Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2005(2)SC435; (2005)3SCC79; (2005)2UPLBEC1120
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Leave granted.2. This civil appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 08.05.2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in C.M. Application No. 18906/2002 in Special Appeal No. 296 (S/B)/2001 whereby the High Court has dismissed the petition.3. The appellant - India Literacy Board is imparting education to children upto Class VIII at Lucknow, which is now a separately registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The respondents were appointed as teachers on purely contractual basis subject to the terms and conditions which were made part of the written contract duly executed by the respondents respectively for fixed periods. An advertisement was got published by the Management of the appellant-Board for appointment of teachers. The respondents along with others were eligible to apply again for fresh contractual employment. The respondents instead of applying in response to the advertisement chose to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(2)ALD(Cri)67; (2006)2CALLT29(SC); 2005CriLJ1706; 2005(1)CTC710; 117(2005)DLT686(SC); JT2005(2)SC548; 2005(2)MhLj259; (2005)4SCC303
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Refusal by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court to accept prayer made by the appellant to extend the protection available under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code') is assailed by him. A brief reference to the factual position would suffice.3. Complaint was lodged by one Dayaram Das in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, Calcutta (in short 'CJM') alleging commission of various offences more particularly those covered under Sections 406, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). This complaint was filed against the appellant and five others. It was claimed that the complainant Dayaram Das, who was the President of Calcutta Branch/Temple situated at 3C, Albert Road, Calcutta and manager of the premises at 22, Gurusaday Road, Calcutta was appointed by the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (in short the 'ISKCON') Bureau in accordance with Rules and R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2023; 2005(3)ALT25(SC); 2005(2)AWC1121(SC); 2005(1)BLJR523; (2005)3CALLT1(SC); (2005)4CompLJ1(SC); II(2005)CPJ13(SC); 2005(2)CTC687; [2006(1)JCR274(SC)]; JT2005(2)
C.K. Thakker, J.1. Leave granted.2. The present appeal is filed by the Haryana Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. ('Corporation' for short) against the order passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Kaithal, confirmed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, and also confirmed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. New Delhi.3. The facts of the case in which a complaint was filed by Sadhu Singh S/o Kehar Singh may briefly be stated. The said complaint was filed by Sadhu Singh resident of village Dhundwa against Dhundwa Cooperative Credit & Service Society and also against the Haryana Seeds Development Corporation (appellant herein) before the District Forum Kaithal inter alia alleging that he had purchased seeds of wheat from Dhundwa Cooperative Credit & Service Society and Haryana Seeds Development Corporation. He had sown them in his field. After about 15 days, he noticed that germination of seeds was not up to standard but was 'v...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2005)7SCC52
ORDERReview Petition(C) No. 1633 of 2004 in W.P.(C)No. 271 of 20041. The original petition from which this review petition arises was dismissed by this Court on 16th July, 2004 on the ground that the issue raised in this petition was being debated in the Parliament, therefore, it is too premature a stage for entertaining such a petition.2. This review petition is filed alleging that since the order was made by this Court on 16th July, 2004, the issue has not yet been debated in the Parliament and the same is not likely to be debated in the near future.3. A counter-affidavit is filed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs wherein it is specifically stated that the issue could not be debated till now for certain reasons but assurance has been given that when the occasion arises the matter will certainly be debated in Parliament. Recording the said assurance this review petition is dismissed.Contempt Petition (C)No. 31/05 in RP(C)No. 1633/04 in WP(C)N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC1967; JT2005(2)SC424; 2005(2)KLT613(SC); (2005)3SCC351; (2005)2UPLBEC1126
C.K. Thakker, J.1. Leave granted.2. The present appeal is filed by the appellant against the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala in Writ Appeal No. 2575 of 1999 dated on 3rd November, 2003. By the said order, the Division Bench confirmed the orders passed by the assessing authority, confirmed by the District Collector. Kozhikode and also confirmed by a single Judge of the High Court of Kerala in O.P. No. 14720 of 1994 on 15th October, 1999.3. Few facts for the purpose of deciding the controversy raised in the present appeal may now be stated. The appellant herein constructed a Shopping Complex bearing Door Nos. 6/499 to 6/537 in Kozhikode Corporation in the year 1987. The appellant filed return under the Kerala Building Tax Act 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for assessment of building tax for the said building. The assessing authority quantified capital value at Rs. 12,32,820/- and determined building tax payable by the appellant at ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(2)CTC61; 2005(98)ECC825; 2005(181)ELT145(SC); JT2005(2)SC322; (2005)3SCC378
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. The issue in this civil appeal filed by the department under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 relates to the eligibility to the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 123/81-CE dated 2nd June, 1981, as amended.2. M/s Ginni Filaments Ltd. (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as 'the assessee') is 100% Export Oriented Unit manufacturing filament yarn. The assessee was licensed under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962 bearing Licence No. 1-Customs/90 dated 13.3.1990. The assessee was also granted L-4 licence for the manufacture of cotton yarn falling under Chapter 53.3. The assessee made an application under notification No. 123/81 to the Competent Authority for removal of certain goods, under form CT-3, from 100% Export Oriented Unit to its factory, namely, A.C. Sheets, air-Conditioners, flush doors, typewriters, storewells, tables, chairs, which was granted.4. On 2.1.1991, the department issued a show-cause notice calling upon the asses...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(98)ECC842; JT2005(2)SC362; (2005)2SCC742
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. For the reasons given in our decision in Commissioner of Central Excise v. M.R.F. Ltd. reported in : 2005(180)ELT145(SC), this Civil Appeal filed by the department relating to classification of Rubberised Tyre Cord Fabric is dismissed, with no order as to costs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(98)ECC843; JT2005(2)SC357; (2005)3SCC37
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. For the reasons given in our decision in Commissioner of Central Excise v. M.R.F. Ltd. reported in : 2005(180)ELT145(SC) both these Civil Appeals filed by the department relating to Dipped Tyre Cord Fabric are allowed; the impugned judgments and orders of the Tribunal as well as of the Commissioner are set aside; and these appeals are remitted to the Commissioner, Mumbai, for a fresh disposal in accordance with law. All contentions on both sides are kept open.2. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to costs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(2)CTC134; 2005(181)ELT156(SC); JT2005(2)SC314; (2005)3MLJ40(SC); (2005)3SCC389; [2005]140STC22(SC)
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. The question involved in this civil appeal filed by the department is - whether contracts entered into and executed by the assessee were contracts for sale and not works-contract.2. M/s Kone Elevators (India) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') is a unit of M/s Kone Corporation, Finland who are one of the pioneers in the manufacture of Hi-tech New Generation Elevators in the world. M/s Kone Corporation, Finland has its operations spread over 37 countries in the world. The assessee herein is a registered dealer falling in the jurisdiction of the Commercial Tax Officer. R.P. Road Circle, Secunderabad, having its head office at 50, Vanagaram Road, Aynambakkam, Madras, with branches at Vijaywada and Vizag. The assessee filed monthly returns in form A-2 for the months of April and May, 1995. It was assessed by the said Commercial Tax Officer provisionally for the period 1.4.1995 to 31.5.1995 and for the period from 1.6.1995 to 31.7.1995 under the Andhra Prade...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC1047; 2005(1)ALD(Cri)549; 100(2005)CLT83(SC); 2005(1)CTC600; JT2005(2)SC462; (2005)3SCC670
ORDERPerused the record. Cognizance of the offence alleged against the accused is taken Under Section 190(i)(b) of Cr.P.C. Office to register the case in CC register and issue SS to accused by 30-9-2000.Sd/- 4-8-2000'7. Aggrieved by the order dated 04.08.2000 passed by the IV Addl. CMM, the appellant accused preferred a criminal revision under Section 401 Cr.PC praying the High Court to set aside the said order. The said revision was dismissed by the High Court by the impugned order dated 17.02.2004.8. We have perused the entire pleadings and the order passed by the High Court in revision and heard the counsel appearing for the appellant. Though notice was served on the first respondent, no one has entered appearance on his behalf. Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned counsel for the respondent filed vakalatnama on behalf of the State but has not filed any counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 2 - State of Karnataka.9. It is pertinent to notice that the alleged agreement to sell was ex...
Tag this Judgment!