Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC1877; 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)454; 2004(4)AWC3458(SC); (SCSuppl)2004(3)CHN110; [2004(101)FLR649]; 2004(3)SCALE337; (2004)3SCC607
ORDER1. These are two appeals under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961.2. The appellant is an advocate duly enrolled under the provisions or the Advocates Act, 1961 therein after referred to as 'the Act' for short). Proceedings were initiated against the appellant by the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council on a complaint made by the respondent accusing the appellant of having taken dealership of a retail outlet of petroleum products. On enquiry, the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council found the charge proved. According to the State Bar Council, the appellant, though a practising advocate, applied for the dealership and subsequently secured a letter of intent in his favour. Thereafter, the petrol pump was also started. The complaint was made after about two years of the retail outlet having remained in operation. During the pendency of the enquiry against the appellant, he entered into a partnership with his younger brother wherein the mutual arrangement arriv...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC2135; 2004(3)CTC301; [2004(101)FLR437]; 2004(2)KLT38(SC); (2004)IILLJ490SC; (2004)4MLJ48(SC); 2004(4)SCALE280; (2004)4SCC412; 2005(1)SLJ1(SC)
V.N. Khare, C.J.1. Since common question of law is involved in these appeals, one at the instance of UCO Bank; second, Oriental Bank of Commerce; and the third, Bank Of India, we propose to decide them by a common Judgment.2. For the sake of convenience, we are noticing the facts asserted in Civil Appeal No. 3192 of 1999. The respondent - Sanwar Mal was appointed as a Class-IV employee in UCO Bank on 29.12.1959 and was promoted to class-III post in 1980. On 25.2.1988, he resigned after giving one month's notice. He accepted his provident fund without protest. On 29.10.1993, a settlement was arrived at under Section 2(p) and Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 between Indian Banks' Association (hereinafter referred to as 'IBA') representing the managements of banks on one hand and All India Bank Employees' Association representing the workmen. Pursuant to the said settlement, the IBA agreed to introduce pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2004)187CTR(SC)513; [2004]266ITR521(SC); JT2004(3)SC295; 2004(3)SCALE214; (2004)12SCC742
S.N. Variava, J. 1. This Appeal is against a Judgment dated 2nd July, 2001 passed by the Bombay High Court.2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:The Appellants are a Export House. They hold a certificate issued by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. For the Assessment Year 1996-97 the Appellants filed a return of income declaring Nil income. It is an admitted position that the taxable income, before the deductions under Chapter VIA, was Ps. 4.39 crores. However, against this taxable income the Appellants claimed various deductions. One such deduction was under Section 80 HHC for Rs. 3.78 crores. During the assessment proceedings it was found that the Appellants were exporting goods which were self manufactured as well as goods manufactured by supporting manufacturers i.e. trading goods. It was found that the sum of Rs. 3.78 crores, which had been claimed as a deduction, was the profit from exports of self manufactured goods. It was found that from the exports of trading g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC1923; 2004(2)AWC1352(SC); (SCSuppl)2004(3)CHN101; [2004(101)FLR575]; JT2004(3)SC127; RLW2004(3)SC368; 2004(3)SCALE224; (2004)3SCC363
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. This petition filed purportedly under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution') shows to what extent the process of law can be abused. It carries the attractive brand name of 'public interest litigation', but the least that can be said is that it smacks of everything what a public interest litigation should not be.2. The petition is purported to have been filed questioning the propriety of respondent No. 3 being considered for appointment as a Judge. Subsequently, an application was filed for permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh petition as in the meantime respondent No. 3 has been appointed as a Judge.3. Before we go into the desirability of even entertaining such a petition, background in which the petition has been filed needs to be noticed.4. According to the petitioner, as reflected in the petition, basis of the petition is a copy of the representation purported to have been received from one Ram Sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004CriLJ1810; 2004(74)DRJ440; 2004(92)ECC585; 2004(166)ELT302(SC); JT2004(3)SC264; RLW2004(3)SC375; 2004(3)SCALE211; (2004)3SCC549
Arijit Pasayat, J. 1. Leave granted.2. Granted of bail to the respondent (hereinafter referred to 'the accused') by a learned Single Judge, of the Delhi High Court is questioned by the Customs authorities who had purportedly recovered huge quantity of 'Diazepam' - 5 mg.' Tablets from her.3. Factual background necessary to be noted is as follows:On 4.4.2000 Customs authorities detained the respondent-accused, a Uzbeck national who came to India to do business in garments and was found carrying large quantity of 'Diazepam' - 5 mg. tablets'. In the statement recorded under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (in short 'the NDPS Act') recovery of tablets was admitted by the accused. She was arrested on 5.4.2000. An application for bail was file before the Special Court, NDPS Act which was rejected taking into account of the embargo placed under Section 37 of the Act. The accused-respondent filed an application for bail under Section 439 read with Section 4...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)719; 2004(2)AWC1709(SC); JT2004(5)SC386; 2004(3)SCALE369; (2004)3SCC445; 2004(2)LC1213(SC)
1. The appellant is in possession of a piece of property included in survey No. 54/4 located within the jurisdiction of village panchayat of Colva, Salcete, Goa. It is the appellant's own case, vide para 4 of the writ petition, that earlier there existed a structure of thatched roof supported by laterite stone pillars, which structure was used by sun bathers and visitors. However, in place of old construction, appellant commenced putting up fresh construction which resulted into a pucca building coming up in existence in place of the old structure.2. The new building is now structure of laterite stones and cement with a concrete roof. This construction was commenced on 13.7.1994 and completed on 17.8.1994. Two writ petitions came to be filed in the High Court of Bombay at Goa. CWP No. 76 of 1995 was filed by the appellant's neighbour seeking demolition of the construction put up by the appellant. CWP No. 237 of 1999 was filed by the appellant seeking protection of the construction rais...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC1950; [2004(101)FLR198]; JT2004(3)SC510; (2004)IILLJ356SC; 2004(3)SCALE187; (2004)11SCC526; 2004(2)SLJ465(SC)
Y.K. Sabharwal, J. 1. In this petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenge is to the constitutionality of paragraph 80(2) of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. The effect of the impugned paragraph is that the employees of newspaper industry, for the purposes of provident fond scheme, do not fall in the category of excluded employees despite their pay being above prescribed amount as notified by Government of India from time to time.2. In order to appreciate the question involved, it is necessary to examine certain provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'the PF Act').3. The PF Act was passed by the Parliament in the year 1952 to, inter alia, provide for the institution of provident fund for employees in factories and other establishments. Sub-section (3) of Section 1, inter alia, provides that, the Act applies to every establishment which is a factory engaged in any industry specified in Schedule ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(2)CTC690; JT2004(3)SC224; (2004)3MLJ28(SC); 2004(3)SCALE146; (2004)12SCC770
S. Rajendra Babu, J.1. This is second round of litigation. In the first round of litigation question raised before this Court was whether performance of Tandava dance in public is an essential practice of Ananda Margi order or not. This court in Acharya Jagdishwaranda Avadhuta and Ors. v. The Commissioner of Police, Calcutta and Anr., : 1983CriLJ1872 , (First Ananda Margi case), held that Tandava dance in public is not an essential rite of Ananda Margi faith. Subsequent to the first case, it appears that Ananda Murti Ji - founder of that order prescribed to perform Tandava dance in public as an essential religious practice in Carya Carya, a book containing the relevant doctrines. Based on this, Ananda Morgis sought permission of the Commissioner of Police to perform Tandava dance in public. The Commissioner accorded permission to take out Tandava dance without knife, live snake, trident or skull. This was challenged by the Respondents herein before this Court by filing Writ Petition (C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(2)CTC559
ORDER1. Heard the parties.2. The sole appellant was charged and tried under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and by an order rendered by the trial Court acquitted of the charge. On appeal being preferred by the complainant before the Kerala High Court the order of acquittal has been reversed and the appellant has been convicted under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay fine of Rs. 3000 in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. Hence this appeal by special leave.3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties stated that the parties have compromised the matter and filed a petition before this Court for grant of permission to compound the offence. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in our [opinion], it is a fit case for according permission to the parties to compound the offence. In view of these facts the appea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC1920; 2004(1)ALD(Cri)687; 2004CriLJ1807; JT2004(3)SC380; 2004(3)SCALE93; (2004)3SCC654
Arijit Pasayat, J. 1. There are some unusual cases when the complainant himself is treated as an accused and made to suffer a trial. The present appeal is a case of that nature. But the persons against whom he made accusations subsequently faced trial, and are the accused so far as the present appeal is concerned. The appellants have been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation. The conviction made and the sentence imposed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhatinda were confirmed by the impugned judgment by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.2. The prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:The present three appellants along with Jagrup Singh and Nachhattar Singh faced trial for alleged commission of murder of one Sukhmander Singh (hereinafter referred to as t...
Tag this Judgment!