Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(4)AWC3022(SC); 2004(3)BLJR1789; (SCSuppl)2005(1)CHN99; JT2004(8)SC457; 2004(3)KLT754(SC); 2004(7)SCALE265; (2004)8SCC569
Ashok Bhan, J.1. The defendant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff/respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondents') on 20.10.1994 for the sale of land measuring 15.125 cents owned by her at the rate of Rs. 3,15,000/- per cent for a total consideration of Rs. 44,66,385/-. The agreement was to be executed within a period of 3 months from the date of the execution of the agreement of sale. A sum of Rs. 10 Lakhs was paid by the respondents as advance/earnest money towards the sale consideration. As the appellant tailed to execute the sale deed the respondents on 26.4.1995 filed a suit being O.S. No. 458 of 1995 in the Court of III Additional Sub-Judge, Ernakulam for specific performance of the agreement dated 20.10.1994. Appellant filed the written statement. The suit was decreed on 24.7.1997 in the following terms:'1. That the defendants shall cause the plaint schedule property be sold in terms of Ext. A4 sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC5143; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)53; JT2004(7)SC327; 2004(7)SCALE89; (2004)7SCC716; (2004)3UPLBEC3126
S.N. Variava, J.1. By this Writ Petition, under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners seek the following relief:'To issue Writ/Order/Direction to the State Government to send reports about the freedom fighters to the Union Government to expedite payment of Freedom Fighters Pension from the commencement of the Scheme from 1.8.80 to the petitioner organization being the freedom fighters.'This Petition has been filed by the Association whose members claim to be freedom fighters. 2. The Government of India had announced a Scheme known as the Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension Scheme, 1980 (hereinafter called the `Scheme') under which freedom fighters were to receive pension as mentioned in the Scheme. Any person who had suffered a minimum imprisonment of six months in the mainland jails before independence or in case of SC/ST freedom fighter who had suffered minimum imprisonment for three months is eligible to receive the pension. The manner of proving claims is as follow...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(175)ELT3(SC); JT2004(7)SC5; (2005)139PLR1; 2004(7)SCALE82; (2004)8SCC621; [2004]137STC163(SC)
S.N. Variava, J.1. Leave granted.2. These Appeals are against the Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 21st November, 2001.3. Briefly stated the facts are as follows.Prior to July 2000, Companies like the 1st Respondent-Company which are engaged in the production of milk products, like Ghee, Skimmed milk, Powder, Butter and Cream, were subjected to a purchase tax at 4% and a surcharge at 10% of the purchase tax. On 19th July 2000, the Governor of Punjab promulgated the Punjab Dairy Development Board Ordinance, 2000. The Ordinance provided for creation of Punjab Dairy Development Board inter alia for co-ordination between the organizations engaged in the dairy sector, to uplift professional standard of the dairy industry in the State and to develop modern dairy farming technology system. Under the Ordinance, cess was levied on milk plants by abolishing purchase tax on milk.4. On 17th August, 2000, the Director, Dairy Development, Punjab, issued a notice to certain milk co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(2)ALD(Cri)759; JT2004(6)SC535; 2004(7)SCALE75; (2004)7SCC629
H.K. Sema, J. 1. Nine accused were put on trial before the Addl. Sessions Judge. During the pendency of the trial, one accused died, therefore, eight accused have faced the trial. At the end of the trial, the trial court acquitted accused nos. 6, 7, and 8 of all the charges. No appeal was preferred by the State against their acquittal. The five accused (respondents herein) namely Kishan Chand, Rama Shankar, Ram Chandra, Gauri Shankar and Chhotey Lal were convicted under various Sections of Law as follows:-Accused Kishan Chand was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Sections 302/34 and 302/149 I.P.C. Six months R.I. under Section 323 I.P.C. One years R.I. under Section 148 I.P.C. and 5 years R.I. under Section 307 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and 5 years R.I.2. Accused Rama Shankar was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 I.P.C. One year R.I. under Section 148 I.P.C. 5 years R.I. under Section 307/149 I.P.C. and 6 months R.I. under Section 323 read with 34 I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(95)ECC625; 2004(171)ELT151(SC); 2004(7)SCALE46; (2004)7SCC23
Arijit Pasayat, J. 1. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Bombay calls in question the legality of the order passed by the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'CEGAT') quashing the order in original dated 21.5.1993 passed by the Collector of Central Excise Bombay - III (in short the 'Collector').2. Background facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows :A show-cause notice dated 28/29.10.1985 was issued to the respondent alleging short payment of duty on account of non-disclosure of 126.66 MTs. of production of Polyster Filament Yarn (in short 'POY') in the RG-I register and removal without payment of duty thereon. The short payment was stated to be Rs. 1,06,07,775/-. Similarly, another allegation related to removal of 5.65 MTs. of POY without payment of Rs. 4,75,187.50/-. Though there were several charges only two of them namely charge Nos. (iv) and (v) relating to the aforesaid allegations were confirmed. The collecto...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC4333; 2004(2)ALD(Cri)808; 2004CriLJ4229; JT2004(7)SC208; 2005(1)KarLJ314; 2004(7)SCALE350; (2004)7SCC487
ORDER1. The State of Karnataka has filed this criminal appeal challenging the acquittal of respondents 1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II read with Section 149 IPC and Section 324/148 IPC and Section 143 IPC. Respondent 1 to 4 were found guilty by the Sessions Court, Karwar and aggrieved by the same they filed criminal appeal before the High Court and the appeal was allowed.2. The prosecution case was that the respondents 1 to 4 along with three others went to the residence of deceased Prakash Manjunath Talker at about 7.30 p.m. on 20.9.1993. These respondents and others were armed with cycle chains, belts and clubs. Deceased Prakash was dragged out of his house by the first respondent and another to a distance of 75 feet where he was attacked by the accused with belts, cycle chains and clubs. PW-1, Shobha, the wife of the deceased Prakash came to the rescue of her husband and she was assaulted by the accused. PW-2 Tarabai who was present in the house of deceas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC4388; 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)1197; 2004(4)AWC2891(SC); JT2004(6)SC553; RLW2004(4)SC486; 2004(7)SCALE50; (2004)8SCC70; (2004)3UPLBEC2717
Shivaraj V. Patil, J. 1. These appeals' are by the U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation (UPSIDC) questioning the validity and correctness of the impugned judgments of the High Court enhancing the amount of compensation and fixing the market value of the lands acquired at the rate of Rs. 8/- or Rs. 9/- per square yard, as the case may be. Large extent of land was notified for acquisition for UPSIDC for planned development of industries. In that regard notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') was published on 25.4.1972. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed award on 30.11.1976 fixing the market value of the lands at the rate of Rs. 2/- per square yard. Some land owners, not being satisfied with the market value so fixed, made applications to the Collector under Section 18 of the Act for making reference. The reference court, by its judgment dated 2.9.1980, rejected six references Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8, 11 and 12 of 1977, upholding t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC4365; 2004(4)AWC2893(SC); JT2004(6)SC556; (2005)1MLJ194(SC); 2004(7)SCALE53; (2004)7SCC708
Shivaraj V. Patil, J. 1. The first respondent (plaintiff) filed the suit O.S. No. 91/84 for declaration of its title and for recovery possession of the plaint schedule property. The appellant (defendant No. 2) filed written statement in the suit contending that the suit was not maintainable: the plaintiff had no title to the plaint schedule land; the agreement dated 13.2.1973 did not confer any title on the plaintiff and the said agreement was signed only by five members of the tarwad out of about 100 members and it did not convey legal or valid title over the properties in question on the plaintiff. In addition, the defendant No. 2 resisted the suit on some more grounds. Trial court, after a full dressed trial, appreciating the evidence placed on record, decreed the suit declaring that the plaintiff- committee has got title to the property as mutawalli in management of the mosque and common graveyard. The trial court also granted decree for recovery of possession of plaint schedule pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004(95)ECC617; 2004(171)ELT155(SC); JT2004(6)SC543; (2005)1MLJ66(SC); 2004(7)SCALE38; (2004)7SCC569
Arijit Pasayat, J. 1. The Custom, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short 'CEGAT') by the common impugned judgment held that there was no interdependence so far as the respondent No. 1-company and respondent Nos. 2-4 companies are concerned.2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:Respondent No. 1- M/s Modi Alkalies & Chemicals Ltd. (in short 'MACL') is engaged in the manufacture of caustic soda of which Hydrogen gas is a by-product. The Central Excise Authorities noticed that in reality MACL was engaged in the manufacture of Hydrogen gas falling under sub-heading 2804.90 of the schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1988 (in short 'Tariff Act'). But with a view to evade payment of excise duty it floated three front companies, namely, respondent nos. 2 to 4 i.e. M/s Mahabaleshwar Gas & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (for short 'MGCPL'), Shri Chamundi Gas and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (for short 'SCGCPL') and M/s. Nippon Gas and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (for short 'NGCP...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2004ACJ1903; AIR2004SC4360; 2004(5)ALLMR(SC)1167; 2004(4)AWC2901(SC); [2004]122CompCas141(SC); JT2004(6)SC501; (2005)141PLR540; RLW2004(4)SC483; 2004(7)SCALE30; (2004)8SCC6
Arijit Pasayat, J. 1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court which did not find any error in the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bijnor (in short the 'Tribunal') either on facts or law to warrant interference.3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:The present respondents 1 to 10 filed a Claim Petition in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act') claiming compensation from the present appellants and United India Insurance Company Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the 'insurer').4. According to the claimants, Amir Hassan (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') sustained injuries and subsequently died due to an accident on 11.11.2000 at about 4.00 p.m. The accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by Kamal Kumar Agrawal (appellant No. 2) who was the driver of the vehicle No. UPN-8975 which was involved in the accident. It was stated that appe...
Tag this Judgment!