Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2006)2CompLJ90(SC); (2005)13SCC719
Arun Kumar, J.1. This is an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying for appointment of a sole arbitrator. The application has been placed before me as a nominee of the learned Chief Justice of India for necessary orders. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the laws of the Netherlands while the respondent is an Indian company. The parties had entered into an agreement regarding certain works to be executed by the petitioner. Disputes appeared to have arisen between the parties. The agreement between the parties admittedly contains an arbitration clause which runs as under:'23. ArbitrationAny dispute or claim arising out of or relating to the Agreement its breach or interpretation thereof, shall be determined by reference to a sole Arbitrator to be in accordance with the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Rules framed thereunder. The venue of the arbitration shall be at England (UK). The language to be used in the arbitratio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(103)ECC241; 2005(190)ELT289(SC); JT2005(10)SC153; (2006)1SCC267
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. This is a statutory appeal under section 35L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') against the judgment and order dated 19.6.2000 passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi ('tribunal' for short).2. A short question which arises for determination in this civil appeal is - whether, on the facts and circumstances of this case, cost of repacking of detergent powder into 20 gms. and 30 gms. sachets, which did not amount to manufacture at the relevant time, was includible in the assessable value of 'ariel micro-system' (AMS) cleared by Procter & Gamble ('assesses' for short') in bulk packs of 25 kgs. at its factory gate at Manideep, Bhopal.3. assesses - appellants are engaged in the manufacture of detergent powder (AMS) falling under chapter 34 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (for short 'the 1985 Act') at their factory at Manideep, Bhopal within the jurisdiction of the Commis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC615; [2006(108)FLR953]; [2006(1)JCR140(SC)]; JT2005(10)SC245; (2006)ILLJ329SC; (2006)1MLJ100(SC); 2006(2)SLJ42(SC)
Arijtt Pasayat, J.1. The Life Insurance Corporation of India (in short the 'LIC') calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division bench of the Madras High Court, in a writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent holding that even if the penalty of removal from service is held to be in order, the respondent-employee nevertheless would be entitled to pension to which he would be entitled 'but for his removal'.2. Background facts in a nutshell are as under:Respondent was employed as an Assistant in the LIC in the year, 1962. He worked in the Coimbatore Branch of the LIC from 1967 onwards. Prior to that he had worked at Erode for a period of 2 years i.e. from 1965 to 1967. On 14.12.1983 he was transferred to Attur and therefore relieved from the Coimbatore Branch. However, the respondent did not join duty at Attur and sought for privileged leave. Thereafter he claimed leave on medical grounds. He did not appear before the doctor designated by the LIC to substan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC618; 2006CriLJ528; JT2005(10)SC168; RLW2006(1)SC181; (2005)13SCC347; 2006(1)LC69(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.03.2004 passed by Rajasthan High Court whereby and whereunder an appeal preferred by the Appellant herein against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against him under Sections 147, 302 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') was converted to conviction under Section 302 IPC simpliciter. 2. The prosecution case as disclosed in the First Information Report is as under :One Pratapa (PW-5) lodged a written report at about 2.00 p.m. on 14.3.1998 before the S.H.O., Police Station Bagoda, District Jalore, stating that at about 9.00 a.m. on the said day while he was going with his brothers Hanja (PW-1), Vasna (deceased) and Raimal (PW-4) from his dhani towards Oran for the purpose of grazing the cattle and when they had been passing through the field of the accused Sonaram, the Appellant herein together with Bhagirath, Krishana Ram, Naringa, Poonma Ram and Bhikhram, who were h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC500; (2005)199CTR(SC)441; [2005]279ITR434(SC); 2005(9)SCALE519; (2005)13SCC307
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. The appellant, (hereinafter to be referred to as an 'assessee') is a firm engaged in the imports of synthetic waste and manufacture and export of woolen blankets. Since the assessee had been in export, the economy of the business of the assessee worked out on the basis of U.S. $ price and for the purpose of stock valuation, the same was recorded in Rupees for which the prevailing exchange rate was applied. The assessee was maintaining books of accounts on a consistent method on mercantile basis right from the insertion of its business and Department has accepted the same for the purpose of income-tax except in the years in question. Since the Account Year, 1986-87, the assessee followed the method of accounting, and for which the stock of raw-material/semi- finished goods were valued at cost price and finished goods at the market price.2. For the Assessment Year 1992-93 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'First year'), the assessee valued the closing stock at the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC508; 2006(1)ALD(Cri)22; 2005CriLJ303; JT2005(10)SC174; RLW2006(1)SC662; (2006)1SCC283; 2006(1)LC130(SC)
H.K. Sema, J.1. I The sole appellant was put to trial under Section 376/366 IPC. He was convicted by the Trial Court and sentenced to two years R.I. on each count. He was also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default further sentence of 3 months R.I. Aggrieved thereby, two appeals were preferred before the High Court. Appeal No. 147/84 was preferred by the accused against his conviction. Appeal No. 356/84 was preferred by the State for enhancement of the sentence. The High Court, by a common order, dismissed the appeal filed by the accused and allowed the appeal filed by the State. The sentence of the appellant was enhanced to 5 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default further R.I. for 3 months. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeals have been filed by special leave.2. The factual matrix may be noted briefly:The prosecutrix - Kumari Pushpa at the relevant time was residing with her parents Pandurang - PW-1 and Vimal - PW-13 at Khar Danda, Mumbai. The accused was kn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC673; 2005(3)BLJR2325; 2006CriLJ544; 1(2006)DMC291; [2006(1)JCR11(SC)]; JT2005(10)SC192; RLW2006(1)SC396; (2005)13SCC455
Arun Kumar, J.1. This is an appeal against a judgment of conviction under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code passed by the VIth Additional Judicial Commisisioner, Ranchi and confirmed by the High Court of the State of Jharkhand at Ranchi. The three appellants were sentenced to 10 years R.I. each. The appellant No. 1 Taiyab Khan is the husband of the deceased while appellants No. 2 and 3 are his parents. The deceased was named Noorjahan. Marriage of appellant No. 1 with Noorjahan took place in April, 1991. The incident leading to death of Noorjahan is of 9th February, 1994. Death of Noorjahan is said to have been caused by poisoning. The main ingredients of Section 304B IPC are:(a) Death of a woman;(b) By burns or bodily injury or occurrence otherwise than under normal circumstances;(c) Within seven years of her marriage;(d) Soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband in connection with demand for dowry.2. Pres...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC514; 1(2006)CLT571(SC); 2005CriLJ310; [2006(1)JCR162(SC)]; JT2005(10)SC423; RLW2006(2)SC1496; (2005)13SCC624
S.B. Sinha, J.1. This Appeal under Section 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1972 (Act 2 of 1974), read with the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970, arises out of a Judgment and Order dated 7th October, 1998 passed by the Gwalior Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 1984 whereby and whereunder Judgment and order dated 27th September, 1982 passed by Shri S.K. Jain, Sessions Judge, Muraina (M.P.) acquitting the Appellants herein was set aside.2. On 20th December, 1981 at about 10.00 A.M. the incident took place, in relation whereto, a First Information Report was lodged at about 6.30 P.M. at Ambah Police Station. The said Police Station is said to be situated at a distance of 9 Km. from the place of occurrence.3. The First Information Report was lodged by Rajvir Singh - (PW.1). He stated that on 19th December, 1981 at about 8.00 P.M. he had heard a commotion and came out from his house and found that the Appellants-her...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC392; [2005(107)FLR1186]; [2006(1)JCR309(SC)]; (2006)ILLJ419SC; RLW2006(2)SC1247; 2005(9)SCALE473; (2006)1SCC337; 2006(2)SLJ364(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'ONGC') calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court, Agartala Bench, dismissing the writ appeal filed by the appellants and thereby affirming order passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition (Civil Rule No. 144/1992).2. Factual background in a nutshell is as follows:In May, 1992 respondent filed a writ petition before the Guwahati High Court claiming that he had been working as casual worker in ONGC since November, 1982 with intermittent lay offs and but for such intermittent lay offs which were deliberate, he would have worked for more than 240 days and in any event during the period 1989-90 and 1990-91 he had worked continuously for more than 240 days. It was averred that from 2.12.1984 to 10.6.1985 he had worked as an Automobile Mechanic Helper which established that he is a skilled mechanic and entitled to the said post on a r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (SCSuppl)2006(2)CHN19; RLW2006(1)SC388; 2005(9)SCALE493; (2005)13SCC477
Arun Kumar, J.1. Leave granted.2. These appeals arise from a common judgment of the High Court. The contesting parties before the High Court filed special leave petitions in this Court against the judgment of the High Court dated 7th April, 2004. The special leave petitions filed by the Competent Authority are registered as SLP (Civil) No. 16820 of 2004 while those filed by the National Highways Authority of India are SLP (Civil) Nos. 17874-75 of 2004. The Writ Petitioners before the High Court have also filed a petition which is numbered as SLP (Civil) 18773 of 2004. Since all the petitions arise from a common judgment, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment. For sake of convenience the land owners are being referred to as the writ petitioners in this judgment. The other main parties are the Competent Authority and the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and they will be referred to as such in the judgment.3. The subject matter of these appeals is ...
Tag this Judgment!