Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(96)ECC1; 2004(171)ELT145(SC); JT2004(7)SC1; (2005)1MLJ153(SC); 2004(7)SCALE285; (2004)7SCC214
S. N. Variava, J.1. These Appeals are against the Judgment dated 17th March, 2003 passed by the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short CEGAT).2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:The Appellants are manufacturer of tractors. They MODVAT credit in respect of duties paid on inputs used in the manufacture of parts. Those parts were then cleared to another factory of the Appellants, without payment of duty, by virtue of Notification No. 217/86-CE dated 2nd April, 1986. The parts were then used to manufacture tractors on which duty was paid.3. The Respondent issued a show-cause notice on the ground that MODVAT credit was not admissible as the final goods, i.e. the parts were cleared without payment of duty. The Appellants claimed that the final products were not the parts but the tractors. The Appellants claimed that duty was being paid on the tractor and, therefore, MODVAT credit was available under Notification No. 217/86-CE dated 2nd April, 1986. 4. The expl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(6)ALT20(SC); 2004(4)AWC3033(SC); [2004(4)JCR203(SC)]; JT2004(7)SC64; 2004(7)SCALE142; (2004)7SCC586; 2005(1)SLJ354(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the legality of judgment rendered by the Chennai Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'CAT'). Appellant was applicant in two original application nos. 1188/1993 and 1368/1993. The present appeal relates to OA No. 1368/1993. By the common judgment the original applications of two applicants i.e. the present appellant and one Mr. N. Veeramani were disposed of. In the concerned O.A. claim of the appellant was as follows:Between 6.8.1980 and 14.12.1982 he was holding the post of Divisional Manager, Coonoor Division, Tamil Nadu Tea Plantation Corporation, Coonoor. Between 15.12.1982 and 12.6.1986, he was Sub Divisional Forest Officer in the Social Forestry Division at Tiruchendur. From 13.6.1986 to 12.2.1988, he was Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Tirunelveli. From 13.2.1988 to 22.7.1990, he was Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Ramnad. From 23.7.1990 to 2.6.19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC4236; IV(2004)BC449; [2004]122CompCas112(SC); (2004)4CompLJ52(SC); JT2004(7)SC69; (2004)4MLJ122(SC); 2004(7)SCALE180; (2004)8SCC524; [2004]54SCL519(SC); 2005(1)LC1
ORDER OF 28TH 3APRIL, 2003ROUNDED OFF TO : Rs.111.50 crores ' 61. The estimated number of shares available as per order of the Tribunal as on 25.4.2003 would be about 60% of the total shareholders, who would be benefitted.62. We have hereinbefore noticed that the offer price of Rs. 318/- per equity share would be payable as on 24.2.1998 although the market price thereof at the relevant time was only Rs.220/-.63. We may notice the difference on monetary terms on the amount payable to the investors on public announcement of offer, as would appear from the following chart :TOTAL PAID-UP CAPITAL OF COLOUR-CHEM LTD. : 1,16,50,000 EQUITY SHARESFACE VALUE : RUPEES 10/- EACHOPEN OFFER PRICE : RUPEES 318/- PER SHARENO.OF SHARES TO BEACQUIRED IN THE OPENOFFER : 20% OF THE PAID-UP CAPITAL - 23.30 LAKHS SHARESTOTAL CONSIDERATION : RUPEES 7409.40 LAKHSInterest Rate per Period 24.2.1998 Interest per Share (Rs.)Annum to 20.6.2003 A B C 15% 5916.35 253.92 14% 5521.93 237.00 13% 5127.51 220.07 12% 4733...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : III(2004)ACC1; 2004ACJ1909; AIR2004SC4338; 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)1200; 2005(1)ALT59; 2004(4)AWC2961(SC); [2004]122CompCas50(SC); 2004(4)CTC459; [2004(4)JCR199(SC)]; JT2004(7)SC16
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. The Appellant - Insurance Company aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 28th March, 2002 passed by the High Court of Judicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in AAO No. 216 of 1997 is in appeal before us.3. The respondents herein are heirs and legal representatives of one V. Gopal. The said V. Gopal (the deceased) used to carry on business in vegetables. He purchased 5 bags of vegetables on 24.11.1991 in a village known as Ayyapareddipalem and loaded the same in a trailer of a tractor bearing No. MH33-8109. He was traveling therein. He wanted to buy some more vegetables at a village known as Peddapadu. While the tractor approached the said Village, a bus was seen coming from opposite direction. Because of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the said tractor, and which was driven at a very high speed, it went to the extreme left side of road margin and because of heavy jerks, the deceased tell down and received ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC4279; 2004(2)ALD(Cri)673; 99(2005)CLT204(SC); 2004(4)CTC784; JT2004(7)SC228; 2004(7)SCALE206; (2005)9SCC658
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 19.4.2002 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Criminal appeal Nos. 697 and 831 of 1995 whereby the High Court has partly allowed Criminal Appeal No. 697 of 1995 by acquitting appellant No. 1, Balu Singh, appellant No. 5, Richhu, appellant No. 6, Bhangdibai and appellant No. 7, Nanbai of the offence they were charged and the appeal of appellant No. 2, Bathu singh, appellant No. 3, Nar Singh and appellant No. 5, Bhal Singh was dismissed.2. The case of the prosecution, in brief is as follows:-The appellants and the deceased persons as well as PW-1, Sardar Singh, PW-2, Jagat Singh and PW-3, Humabai are related to each other. On the fateful day, the deceased Dhan Singh @ Dhania was digging a well in his field and was storing stones on the embankment of the field for which the accused persons were having objection. At that time, all the appellants reached the place in question havi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(4)AWC3015(SC); 2005(1)ESC11; JT2004(7)SC51; (2004)IIILLJ552SC; 2004(7)SCALE224; (2004)11SCC355; 2005(1)SLJ351(SC); (2004)3UPLBEC2645
Arijit Pasayat, J. 1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation') calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court dismissing the second appeal filed by the Corporation.2. Background facts necessary for disposal of the appeal in a nutshell are as follows:The respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'employee') filed a civil suit in the Court of the learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division and Judicial Magistrate III, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Suit was for declaration that the order of termination dated 18.3.1986 passed by the Corporation is illegal. According to him he was appointed as a Conductor on permanent basis and on erroneous impression that he was carrying passengers without tickets, his services were terminated. He was not departmentally proceeded against and no inquiry was conducted, and, therefore, the order of termination was illegal and arbitrary. It was further pleaded tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(4)AWC3028(SC); 2005(2)BomCR887; (SCSuppl)2005(1)CHN133; 2004(5)CTC369; JT2004(7)SC53; 2004(7)SCALE211; (2004)8SCC689; 2004(2)LC1373(SC)
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. Being aggrieved by the suit for specific performance being decreed, the defendants-vendors have filed this appeal by special leave against judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dated 17.6.2000 in Appeal No.813 of 1994 confirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 3.10.1994.2. The facts giving rise to this civil appeal, briefly, are as follows:-By an agreement for sale dated 18.2.1981 entered into between appellants as vendors and respondent as purchaser, the appellants agreed to sell all that piece or parcel of land admeasuring 481.25 square metres bearing plot no.423-C out of the larger piece of land bearing City Survey No.1285 (Part) of Suburban Scheme-III of Chembur with bungalow bearing Municipal No.1137 (2) standing thereon. (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as 'the suit property') for lump sum consideration of Rs. 10,00,000/-. Prior to the execution of the agreement, the respondent paid Rs. 1,00,000/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC4342; 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)1189; 2004(4)AWC3044(SC); 2005(2)BomCR315; JT2004(8)SC415; 2004(3)KLT728(SC); 2004(7)SCALE318; (2004)8SCC614; 2004(2)LC1364(SC)
Ashok Bhan, J.1. Defendant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') has filed this appeal against the judgment of the High Court in Second Appeal No. 205 of 1984 whereby the High Court reversing the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court has restored the order passed by the Civil Court, Jalna in Suit No. 184 of 1974. The Trial Court had decreed the suit filed by the Narayan Bapuji Dhotra, (deceased) now represented through his Legal representatives (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent').2. The property in dispute is agricultural land bearing Survey No. 94 admeasuring 18 acres and 23 gunthas situated at Village Jambwadi, Taluka Jalna in the State of Maharashtra. Respondent who was the owner of the suit land filed the Suit for possession of the land with the averment that the appellant had wrongfully dispossessed him of the suit land in April, 1965. According to him, he was the owner of the suit land which was his self-acquired property. It was averr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC4348; 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)1132; 2004(4)AWC2965(SC); JT2004(7)SC320; (2004)IIILLJ764SC; (2005)1MLJ163(SC); 2004(7)SCALE241; (2004)8SCC222; 2005(1)SLJ128(SC); (2004)3UPL
N. Santosh Hegde J.1. The Government of Punjab referred the following industrial dispute between the workman and management of the appellant herein for adjudication under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to adjudication by the Labour Court, Ludhiana in Reference No. 1145/1993 :-(1)Whether termination of Services of Shri Ram Surat, workman, is justified and in order? If not, to what relief/exact amount of compensation is entitled. 2. The above dispute arose on a complaint made by the 1strespondent workman that he was working under the appellant management for a period of 12 years and his services were terminated on 12th May, 1993 without any notice, charge-sheet or inquiry. He also contended that he was drawing Rs. 2,750/- per month as his wages at the time of the termination of his services. He prayed for his reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service.3. The appellant management in the said reference filed a written statement contending that there...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC4282; 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)1088; 2004(4)AWC2950(SC); (SCSuppl)2004(4)CHN118; JT2004(7)SC13; (2004)IIILLJ555SC; (2005)1MLJ158(SC); 2004(7)SCALE235; (2004)8SCC229; 2005(1
S.B. Sinha, J. 1. The workman is in appeal before us being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 13.10.2000 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta in Appeal No. 434 of 1996.2. The case at hand has a chequered history. The appellant herein was appointed in the post of Messenger-cum-Bearer in the establishment of the respondent herein, a Cinema House, on 31.3.1978. He was subsequently confirmed on the said post. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him wherein he was found guilty, whereupon he was dismissed from services. The said order of dismissal was the subject-matter of an industrial dispute. The Industrial Tribunal by reason of an award set aside the said order of dismissal with full back-wages and compensation. On or about 1.5.1991, the appellant was permitted to join his duties but back-wages were not paid. He was, however, retrenched from services within one month from his joining i.e. 30.5.1991. A sum of Rs. 9,030/- was p...
Tag this Judgment!