Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2005)4CompLJ233(SC); JT2005(4)SC32; (2005)4SCC72
Ashok Bhan, J.1. These appeals are statutory appeals under Section 18 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 [for short 'the Act'] against the final judgments and orders dated 29.7.2002 and 19.12.2002 passed by the Telecom Disputes Settlement & Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi [for short 'the Tribunal'] dismissing the appellant's applications for condonation of delay and consequently the statutory appeal No. 1 of 2002 and Appeal No. 9 of 2002 under Section 14A read with Section 14A(2) of the Act challenging the order/determination dated 15.6.2001 and order/letter dated 29.8.2002 passed by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India.2. At the first instance Appeal No. 7200 of 2002 arising from the Appeal No. 1 of 2002 decided on 29.7.2002 will be taken up for consideration and thereafter the second appeal No. 1816 of 2003.3. We are stating the facts as found by the Tribunal, as there is no dispute on them.4. Appellant is a licensee to provide basic telephone services to subsc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2106; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)529; 2005(2)AWC1757(SC); 2005(2)CTC700; JT2005(11)SC80; 2005(2)KLT505(SC); (2005)3MLJ80(SC); (2005)11SCC122
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. In this petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution') some questions of seminal importance have been raised. Factual position as indicated by the petitioners needs to be noted in a nutshell as the issues are pristinely legal.2. Petitioner No. 1 is undergoing treatment at Devaki Hospital Ltd. at Chennai for renal disorder. The hospital in question is duly approved by the authorities under, the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994 (in short the 'Act') read with Transplantation of Human Organs Rules, 1995 (in short the 'Rules') and is permitted to undertake Kidney transplantation. Doctors treating petitioner No. 1 were of the view that both the kidneys of petitioner No. 1 have failed to function. Petitioner No. 2 wanted to donate one kidney to petitioner No. 1 to save his life. The gesture was actuated by love and affection and there is no other consideration involved.3. An application was made under the Act before res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2005(4)SC5; 2005(4)KarLJ145; (2005)11SCC130
ORDER1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. The appellant herein is the owner of three shops situate in Kollegal Town, which is a town municipal council constituted as such under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. The appellant filed eviction petitions under the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 (since repealed) for eviction of the respondents-tenants on the ground of bona fide need for personal occupation. Eviction was ordered by the learned Munsif. The District Judge, Mysore confirmed the eviction order on a revision filed by the aggrieved tenants under Section 50(2) of the said Act. Thereupon, the respondents filed further revisions before the High Court of Karnataka under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. During the pendency of revisions in the High Court, the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 came into force on and from 31st December, 2001. Before the revision petitions were taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the tenants filed a Memo stating that the premi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2090; 2005(2)BLJR1223; (2005)4CompLJ249(SC); 2005(2)ESC225; [2005(105)FLR630]; [2005(4)JCR124(SC)]; JT2005(4)SC40; (2005)IILLJ461SC; (2005)6SCC321; [2005]61SCL144(
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this Appeal is to correctness of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court holding that the order directing respondent's dismissal from service was in violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, it was held that the order was passed without proper application of mind regarding the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority on the basis of report of the enquiry officer, and relating to imposition of punishment. However, High Court permitted the respondent - writ petitioner to make a detailed representation to the Disciplinary Authority in respect of the enquiry proceedings and findings, within a stipulated time and direction was given to the Disciplinary Authority to consider the submission and pass a fresh order. High Court further directed that the period during which respondent was out of service was to be treated as period under suspension, and the employee was to be paid subsistence allo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2197; 2005(2)CTC591; JT2005(5)SC539; (2005)4SCC21; [2005]140STC267(SC)
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. These appeals were filed against the order dated 15.11.1999 in S.T.A.Nos. 31 and 32 of 1996 on the file of the High Court of Karnataka vide which, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein.2. The appellant is a dealer registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') engaged in the activity of hulling paddy and is also a trader in rice, paddy husk and rice bran. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bellary passed an order of assessment under Section 12(3) of the Act vide order dated 12.07.1990 for the assessment years 1987-88 and 1988-89.3. The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Devangere Zone, Devangere issued notices dated 16.02.1994 and 21.03.1994 under Section 22A of the Act proposing to revise the order of assessment dated 12.07.1990 passed by the Assessing Authority on the ground that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC4138; 2005(5)BomCR374; JT2005(3)SC607; (2005)140PLR743; (2005)4SCC613
Ashok Bhan, J.1. These appeals by grant of leave are directed against the common judgment and order of affirmation passed by the High Court of Bombay at Goa in First Appeal No.27 of 1992 and appeal from order No.69 of 1991. The suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant') was dismissed by the District Judge, South Goa, Mormugao by judgment dated 30th December, 1991 on the ground that the same was not maintainable for want of notice under Section 120 of the Major Port Trust Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and that the suit was barred by limitation. This judgment was challenged in First Appeal No.27 of 1992. Prior to that District Judge vide order dated 30th April, 1991, had come to the conclusion that Section 120 of the Act was applicable to the present case. Against this order the appellant had filed an appeal from order 69 of 1991. The two appeals having arisen from the same suit were heard together and disposed of by the High Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(3)ALD72(SC); 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)598; (2005)4CompLJ459(SC); 119(2005)DLT364(SC); JT2005(11)SC234; 2005(3)KLT224(SC); (2005)4MLJ9(SC)
ORDER1. The Fast Track Courts Scheme was recommended by the XIth Finance Commission for setting up 1734 Courts to dispose of long pending cases, particularly on the criminal side in the subordinate judiciary, In that regard, Rs. 502.90 crores was allocated. The allocations recommended by the XIth Finance Commission covered the period 2000-01 to 2004-05.2. By affidavit dated 8th July, 2004 filed on behalf of Union of India, this Court was informed that the matter of continuation of the above Scheme beyond five years has been taken up with XIIth Finance Commission. By the said affidavit, this Court was further informed that the Law Ministry had written a letter on 17.4.2003 to the Chairperson of the XIIth Finance Commission to favourably consider the proposals for the upgradation of judicial infrastructure including continuation of Fast Track Courts Scheme and also for creation of another 1500 Fast Track Courts of Magistrates for dealing with non-sessions cases and other criminal matters...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2101; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)527; II(2005)BC530(SC); 2005(4)BomCR603; [2005]125CompCas10(SC); (2005)4CompLJ499(SC); JT2005(4)SC7; (2005)3SCC708; [2005]59SCL499(SC); 2005(
R.C. Lahoti, C.J.1. This appeal is directed against an order of interlocutory nature passed by the Special Court constituted under the provisions of the Special Courts (Trial of Offences Relating To Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 (hereinafter 'the Act', for short).2. Sale of certain properties is being held. The appellants do not dispute the liability of the properties to be sold for the recovery of dues. The Special Court initially directed the High Court Receiver to hold the sale of the properties. It appears that the High Court Receiver was not able to hold the sale proceedings expeditiously and to the satisfaction of the Special Court and the Court formed an opinion that this was because the High Court Receiver was over-burdened with work. The Court directed further proceedings of sale to be conducted by the Custodian appointed under the Act as requisite infrastructure for functioning as Receiver was available with the Custodian. Accordingly, the Court directed the Custodian...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2006)201CTR(SC)63; [2006]280ITR321(SC)
ORDERBy the CourtC.A. No. 5072 of 2004 and C.A. No. 5276 of 2004 :The appellant does not press these appeals. The appeals are accordingly, dismissed for non-prosecution.C.A. Nos. 5399 of 2004 and 5400 of 2004 :2. The appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and carries on business in India. It is the agent of M/s. Satellite Television Asian Region Limited, Hong Kong (referred to as 'Star', Hong Kong). The business of Star is to telecast channels from satellites situated outside India. Some of the channels are available and enjoyed by the customers in India. According to the appellant, it does not broadcasting, but merely sells time slots for advertisement and obtain sponsors for the serials, programmes or live events, etc. Thus, when the service of broadcasting was introduced in the Finance Act, 1994 as a taxable service with effect from 16-7-2001, by the Finance Act, 2001, the appellant disputed its liability to make any payment of service tax on the ground t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : II(2005)BC443(SC); [2005]124CompCas797(SC); (2005)4CompLJ513(SC); JT2005(3)SC570; (2005)4SCC456; [2005]60SCL387(SC)
Y.K. Sabharwal, J.1. The question that arises for consideration in these matters is whether Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development Corporation (for short, 'KSIIDC') acted in a bona fide manner in sale of the properties of the borrower exercising its right under Section 29 of State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (for short, 'the Act').2. The appeals have been preferred by KSIIDC as well as M/S Vinpack Investments Pvt Ltd., the purchaser (for short 'Vinpack') against the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court directing KSIIDC to undertake the entire sale process once again and give opportunity to respondent No. 1 to bring better offer for the properties.3. Respondent No. 1, M/S Cavalet Industries Ltd. (for short, 'the borrower') borrowed a sum of Rs. 116.30 lakhs from KSIIDC as per the sanction letter dated 22nd April, 1991. The borrower committed defaults in payment of the installments and, therefore, KSIIDC on 30th March, 1995 passed an ord...
Tag this Judgment!