Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005CriLJ1737; JT2005(3)SC46; (2005)2SCC659
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Heard appellant's counsel and counsel for the respondent.3. Appellant herein is an accused in a crime registered for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him. The learned Single Judge declined to quash the proceedings and hence this appeal.4. One Pranab Kumar Nag was an employee of M/s M.L Dalmiya & Co. Ltd. During the course of his employment, he had been posted at various work sites of the company and on 11.9.1999 he was transferred to the work site of the company's stores located at 160, B.L. Saha Road, Kolkata. It seems that pursuant to the transfer order, Pranab Kumar Nag did not join duty and after a period of about two years he sent in a letter of resignation written in his own hand wherein he expressed his grievance of stagnancy of salary and also alleged that he was a victim of unfortunate circumstances....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005CriLJ1810; (2005)2SCC661
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Heard appellant's counsel and counsel for the respondent.3. In view of the disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 359 of 2005 arising out of SLP(Crl) No. 3254/2004, the reasons given in the judgment equally applies to the appellant Pawan Kumar Bhalotia. We quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant and accordingly allow the appeal....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC1843; 2005(2)AWC1245(SC); 2005(2)ESC192; [2005(105)FLR114]; [2005(2)JCR108(SC)]; JT2005(2)SC600; (2005)ILLJ1153SC; (2005)5SCC91; 2005(2)SLJ218(SC); 2005(2)LC798(SC
S.B. Sinha, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 14525 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the Respondent herein questioning an award dated 24.2.1998 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh was allowed. The Respondent herein applied for appointment as a Typist having come to learn from reliable sources that a post of Typist was lying vacant in the Appellant-Bank. For filling up the said post, neither any advertisement was issued nor the Employment Exchange was notified. She even did not possess the requisite qualification. Only on the basis of her application she was appointed as a Typist on an ad hoc basis for a period of 89 days from 6.1.1985. The said appointment was, however, subject to the approval of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana. Relaxation in respect of the qualification was given to her by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies on 23.12.1985...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2005(105)FLR70]; [2005(2)JCR1(SC)]; JT2005(2)SC615; (2005)3MLJ143(SC); (2005)3SCC451; 2005(2)SLJ195(SC); (2005)2UPLBEC1852
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. The Government of Tamil Nadu questions legality of the judgment rendered by the Madras High Court holding that the policy of the State Government in providing 10% special quota to the children/wards of serving/retired/deceased personnel of police and like forces is invalid.3. A brief reference to the factual issue would suffice.4. The Tamil Nadu Service Recruitment Board (in short 'Recruitment Board') published a Notification in several local dailies on 5.3.2000 calling for applications filling up 1155 posts of Police Constables, Grade II. In the Notification the Board had stated that 10% of the posts were reserved for legal heirs of serving personnel, for ministerial staff and also for legal heirs of those persons who had been invalidated on medical grounds. The respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'applicant') filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short the 'Tribunal'). The respondent-applicant was not...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2005(105)FLR114(1)]
S.B. Sinha, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 14525 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the respondent herein questioning an award dated 24.2.1998 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.T., Chandigarh was allowed. The respondent herein applied for appointment as a Typist having come to learn from reliable sources that a post of Typist was lying vacant in the appellant-Bank. For filling up the said post, neither any advertisement was issued nor the Employment Exchange was notified. She even did not possess the requisite qualification. Only on the basis of her application she was appointed as a Typist on an ad-hoc basis for a period of 89 days from 6.1.1985. The said appointment was however, subject to the approval of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Haryana. Relaxation in respect of the qualification was given to her by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies on 23.12.19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(99)ECC167; 2005(181)ELT367(SC); JT2005(3)SC13; (2005)3SCC30
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta (in short the 'CEGAT'). Initially there was a difference of opinion between two Members i.e. Technical Member and the Judicial Member and the matter was referred to a third member. The third member agreed with the Technical Member and by majority the decision went against the assessee-appellant. The judgment is reported in 2000 (123) ELT 789 Tribunal (Castrol India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta-I).2. The factual position in a nutshell is as follows:The appellant is engaged, inter alia, in the manufacture of blended or compounded lubricating oils. It also processes a product called 'Super TT' which the appellant claimed to be a blended lubricating oil ordinarily used for lubrication. The undisputed process of manufacture of the said product as stated by the appellant is as under:'Base Oils are taken to the blending kettle,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC1999; 2005(3)AWC2934(SC); 2005(2)BLJR929; JT2005(2)SC505; (2005)2MLJ139(SC); 2005(30)PTC233(SC); (2005)3SCC63; (2005)2UPLBEC1111; 2005AIRSCW1241
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.Leave granted.1. The defendants in Civil Suit No. 8A of 2004 on the file of the District court of Mandaleshwar are the appellants. That suit was filed by the respondent herein for a declaration that the defendants do not have any right to sell Pan Masala, Gutkha, Supari and Supari Mix or any other goods under the trade mark 'Manikchand' which is deceptively similar to the mark 'Malikchand' used by the plaintiff, for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from dealing in or selling the above articles under the name/brand 'Manikchand' and to confiscate and destroy the above goods in the custody of the defendants and for other consequential reliefs. The plaintiff also filed I.A. No. 2 of 2004 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the 'C.P.C.') seeking an interim injunction pending suit, restraining the defendants from selling the products referred to above under the name 'Manikchand'. The trial court passed an ad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2021; 2005(3)ESC421; [2005(105)FLR56]; [2005(3)JCR104(SC)]; JT2005(11)SC72; (2005)3SCC153
ORDER1. By an order made on 13th January, 1998, a High Powered Committee came to be appointed to carry out investigations into five areas, as indicated in the order. The High Powered Committee was initially headed by Shri S. Venkatnarayanan (IAS) Retd., Former Chairman. National Power Finance Corporation, who was substituted later on by Shri P.K. Kaul, former Cabinet Secretary of the Government of India. The High Powered Committee (hereinafter referred to as the 'Kaul Committee'), with the expert advice and assistance of M/s Central Power Research Institute, Bangalore and Indian Institute of Management. Lucknow, made an indepth investigation into the areas of reference and produced a Report in two volumes.2. One of the issues on which the Kaul Committee had adversely commented is that transfers and postings of officers and staff are not made in the State Electricity Board in a transparent and accountable manner. Although, guidelines for transfer policy of officers of the State Governme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(99)ECC91; 2005(181)ELT339(SC); [2005]274ITR87(SC); JT2005(11)SC21; (2005)2SCC720
S.N. Variava, J.1. Civil Appeal No. 2350 is filed against the Judgment dated 19th July, 2001 passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short `CEGAT') and Civil Appeal No. 406 of 2004 is filed against the Judgment dated 25th June, 2003 passed by CEGAT. Both these Appeals can be disposed off by this common Judgment as the parties are the same and the question involved is the same.2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:The Appellants are engaged in manufacture of Textile Printing Adhesives falling under Chapter Heading No. 3402 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Appellants were claiming benefit of Notification No. 1 of 1993 as amended and Notification No. 16 of 1997. Show-cause-notices were issued to them alleging that they were not entitled to the benefit of the Notifications as they were using the logo of 'ATR' belonging to one M/s. ATR St. Moritz A.G., Switzerland. Duty and penalty was demanded from them for having suppressed the facts and non-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2006)2CALLT23(SC); 2005(99)ECC113; 2005(181)ELT170(SC); JT2005(2)SC515; (2005)2SCC662
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. The short question which arises for determination in this civil appeal filed by the assessee under section 35L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is - whether the intermediate product produced in the manufacture of zinc in the assessee's factory is marketable and if it is marketable then whether the product is to be classified under tariff heading 28.43. 2. Assessee is a fully owned Government of India undertaking in the business of manufacturing zinc in its factory. In the course of extraction of zinc from zinc-silver concentrate, a mixture or a combination of zinc chloride, silver chloride, lead and other material emerges from which, by further treatment, sulphates of all other material are filtered out leaving behind the residue of silver chloride.3. According to the department, silver chloride thus produced in the factory of the assessee is an assessable commodity liable to duty under tariff item 2843.10. According to the department, the said product is in the fo...
Tag this Judgment!