Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC536; 2005(103)ECC209; 2005(189)ELT401(SC); JT2005(10)SC618; 2005(9)SCALE58; (2005)13SCC789
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Interpretation of notification issued in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 being General Exemption No. 121 is in question in these appeals which arise out of judgment and order dated 9.12.2003 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. C/1210/Mum & C/51/2002 Mum.2. The relevant portion of the said general exemption notification dated 28.2.1999 is as under:'In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (1) of section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Government being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts the goods of the description specified in column (3) of the Table below or column (3) of the said Table read with the relevant List appended hereto, as the case may be, and falling within the Chapter, heading No. or sub- heading No. of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) as are specified in the corresponding ent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC348; 2006(1)AWC5(SC); 2005(6)BomCR729; [2006(1)JCR90(SC)]; JT2005(9)SC319; 2005(4)KLT824(SC); (2006)1MLJ49(SC); RLW2005(4)SC3071; 2005(9)SCALE69
R.C. Lahoti, C.J. 1. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (ii) of Sub- section (2) of Section 3, Sub-section (i) and clause (b) of Sub- section (2) of Sections 6 and 25 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29/1986), read with Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 the Central Government made the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Noise Rules') which have come into force w.e.f. 14th February, 2000.Rule 5 of the Noise Rules reads as under:'5. Restrictions on the use of loud speakers/public address system:- (1) A loudspeaker or a public address system shall not be used except after obtaining written permission from the authority.(2) A loudspeaker or a public address system shall not be used at night (between 10.00 p.m. to 6.00 a.m.) except in closed premises for communication within, e.g. auditoria, conference rooms, community halls and banquet halls.(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub- rule (2), the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC531; [2005(107)FLR1143]; [2006(1)JCR15(SC)]; JT2005(10)SC213; RLW2006(2)SC1244; 2005(9)SCALE73; (2005)8SCC747; 2006(2)SLJ390(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by him under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution') praying for grant of arrears of pay and pension.2. The factual background is as follows:The appellant was enrolled in the Indian Army on September 13, 1978. On March 30, 1987 he was arrested in a criminal case for offence punishable under Sections 302/34 and 452 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'). The appellant was convicted by the trial Court. However, his appeal was accepted by the High Court and he was acquitted vide order dated March 26, 1992. The appellant alleges that he was released from the Jail on April 4, 1992 and that he had reported to his Unit along with a copy of the judgment on the next day. He further stated that he was reinstated on the strength of such acquittal and continued in service, but his...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC533; [2005(107)FLR1139]; JT2005(10)SC222; (2006)ILLJ340SC; RLW2006(1)SC299; 2005(9)SCALE97; (2005)12SCC747; 2006(2)SLJ38(SC)
ORDERI.A. No. 7 in CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8476 OF 20021. Application of a decision of this Court in Bank of India and Ors. v. O.P. Swarnakar and Ors. : (2003)ILLJ819SC falls for consideration in this application.2. Before, however, we advert to the said question, we may notice the admitted facts.Shri Amarjit Singh Sahni, the Applicant herein at all material times was working in the Punjab and Sind Bank (for short 'the Bank') as a Cashier-cum-Clerk at the Zonal Office Haryana. The Bank adopted a scheme known as 'the Punjab and Sind Bank Employee's Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000' (for short 'the Scheme') which was to remain in operation from 1.12.2000 to 31.12.2000. In terms of the Scheme, those who sought for voluntary retirement were entitled to accept ex gratia payments as specified therein as also the other benefits which are as under:'Amount of ex gratiaAn employee seeking voluntary retirement under the Scheme will be entitled to the ex gratia amount mentioned below in para (a) or (b),...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC523; 2005(5)CTC494; JT2005(9)SC443; (2006)1MLJ27(SC); 2005(9)SCALE150; (2005)12SCC752
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. These appeals challenge the decision of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court dated 4.3.2003 upholding the validity of Sections 2 and 3 of the Madras City Tenants' Protection (Amendment) Act, 1994 (Act 2 of 1996) published in the Official Gazette on 11.1.1996. By virtue of Section 2, Section 1 of the Madras City Tenants' Protection Act, 1921 was amended and in the sub-Section providing for exemptions from the operation of the Act, clause (f) was added and in that process exempting tenancies of land owned by religious institutions or religious charities belonging to Hindu, Muslim, Christian or other religions. By Section 3, it was declared that any proceeding instituted by a tenant in respect of any land owned by such a religious institution or religious charity, which was being exempted from the operation of the Act pending before any Court or other Authority, would stand abated and all rights and privileges conferred by the extension of the Madras City Ten...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC336; JT2005(9)SC393; RLW2005(4)SC3074; 2005(8)SCALE810; (2006)1SCC294; 2006(1)LC217(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. How far a sanction against a public servant for commission of an offence punishable under 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the 1988 Act') and Sections 409, 167, 218, 419, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code is essential is in question in this appeal, which arises from a judgment and order dated 06.05.2002 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Misc. No. 39904-M of 2002 allowing an application filed by the First Respondent herein under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, Cr. P.C.). The First Respondent herein at the material time was a Sub Inspector posted in Police Station Kotwali in the District of Faridkot. He in his said capacity purported to have lodged a First Information Report against M/s Jain Gas Agency, a proprietary concern of the son of the Appellant, under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, wherein it was alleged that on an inspection made in its office and godown seve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC520; 2005CriLJ316; JT2005(10)SC228; RLW2006(1)SC34; (2005)12SCC607
B.N. Agarwal, J.1. Sohan Singh, the sole appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 805 of 2004 (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') along with accused Paramjeet Singh, Mohit Raza, Pradeep and Ashwani Kumar Mittal was tried and by judgment rendered by the trial court, they were acquitted of all the charges. Against the order of acquittal, State of Uttaranchal preferred an appeal before the High Court whereas Mahendra Pratap Singh Gill (PW 5),one of the injured, filed a revision application challenging the acquittal. The High Court upheld the order of acquittal in relation to accused Mohit Raza, Pradeep and Ashwani Kumar Mittal but reversed the same with regard to the appellant and accused Paramjeet Singh who have been convicted under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 and 307 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Paramjeet Singh did not move this Court whereas appellant Sohan Singh challenged his conviction which by special leave gave rise to Criminal Appeal No. 805 o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC302; (2006)3CALLT9(SC); JT2005(9)SC290; (2005)12SCC657
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Bhadsa is a small village situate at a distance of 12 kms. from the district headquarters known as Purulia in the State of West Bengal. On 1.12.1982, Prankrishna, deceased and Chepulal (PW-14) heard some sounds coming from the side of their Shivatara land situate in the said village. They informed their brother Nepal Mahato (PW-25) about the same. They also informed Haradhan Mahato (PW-2) and who in turn informed Subhas Mahato (PW-13). When the three brothers were proceeding towards their land, Sambhu Mahato (PW-1) met them on the road. When they reached near the land in question, being Plot No. 550, they found some persons were engaged in cutting of paddy therefrom. Nilkantha, Bhiswa alias Bishna, Manmatha alias Mathan, Kalipada, Bulu, Patal, Lalbas, Haralal, Ramanath, Majhi, Chinbas alias Srinibash (Accused Nos.1 to 11 respectively) were standing on the ail (Ridge on the agricultural land). The accused persons were variously armed. They were asked not to cut paddy bu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC321; 2006(1)ALD(Cri)1; JT2005(9)SC370; (2005)13SCC323
S.B. Sinha, J.1. These appeals arising out of a common judgment and order dated 22nd April, 2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Crl. Appeal No. 660 of 1981 and Crl. Appeal No. 668 of 1981 were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Criminal Appeal No. 1150 of 2004 is by Triloki Nath, Krishna Chandra Singh, Shashi Kant and Sahdev (Accused Nos. 6, 5, 7 and 8 respectively). Criminal Appeal Nos. 1173, 1172 and 1173 of 2004 are respectively by Kunwar Prahald Singh (Accused No. 1), Jitendra alias Mister (Accused No. 2) and Gopal (Accused No. 3). One of the eight accused namely, Chhanga has not filed any appeal.BACKGROUND FACT:2. The residents of village Devanand Pur had been performing 'Holika Dehan' for a long time on Plot No. 399, which is said to be a banjar land. Kunwar Prahlad Singh became the owner of the said plot. He tried to enclose the said plot by a 'Mend' (Fence). An objection thereto was raised by the villagers in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC102; 2006(1)ALD(Cri)490; 2005(103)ECC85; (2006)1GLR691; [2006(1)JCR17(SC)]; JT2005(9)SC410; 2005(4)KLT779(SC); RLW2006(1)SC37; (2005)8SCC725; 2006(1)LC20(SC)
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 861 of 1997, along with two others was tried by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Banaskantha in Gujarat, for the offence punishable under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act). All the accused were found guilty of the offence under Section 17 of the NDPS Act. They preferred an appeal before the High Court of Gujarat and by the impugned judgment the High Court dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeals are filed by the appellants.2. The facts of the case are that on 1.7.1989 PSI, L.U. Pandey, along with other police constables, was on patrol duty in the night of 1.7.1989 and at about 5.30 A.M., they noticed a tanker lorry bearing registration number GRS 6407 crossing the Palanpur railway crossing line. They signaled the vehicle to be stopped. The vehicle was stopped and they made a search of the lorry. The tanker lorry had three cabins. The police team wan...
Tag this Judgment!