Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2005)194CTR(SC)257; JT2005(5)SC587; (2005)2SCC515; [2005]139STC537(SC)
Ruma Pal, J.1. The assesses/appellants are either manufacturers, dealers or sellers of tobacco and tobacco products. They have challenged the imposition and levy of a luxury tax on tobacco and tobacco products by treating them as 'luxuries' within the meaning of the word in Entry 82 of List It.2. Entry 62 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution relates to the exclusive power of State Legislatures to make laws with respect to 'Taxes on luxuries, including taxes on entertainments, amusements, betting and gambling'. Several States have enacted legislation which they claim are referable to the right to tax luxuries under this Entry, We are concerned with the Uttar Pradesh Tax on Luxuries Act, 1955, the Andhra Pradesh Tax on Luxuries Act, 1987 and the West Bengal Tax on Luxuries Act, 1994. The legislative competence of these statutes was challenged by the assessees before different for a - in some cases partially successfully, in others not. To the extent the assessees were u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC733; 2005CriLJ918; 2005(1)CTC457; JT2005(1)SC531; (2005)3SCC169; 2005(1)LC417(SC)
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. Criminal Appeal Nos. 98-102 of 1999 and Criminal Appeal Nos. 109-114 of 1999 are filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh through CBI and the Criminal Appeal Nos. 103-108 of 1999 are filed by the Chattisgarh Mukti Morcha. All these appeals arise out of the common Judgment passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh on 26.6.1998. Nine accused persons were tried by the Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Durg, M.P. Accused Nos. 1 to 8 were charged for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC. The 9th accused was charged under Section 302 read with Section 120B, and in the alternative, Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 25(1)(A) and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The Sessions Judge acquitted A-6 Naveen Shah, A-7 Chandrabaksh Singh and A-8 Baldev Singh Sandhu. A-1 Chandrakant Shah, A-2 Gyan Prakash Mishra, A-3 Avdhesh Rai, A-4 Abhay Kumar Singh, A-5 Moolchand Shah and A-9 Paltan Mallah @ Ravi were convicted by the Sessions Judge for the offence under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC809; [2005]123CompCas566(SC); (2005)3CompLJ385(SC); JT2005(1)SC581; (2005)11SCC314; [2005]57SCL476(SC); 2005(1)LC284(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. These appeals are directed against a judgment and order dated 9.8.2000 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in O.J. Appeal Nos. 6, 7 and 8 of 1995 whereby and whereunder the judgment and order dated 17.12.1994 passed by a learned Single Judge of the said Court dismissing Company Petition No. 51 of 1991 filed by the First Respondent herein, was set aside. BACKGROUND FACTS :2. Sir Pratapsinghrao Gaekwad was the Ruler of Baroda. Maharani Shantadevi Gaekwad was his wife. They had eight children. For certain reasons with which we are not concerned, the estate of Gaekwad came into the hands of their elder son, Fatesinghrao P. Gaekwad (FRG) even during the life time of Sir Pratap Singh. FRG floated several companies, three of which are Baroda Rayon Corporation Ltd. (BRC), Gaekwad Investment Corporation Company Ltd. (GIC) and Alaukik Trading & Investment Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (Alaukik). BRC came into existence in 1958. At the outset, it was bein...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC894; JT2005(1)SC507; 2005(3)KarLJ17; (2005)3SCC91; (2005)2UPLBEC1264
A.K. Mathur, J.1. This appeal and connected appeals were filed against the order passed by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dated 2nd July, 1998 whereby the Division Bench disposed of Writ Appeal No. 1955 of 1993 alongwith Writ Appeal No. 777 of 1993.2. Facts which are necessary for disposal of these appeals are -- the Respondent Association Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group filed a Public interest petition challenging the building licence issued for construction of multi-storeyed/multi-apartments on Site Nos. 403 and 443 in IInd and IIIrd Cross in III Block, Koramangala Layout, Bangalore, on the ground that it is illegal, void and prayed for quashing of the licence and direction to demolish the building already constructed on the site. It was submitted that the residents in the area had acquired sites and built houses on the understanding and under the bona fide belief that the lay out would be developed and maintained in accordance with law. Grievance of the Associa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(2)ALD(Cri)309; 2005CriLJ1402; JT2005(2)SC1; (2005)9SCC283; 2005(1)LC278(SC); AIR2005SC1096
Arijit Pasayat, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. All these appeals are directed against common judgment of the Rajasthan High Court by which the appeals preferred by eight accused persons including present appellants were disposed of. While Ramesh, son of Harish Chandra was convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation, the other seven i.e. present appellants were convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and were each sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each with default stipulation. Each of the eight accused persons were convicted in terms of Section 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment. Ramesh, son of Harish Chandra who was convicted in terms of Section 302 IPC, has not preferred any appeal, while the rest se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. This is a curative petition filed after the dismissal of review petitions. 2. Having perused this petition and the connected papers filed by the petitioner, we do not find that a case has been made out within the parameters indicated in the decision of this Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra and Anr. : [2002]2SCR1006 . Hence, this curative petition is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2005(1)SC283; (2005)2SCC436; (2005)2UPLBEC1249
Y.K. SABHARWAL, J.— 1. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) is a high-powered statutory body to act as an instrument for the protection and promotion of human rights. The credibility of such an institution depends upon a high degree of public confidence. In the present case, the important question that has been raised is whether a former member of the police force is eligible to become a member of NHRC. 2. NHRC has been set up under provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (for short “the Act”). Its composition is provided for in Section 3(2) of the Act. The question for consideration in this petition is about the interpretation of Section 3(2)(d), which stipulates that the Commission shall consist of two members to be appointed from amongst persons having “knowledge of, or practical experience in, matters relating to human rights”. The fundamental question is whether a police officer would fall in the category stipulated under this pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC4180; 2005(98)ECC345; 2005(191)ELT39(SC); JT2005(1)SC412; (2005)3SCC654
Ashok Bhan, J.1. This appeal by grant of leave is directed against the final judgment and order dated 3.4.2001 passed by the Madras High Court in Writ Appeal No. 943 of 1993 whereby the Division Bench has set aside the order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court and dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant.2. Larsen & - Toubro Ltd. - the appellant herein, has its workshop amongst other places within the Kandla Free Trade Zone (hereinafter referred to as 'the KFTZ') in the State of Gujarat. In the year 1986 it obtained an export order for Rs. 24 crores (48 million Malaysian Dollars) from the Malaysian Government for the construction of two steel bridges in Malaysia. The Working Group, a High Level Official Body of the Indian Government give its approval to the appellant's project and for fabrication required for the work to be done in the appellant's workshop at KFTZ on the condition that there should be maximum utilization of indigenous steel as raw material and that a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC947; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)243; 2005(3)BomCR762; 116(2005)DLT513(SC); [2005(104)FLR812]; JT2005(1)SC303; (2005)ILLJ738SC; (2005)2SCC489; 2005(2)SLJ286(SC); (2005)1UPLBEC
S.B. Sinha, J.1. The Respondent herein at all material times was working as a helper in the services of the Appellant. At or about 11.40 a.m., on 26.8.1983 while working in the first shift, he was found lying fast asleep on an iron plate at his working place, whereupon a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him in terms of Standing Order 24(1) of the Model Standing Order framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. In the said domestic enquiry he was found guilty whereupon by order dated 17.1.1984 he was dismissed him from his services. It is not in dispute that on three earlier occasions also, the Respondent was found guilty of misconduct but only some minor punishments had been imposed. Questioning the said order of dismissal dated 17.1.1984, the Respondent herein filed a complaint of unfair labour practice as specified under Item 1(a), (b), (d), (f) and (g) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2005(2)SC420; 2005(I)OLR(SC)544; (2005)2SCC571
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. Leave granted.2. These appeals are preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. Brief facts of the case are thus.3. A crime was registered against the appellant alleging that he committed the offences punishable under Section 406 and 428 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was a partner in a firm consisting of two partners, and the other partner, Zahir Ahmad, was the second accused before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The appellant and Zahir Ahmad were running a rice mill by the name, Jagdamba Rice Mills. Under the policy of the State Government, the Civil Supplies Corporation entrusted the paddy to M/s Jagdamba Rice Mills for de-husking. There was an agreement between the firm and the corporation in terms whereof the firm was to supply advance rice to the corporation. As per the complaint of the Civil Supplies Corporation, the Jagdamba Rice Mill failed to supply the advance paddy due to the corporation. ...
Tag this Judgment!