MLJ177(SC); 2004MPLJ134(SC); 2004(2)SCALE337; (2004)3SCC394; 2004(2)SLJ150(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. The State of Punjab questions correctness of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, whereby it directed correction of date of birth of the respondent from 19.6.1944 as recorded earlier in the official documents to 13.12.1945.3. Background facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows:The respondent joined Punjab Institute of Textile Technology, Amritsar on 11.7.1983. At the time of his entry into services, his date of birth was recorded as 19.6.1944. In the certificate for Higher Secondary Examination which he passed in the year 1962, his date of birth was recorded as 19.6.1944. He graduated in Science (Textile) in the year 1967., After his initial appointment with Punjab Institute of Textile Technology he subsequently worked as a senior officer in several public sector undertakings like Government Industrial Development cum Service center Textile, Ludhiana, National Textile Corporation Ltd., Delhi, Punjab ...
Tag this Judgment!