Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005AIR1532; 2005(2)SCR380; 2005(2)SCC720; 2005(2)SCALE358; 2005(11)JT21
S. N. VARIAVA, J.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. 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-paym...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2775; 2005(2)AWC1296(SC); (2005)2CALLT96(SC); 2005(3)ESC297; [2005(105)FLR1058]; JT2005(2)SC562; (2005)3SCC618; 2005(2)SLJ198(SC); 2005(2)LC783(SC); (2005)2UPLBEC1
ORDERIn exercise of the powers conferred by Section 6(2) of the Food Corporation Act, 1964, the Central Government is pleased to issue/reiterate the following policy instructions to the Food Corporation of India:-i. There shall not be any creation/upgradation of posts of any level except where completely unavoidable, New Divisions/offices or reorganization etc., shall not be not up/done unless absolutely essential: Even in such cases, matching saving should be provided by surrender of posts in the same group or of posts in the immediate lines of promotion. In such cases, specific prior approval of the Board of Directors and of the Government shall be taken.ii. The existing vacancies shall not be filled up by fresh recruitment. If, however, for specific operational reasons filling up of any vacant post is considered absolutely essential, prior approval of the Board and the Government shall be obtained.iii. FCI shall not arrive at any understanding with Staff Association in regard to res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2005(105)FLR62]; 2005(1)JKJ34[SC]; JT2005(3)SC96; (2005)4SCC148
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. These appeals are directed against the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court holding that the appointment of three doctors, namely, Dr. Muzaffar Jan, Dr. Ghulam Rasool Wani and Dr. Ghanshyam Saini-the appellants in the civil appeals corresponding to SLP (C) Nos. 21954-21955 of 2003 to be illegal. They are also private respondents in the appeals filed by the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (in short the 'PSC').3. Backgrounds facts in a nutshell are as follows:An advertisement was issued on 12.10.1998 by the State inviting applications for appointment as lectures in Paediatrics in the Medical Education Department of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Before that date four persons had been granted ad-hoc promotion as Assistant Professors. Such promotion was subject to approval by the PSC. On 23.10.1998 PSC accorded approval to the promotion of the four lecturers as Assistant ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC1912; 2005(1)ALD(Cri)733; (2005)2CALLT111(SC); 2005CriLJ1748; JT2005(2)SC575; RLW2005(2)SC286; (2005)10SCC374; 2005(1)LC538(SC)
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. The appellants were convicted under Section 148, Section 302/149 and Section 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code by the Trial Court and sentences were awarded to them consequently. Having failed in their appeals before the High Court, the appellants are before this Court by way of special leave.Facts:2. Sahab Khan, PW 3, made a written report (Ex. P 6) on 11.7.1997 at 9:00 a.m. in Police Station Sadar, Alwar. According to him, between 7:00 and 7:30 a.m. on that day, he and his father, Dhandhad, and his brother, Isab, went to their field. Mangu Khan, Appellant No. 1, Sirdar Khan, Appellant No. 2, Subedar Khan, Appellant No. 3, (Deen Mohd. and Jamil Khan, since acquitted), who had enmity against them on account of construction of a bund, were sitting on the bund duly armed with lathi, farsi, tanchia and kattas. As soon as the informant, his father and brother approached, all the aforesaid persons attacked them with tarsi, lathi and tanchia. Consequently, Dhandhad and h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(4)ALD48(SC); (SCSuppl)2005(3)CHN31; JT2005(11)SC29; (2005)2MLJ167(SC); (2005)2SCC793; 2005(2)LC1152(SC)
Ashok Bhan, J.1. These appeals are directed against the common order dated 24.3.1998 passed by a Single Judge of the Madras High Court in CRP No. 2695 and 2696 of 1993 arising from an order dated 2.7.1993 passed by the Principal Sub Judge, Coimbatore in I.A. No. 1019 of 1987 in O.S. No. 187 of 1980 and I.A. No. 2100 of 1987 in O.S. No. 526 of 1987. The High Court has set aside the order passed by the Principal Sub Judge and remitted the case to the Munsif Court for a fresh decision in the light of the observations and directions given in the impugned order.2. The facts are complicated and required to be set out in detail to appreciate the controversy arising in these proceedings.3. The defendants-appellants (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellants') who were the owners of suit property measuring-4 acres 7 cents in Kurinchi Village, Coimbatore entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs-respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondents') to sell the suit land for a sum of Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005CriLJ1739; 2005(99)ECC209; JT2005(5)SC530; (2005)3SCC164; 2005(1)LC753(SC)
B.P. Singh, J.1. The respondent herein was put up for trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur who by judgment and order dated August 8, 1997 found the respondent guilty of the offence under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short N.D.P.S. Act) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. one lakh, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2-1/2 (two and a half) years. The respondent preferred an appeal before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh being Criminal Appeal No. 655-SB/1997. The High Court by its impugned judgment and order of 19th February, 1999 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed against the respondent. The State of Punjab has come up in appeal before this Court by special leave.2. The facts of the case are that ASI Sampuran Singh (PW3) along with ASI Surinder Paul Singh (PW1) and Head Constable Satnam Singh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC1964; 2005(4)ALD53(SC); 2005(1)ARC642; 2005(2)AWC1305(SC); (SCSuppl)2005(3)CHN37; JT2005(11)SC229; (2005)2MLJ171(SC); (2005)3SCC422
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. One Harbans Mishra filed a civil suit No. 1070 of 1950 impleading as defendants Kesho Ram, Mst. Sukh Dei, Mst. Dhanpati, Sukhi Lal and Nageshwar Kalwar. The suit was one for redemption of a mortgage and with a chequered history. 2. One Mst. Toranto had mortgaged the suit property on 26.1.1908 in favour of Kesho Ram for a period of 60 years. This property is said to have been inherited by Smt. Sukh Dei, who on 1st April 1950 executed a sale deed selling her right of redemption in favour of Narvedshwar Mishra (original plaintiff and respondent herein). Sukh Dei had only a limited interest being a Hindu widow not in possession of the property. The plaintiff contended in the suit that the period of 60 years was fixed as the period of mortgage amounted to a clog on the equity of redemption and hence, null and void, and therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to redeem the mortgaged property without waiting for expiry of the mortgage period. Mst.Toranto died leaving her s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(181)ELT320(SC); JT2005(3)SC175; (2005)3SCC39
Ruma Pal, J.1. The appellant-company carries on the business of manufacturing lead acid batteries in Shenyang, China, it is a subsidiary of Mastsushita S. Electric industries Corporation, a multinational company registered in Japan.2. The dispute in this appeal is whether the appellant-company operated on Market Economy Principles during the period 1st January 2000 to 30th September 2000 for the purposes of the Customs Tariff Act and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injuries) Rules, 1995. (referred to hereafter as 'the Rules').3. The principle behind anti dumping laws is to protect the domestic industry from being adversely affected by import of goods at export prices which are below the normal value of the goods in the domestic market of the exporter. Anti dumping duty is leviable under Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (referred to as 'the Act') read with the Rules which are framed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005CriLJ1726
B.P. Singh, J.1. We have heard counsel for the appellant State and also perused the order of the High Court.2. In a case under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') the High Court after considering the evidence on record found that the prosecution has not been able to make out a case under Section 16(1)(a)(ii) read with Section 7 of the Act. It accordingly allowed the appeal and acquitted the respondent.3. We have gone through the material on record and heard counsel for the appellant. We find no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal.4. These appeals are, therefore, dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2005; 2005CriLJ1725; JT2005(11)SC196; (2005)10SCC393
B.P. Singh, J.1. In this appeal by special leave the appellant has impugned the order of the High Court of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No.5314 of 1998 dated 8th June, 1999 whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order of the XVTH Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad taking cognizance was rejected.2. We may notice that a complaint was filed by the respondent before the Metropolitan Magistrate complaining that when he had gone to the chambers of the appellant, he had addressed him and his father in abusive language in the presence of several persons. We need not reproduce the words used but it is clear to us on a reading of the complaint that the words used are defamatory per se, particularly, when a vice-president of the Income tax appellate tribunal is said to have addressed those words to a practicing lawyer and to the father of the complainant, who was also a member of the Incom...
Tag this Judgment!