Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC1906; 2005(99)ECC305; 2005(182)ELT12(SC); JT2005(3)SC361; (2005)3SCC489
Arijit Pasayat, J. 1. The Revenue is in appeal against the judgment rendered by the Customs Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Bench, Calcutta (in short the 'CEGAT'). Since there was a difference of opinion between the Member (Judicial) and the Member (Technical), the matter was referred to a third member i.e. another Member (Technical). By majority 108 appeals filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'assessee') were allowed. There were essentially two issues involved. The first related to the question as to whether packing charges realized by the assessee from its customers in different situations for different types of packing would form part of assessable value of the final product or not to attract duty under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (in short the 'Act'). Second question was whether some of the show-cause notices were issued beyond the period prescribed under Section 11A of the Act. The majority view was in favour of the assessee in respect of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)802; [2007(115)FLR675]; (2005)IIILLJ522SC; (2005)12SCC141
ORDER1. Special Leave granted.2. We have heard Counsel for the parties at length.3. In this Appeal the question which arises for our consideration is whether the Labour Court, Aurangabad could have answered the reference in the negative merely on the ground that the reference made to it by the appropriate Government was delayed by several years. The Reference made to the Labour Court was in the following terms:-'Shri Shahaji Narayan Shewale (Labour) should be reinstated with full back wages and continuity of service with effect from 1.6.1980.'4. The case of the Appellant was that his services were terminated with effect from June 1, 1980. The conciliation proceeding took place much later in the year 1996 where after a reference was made to the Labour Court, Aurangabad under Clause c of Sub-section (1) of Section 10 read with Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court did not entertain the dispute on the ground that there was delay in making the reference, therefo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC1836; 2005(1)ARBLR401(SC); 2005(3)AWC2942(SC); 2005(2)CTC148; JT2005(3)SC186; (2005)141PLR670; (2005)10SCC728; 2005(1)LC552(SC)
D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.1. The appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Madras. By the impugned order, the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction has set aside the order of sub-ordinate Judge, Tuticorin whereby the latter had allowed substitution of the deceased arbitrator on the panel of seven arbitrators appointed by the parties under the arbitration agreement. The case is governed by the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The property which is the subject matter of arbitration agreement, is the land in occupation of the appellant as a tenant and on which by building a superstructure he is carrying on his business of Coffee House.2. It is not in dispute that the land involved has been inherited by two brothers (respondents herein) and three sisters. It is reported that one of the sisters is dead and had left behind her heirs. The sisters and heirs of deceased sister are not parties to either the Arbitration proceeding...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(3)ALD1(SC); 2005(2)AWC1018(SC); 2005(1)BLJR758; [2005(3)JCR57(SC)]; JT2005(11)SC177; (2005)3SCC601
R.C. Lahoti, C.J.1. An election petition presented under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter 'the Act', for short) has been directed to be dismissed as barred by time. Feeling aggrieved, the election petitioner has filed this appeal under Section 116A of the Act.2. Shorn of all details, suffice it to state that the last date of limitation for presenting the election petition was 28.8.2003. What transpired in the High Court at the presentation may be described in the words of the learned designated Election Judge himself from the impugned judgment of the High Court. The relevant part is extracted and reproduced hereunder :'.....The admitted position is that the period of limitation of forty five days expired on 27.8.2003 on which date the designated Judge was sitting in court till 4.15 P.M. The court hours having expired, the designated election Judge retired into the chambers where at 4.45 P.M. Sri P.K. Verma, the learned counsel for the appellant came...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC1891; 2005(3)ALD6(SC); 2005(1)ARC887; 2005(2)AWC1023(SC); 2005(2)BLJR937; (SCSuppl)2005(2)CHN137; 100(2005)CLT297(SC); 2005(2)CTC582; JT2005(3)SC278; 2005(2)KLT491
R.C. Lahoti, C.J.1. In respect of a property situated in the metropolitan city of Calcutta, a lease of immovable property for a fixed term commencing 1.4.1964 and expiring on 24.6.1984 evidenced by a registered deed of lease dated 17.7.1964, came into existence. The lessee entered into possession of the leased premises on 1.4.1964. On 26.9.1983, the lessor served a notice on the lessee informing the lessee that the tenancy was to expire on 24.6.1984 and, therefore, on that day the lessee must deliver vacant possession of the demised premises to the lessor. On 8.11.1983, the lessee sent a reply taking a firm stand that he would not vacate the demised premises in terms of the lease deed and the request contained in the communication dated 8.11.1983. The lessee also disputed the entitlement of the lessor to demand possession from the lessee on a plea that the title of the lessor to claim possession had itself come to an end on account of eviction by a paramount title- holder. On 16.4.1984...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2119; 2005(1)ALD(Cri)717; 2005CriLJ2161; 118(2005)DLT329(SC); JT2005(3)SC195; 2005(3)MhLj530; 2005(II)OLR(SC)102; (2005)4SCC370; 2005(1)LC675(SC)
G.P. Mathur, J.1. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Crl) No.4111 of 2000.2. In view of conflict of opinion between two decisions of this Court each rendered by a bench of three learned Judges in Surjit Singh v. Balbir Singh : 1996CriLJ2304 and Sachida Nand Singh v. State of Bihar 1998 (2) SCC 493, regarding interpretation of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), this appeal has been placed before the present Bench.3. The facts of the case may be noticed in brief. The appellant nos.1 and 2 are real brothers of Mukhtar Singh Marwah, while respondent nos.1 and 2 are his widow and son respectively. Mukhtar Singh Marwah died on 3.6.1993. The appellant no.1 filed Probate Case No.363 of 1993 in the Court of District Judge, Delhi, for being granted probate of the will allegedly executed by Mukhtar Singh Marwah on 20.1.1993. The petition was contested by the respondents on the ground that the will was forged. On their application the appellant no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC1809; 2005(1)ALD(Cri)691; 2005(1)BLJR827; 2005CriLJ2141; 2005(2)CTC141; I(2005)DMC503SC; (2005)2GLR1378; JT2005(3)SC164; 2005(2)KLT65(SC); (2005)140PLR276; RLW2005; 2005AIRSCW1601
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. A brief reference to the factual position would suffice because essentially the dispute has to be adjudicated with reference to scope and ambit of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code').3. The case at hand according to appellant is a classic example of the inadequacies of law in protecting a woman who unwittingly entered into relationships with a married man. 4. Factual position as projected by the appellant is as follows:-Appellant claims that she was married to respondent No.2 some time in 1994 according to the customary rites and rituals of their caste. Though initially, the respondent No.2 treated her nicely, thereafter he started ill-treating her and she was subjected to mental and physical torture. On enquiry about the reason for such a sudden change in his behavior, the appellant came to know that respondent No.2 had developed illicit relationship with a lady named Veenaben. During the period the appellant ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC1805; 2005(2)ALD(Cri)47; 2005CriLJ2136; JT2005(3)SC137; (2005)10SCC387; 2005(1)LC565(SC)
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. The appellants, who were convicted for offences under Section 302/34 IPC by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, and whose convictions were affirmed on appeal to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, are before this Court by special leave.2. According to the prosecution case, a young lad of 20 years, Lalit Kumar, was murdered by the three appellants by setting him on fire on 14.3.1992 at about 10.00 p.m.. The alleged motive for this heinous act is that the appellants used to advance monies to young boys, including Lalit Kumar, to enable them to gamble, and demand interest on the monies advanced. According to the prosecution, although Lalit Kumar had returned the capital amount, since he failed to return the interest as demanded by the appellants, the appellants killed him in the gruesome manner as alleged. The conviction is based on the dying declaration of Lalit Kumar (Ex. 49) and the evidence of the father of Lalit Kumar, Hanumandas (PW 2).3. Where two c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC1879; (SCSuppl)2005(2)CHN120; 100(2005)CLT235(SC); JT2005(3)SC143; (2005)4SCC245
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. The short question which arises for determination in these civil appeals by grant of special leave by Calcutta Municipal Corporation is - whether the imposition for the process of change in the name of the owner in the assessment books of the corporation is in the nature of 'a fee' or 'tax'.2. For the sake of convenience, we refer to the facts of Civil Appeal No.5631 of 2000.3. Premises bearing No.9A, Jatindra Mohan Avenue, Calcutta - 700 006 belonged to Tapas Ghosh, Meenakshi Sinha and Gayatri Chandra. By several deeds of conveyance, they sold the said premises to M/s Shrey Mercantile (P) Ltd., M/s Drishti Mercantile (P) Ltd. and M/s KIC Resources Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the developers'). The building in the premises was very old and was in a dilapidated condition. The developers decided to construct a new building after demolishing the existing old structure. The developers submitted the building plan for sanction which the corporation refused to accept w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC1897; 2005(99)ECC257; 2005(181)ELT328(SC); JT2005(3)SC296; (2005)4MLJ13(SC); (2005)3SCC738
C.K. Thakker, J.1. Both these appeals arise out of a common order passed by the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Western Regional Bench at Bombay (hereinafter referred to as 'CEGAT') on 1st June, 1999 by which it confirmed the orders in original passed by Assistant Collector Central Excise, Valsad and affirmed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ahmedabad.2. Before dealing with the points raised by the parties in the present appeals, relevant facts of both the cases may be stated in brief. Civil Appeal No. 6832 of 1999 is filed by M/s. Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. ('Mandal' for short). According to the Mandal, it is engaged in manufacturing sugar falling under sub-item (1) of Item No. 1 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The appellant-Mandal vide its letter dated 14th August, 1978 addressed to the Range Forest Officer, Billimora, claimed rebate of Rs. 6,92,779.59 ps. The refund was claime...
Tag this Judgment!