Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(3)ALD78(SC); 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)601; 2005(4)ALT7(SC); 2005(2)BLJR1122; 2005(5)BomCR778; (SCSuppl)2005(3)CHN174; 100(2005)CLT73(SC); 2005(3)CTC227; [2005(3)JCR189(SC)]; JT
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. The core question involved in this appeal is whether a direction for Deoxyribonucleic Acid Test (commonly known as DNA test) can be given in a proceeding for issuance of succession certificate under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (in short the 'Act').3.Challenge in this Appeal is to the order of a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court setting aside the order of learned Administrative Civil Judge, Delhi dated 20.12.1999 whereby he had allowed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the 'CPC') filed by the appellant seeking DNA test of the respondent no.1-Smt. Teeku Dutta and Sh. Ram Saran Dass Sharma, (who is not a party in this appeal). Respondent No.1 has filed case No.86 of 1944 for grant of succession certificate under Section 372 of the Act.4. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:5. The respondent No. 1 filed a petition for grant of Succession Certificate in respect of the properties of o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(2)ALD(Cri)323; JT2005(5)SC351; (2005)11SCC245
B.P. Singh, J.1. The sole appellant before us Balwan Singh has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and to six months imprisonment under Section 323/34 IPC by judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.314-D of 1997 dated 20th August, 1998. The appellant A-1 along with Jai Singh A-2, Inder Singh A3 and Rakesh A-4 were put up for trial. The Sessions Judge, Sonepat by judgment and order dated 21/22 March, 1997 acquitted A4 Rakesh but found remaining accused guilty of the offences under Sections 302/34 and 323/34 IPC. The High Court in appeal affirmed the conviction of the appellant herein under Sections 302 and 323/34 IPC but acquitted A2 and A3 of the charge under Section 302/34 IPC and convicted them instead under Section 323 IPC for causing simple injuries to some of the witnesses. A2 was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and A3 was released on probation. Therefore, the said A2 and A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. An application seeking review of the judgment passed by the High Court in second appeal has bene dismissed on the ground 'not maintainable'. The learned single Judge of the High Court has held that as against a judgment in second appeal 'a remedy by way of application of review is entirely misconceive'. This proposition seems to have been too widely stated by the learned Judge. We clarify that a judgment in second appeal may also be open to review subject to a ground therefore being available within the meaning of Rule 1 Order XLVII of the Civil Procedure Code.2. So far as the present case is concerned, having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner independent of the view formed by the High Court, we are satisfied that a case for review of the judgment was not made out.3. The special leave petition is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. The question in this appeal is whether the intermediate chemicals which are formed in the process of manufacture of Butachlor are liable to tax under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 (referred to as the Act). The two chemicals in question are Diethyl Chloro Acetanilide (DECA) and Chloro Methyl Butyl Ether (CMBE).2. The period in question is 1989 to 1991, During this period of lime, Butachlor was exempted from payment of excise duty. However, a demand was raised by the Assistant Collector (Excise) on the appellant in respect of the intermediate products because they were 'coming into existence'. The demand, however, was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) who was of the view that the Assistant Collector had not come to any finding whether the products in question could be treated as marketable. It was held that there was no factual basis whatsoever on the basis of which the Assistant Collector could have reached the conclusion that the products were marketable and unles...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2435; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)832; 2005(2)BLJR1113; [2005(3)JCR192(SC)]; JT2005(11)SC187; RLW2005(3)SC379; (2005)7SCC748
B.P. Singh, J.1. We have heard counsel for the parties.2. The facts not in dispute are that lands belonging to the appellant were acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The collector reads his Award against which the appellant preferred a references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the same was pending when the Land Acquisition Amendment Bill was introduced in the Parliament on 30th April, 1982 and the Amendment Act came into force from 24th September, 1984. In between these two dates Reference Court made its Award on February 10, 1983. After the Award the appellant received the amount awarded to him and did not prefer a further appeal therefrom.In the year 1995 the appellant filed an application under Section 152 C.P.C. before the Special Sub-Judge, Ranchi claiming that he was entitled to the benefit conferred by Sections 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by the Amendment act. The learned Sub-Judge held that the said applicat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2485; 2005CriLJ2597; JT2005(6)SC55; (2005)4SCC349
B.P. Singh, J.1. This matter has been settled between the parties happily and a joint application has been filed by the appellant and the respondent under Section 320(5) Cr.P.C. for compounding the offence. A joint application is accompanied by affidavits of both the appellants and the respondent. The terms have been set out in para 3 of the joint petition, which is as follows:-'(a)The aggregate fine amount of Rs.8,000/- paid into the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Tuticorin by both the appellants will be made over to the respondent.(b)No further disputes of any nature will be raised by either the appellants or the respondent in respect of the matters concerning the present case.'2. Having regard to the facts of the case, we are of the view that permission may be granted to the parties to compound the offence. Accordingly, permission is granted and order is passed in terms of the settlement reached between the parties which is extracted above.3. In view of the compounding of the off...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC4031; 2005(100)ECC1; 2005(183)ELT225(SC); JT2005(4)SC577; (2005)7SCC159
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. This appeal is preferred against the Final Order of the Customs Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dated 22.6.1999 in Final Order No. 879/99-A in Appeal No. E/1225/95-A holding that the appellants are liable to pay excise duty on the basis of the sale price of the buyer to its dealers in Uttar Pradesh and not based on the appellants' sale price to independent dealers.2. The appellant is a company manufacturing detergent powder and allied products in its factory near Ghaziabad in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The appellant sells its goods from the factory to dealers spread throughout the country other than Uttar Pradesh at a particular price. It has paid excise duty for these sales on this price. No dispute has been raised by the Excise Department in respect of these sales.3. The appellants also sold the goods in the State of Uttar Pradesh to a company called Syndet & Chemical Industries Ltd. (for short 'Syndet') at a price which was lower. Syndet, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2466; 2005CriLJ2583; JT2005(5)SC109; (2005)11SCC242
B.P. Singh, J.1. We have heard counsel for the parties.2. The appellant herein along with 40 others was put up for trial before the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Srikakulam charged variously under Sections 302/149/324/329 read with Section 149 and Section 148 etc. of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.). The Trial Court by its judgment and order dated 17th April, 1997 found the appellant herein guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. He was also found guilty of the offence under Sections 148 and 324 IPC. Three other accused namely A2 to A4 were found guilty of the offence under Section 302/149 IPC. Out of the remaining some were convicted for minor offences and some were acquitted. It is not necessary to give those details.3. The matter came up in appeal before the High Court and the High Court while affirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC acquitted him of the charges under Sections 324 and 148 IPC. So far as A2 to A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2429; 2005(2)ESC252; [2005(105)FLR765]; JT2005(4)SC608; (2005)IILLJ1085SC; (2005)4SCC592; 2005(2)SLJ432(SC)
C.K. Thakker, J.1. Leave granted.2. The present appeals arise out of orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh on October 18, 2001 in several Letters Patent Appeals. By those orders, the Division Bench set aside the orders passed by the learned single Judge in various Writ Petitions filed by the petitioners and dismissed those petitions.3. To appreciate the controversy raised by the parties, relevant facts of the first matter (S.L.P. No. 6360 of 2002) may be stated.4. The said appeal is filed by one Hari Chand along with three appellants and legal representatives of one Mr. Gardia. From the record, it appears that these five persons were employees of the Faridabad Development Board which was converted into Faridabad Notified Area Committee, later on renamed as Faridabad Complex Administration and finally as Faridabad Municipal Corporation. The particulars of their service are as detailed below;Appellant Name Date of Date of No. Appointment ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2382; 2005(2)ALD(Cri)57; 2005CriLJ2602; JT2005(5)SC9; 2005(2)KLT840(SC); (2005)10SCC581; 2005(2)LC1001(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench affirming his conviction for offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment as imposed by the trial court. The revision application filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code') was dismissed. Initially four persons had faced trial. Three of them were acquitted. 3. The prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:-On 8th of July, 1990, in the evening Naseeb Alam (PW-1) was going to his house from Sadullanagar market. At about 4.30 P.M. in front of Village Parsarampur on the road, four accused persons, who were co-villagers met him. Due to old animosity, they began to utter vulgar abuses. Upon objection, accused-appellant Anwarul Haq inflicted blows by the knife carried...
Tag this Judgment!