Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2758; 2005(3)ALD63(SC); 2005(2)AWC1504(SC); 2005(2)BLJR1160; (SCSuppl)2005(3)CHN138; [2005(3)JCR163(SC)]; JT2005(4)SC98; (2005)3MLJ101(SC); (2005)11SCC251
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Leave granted.2. The main issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether an issue, already settled in a suit between the same parties in respect of certain subject matter, can be allowed to be raised again between the very same parties in regard to the same subject matter, but in a different suit.3. The issue involved in the earlier proceedings was whether respondent No.1 could raise the issue that there was interpolation in the clause relating to renewal of lease deed in the agreement between the parties dated 02.09.1978. The High Court held that the said respondent could not raise that issue as she had expressly given it up. This was affirmed by this Court when the respondent challenged the order of the High Court before this Court in S.L.P.(C) No. 16513 of 2001 dated 13.09.2002. Now respondent No.1 seeks to re-agitate the very same issue in another suit between the same parties. According to the appellants, the said issue cannot now be raised as t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3011; (2006)1CALLT79(SC); (SCSuppl)2005(3)CHN92; JT2005(4)SC222; (2005)141PLR99; (2005)5SCC230
A.K. Mathur, J.1. This appeal is directed against an order passed by learned Division Bench of Calcutta High Court dated November 26,1997 in First Appeal No. 469 of 1980 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the application of the Respondent No. 1 and directed the appellant to execute the lease deed with regard to premises Nos. 21/1/C and 21/1/D, Gora Chand Road, Calcutta-700 014 in terms of the order dated May 5, 1986 within a period of six weeks from the date of order i.e. November 26,1997 for a period of 21 years commencing from the date of grant of relevant permission by the Court, in default, it would be open to the respondent No. 1 to apply before the trial court for execution of the lease. It was further directed that the respondent No. 1 was to pay the arrear of occupation charges after adjustment of the amounts already paid by him with regard to the concerned properties and excluding the period of non- possession of the premises No. 21/1/C in terms of the letter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2441; 2005(3)ALD102(SC); 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)689; 2005(1)ARC861; 2005(2)AWC1490(SC); 2005(2)BLJR1422; 2005(3)BomCR906; 2005(3)CTC355; JT2005(4)SC204; 2005(2)KLT623(SC)
R.C. Lahoti, C.J.Facts in brief1. Elections of Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council were held pursuant to the Presidential notification dated 7.11.2003. The appellant was declared elected. Respondent No. 1 filed an election petition under Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter 'the Act', for short) laying challenge to the election of the appellant.2. The appellant was served with the summons, accompanied by a copy of the election petition, requiring his appearance before the Court on 6.4.2004. On the appointed day, the appellant appeared through his counsel and sought for one month's time for filing the written statement. The Court allowed time till 13.5.2004 for filing the written statement. On 13.5.2004, the appellant again filed an application seeking further time for filing the written statement on the ground that copies of several documents were required to be obtained. The Court adjourned the hearing to 3.7.2004 as, in between, from 13.5.2004 to 2.7.20...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2228; 2005(99)ECC723; 2005(182)ELT436(SC); JT2005(11)SC101; (2005)4SCC298
Ruma Pal, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant has two mills in which it manufactures hot rolled steel products. With effect from 1st September 1997, the Government of India notified ingots and billets under Section 3-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for levy of excise duty on the basis of the annual capacity of production (ACP) of the factory. To give effect to the scheme, Rules were framed for determination of the annual capacity of production of a factory producing such notified goods known as the Induction Furnace Annual Capacity Determination Rules 1977. By the Rules, the ACP of a factory was taken to be a fixed multiple of the total capacity of the furnaces installed in the factory. The manner of levy and collection of duty was governed by Rule 96(ZP) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 also issued under Section 3A of the Act. Circular dated 26th February 1998 had been issued by way of a clarification in answer to questions raised in connection with the operation of the Rules. One ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2461; JT2005(4)SC89; (2005)5SCC347
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur upsetting judgment of a learned Single Judge who held that the Municipal Council, Kymore, presently known as Kymore Nagar Panchayat (hereinafter referred to as the 'Municipal Council') is bound by the Government Order dated 15.12.1995 issued by the State Government under the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act'). Learned Single Judge was of the view that the power vests with the State Government who issued the said Government Order and there is no justification on the part of the Municipal Council in making the impugned demands on the basis of rates fixed by it. It was consequentially declared that the present appellant was not liable to pay the differential sum and was only required to pay tax at the rate of 0.20% as fixed by the State Government.2. The factual position which is almost undisputed is essentially as fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2250; 2005(3)AWC2343(SC); JT2005(4)SC62; (2005)4SCC424
A.K. Mathur, J.1. In all these four appeals, the questions of law and facts involved are common, as such they are disposed of by this common order.2. This case has a chequered history. But before we enter into the chequered history, a few important facts may be noticed. The route from Bijnore Noorpur-Chandpur was notified under a scheme which was published in the Official Gazette of the State of U.P. on February 12,1951. Thereafter, by another Gazette Notification dated October 15,1962, a scheme was prepared from Bojnore to Muzaffarnagar route of Meerut region. It was directed that the State Road Transport service shall commence operation from November 15,1962 or thereafter. Thereafter, on September 28,1977, another route was notified from Muzaffarnagar to Bijnore via Bhopa, Morna and Rawalighat. This was again modified by another Notification dated 3rd September, 1994 after hearing objections, Muzaffarnagar to Bijnor route of Meerut region i.e. Muzaffarnagar via Jansath, Meerapur, Dew...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2132; (SCSuppl)2006(1)CHN41; 2005(3)CTC764; JT2005(4)SC170; (2005)5SCC194
H.M. Sema, J.1. These appeals by special leave are preferred by accused Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 against their conviction concurrently recorded by two Courts. A-3 served out the sentence and A-5 died during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court and his appeal stands abated. They were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment as under:-Charge Nos.Convicted under SectionAccusedSentence of Imprisonment/ fine imposed.(1)(2)(3)(4)1.120(B) I.P.C.A-1 to A-7No Separate sentence.2.376(2)(c) I.P.C. (12 Counts)A-1Imprisonment for Life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,10,000/- on each count. In default Rigorous Imprisonment for a further period of Two years and Six months. (Total Fine Rs. 61,20,000/-. Imprisonment for life on each count is to run concurrently.3.376 r/w 109 I.P.C.A-2, A-4, A-6 & A-7 A-3Imprisonment for Life on each accused. Rigorous Imprisonment for Two years, 7 months and 2 days (period of sentence already undergone) and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default. Rigorous Imprisonm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2071; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)515; 2005(1)ARBLR608(SC); II(2005)BC585(SC); (SCSuppl)2005(4)CHN88; JT2005(4)SC73; (2005)6SCC462
C.K. Thakker, J.1. Leave granted.2. All these appeals arise out of common judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta in APOT Nos. 721 of 2002 and 736 of 2002 on July 03, 2003 by which the Division Bench confirmed the order passed by learned single Judge on July 24, 2002 in A.P. No. 369 of 2002. That A.P. was filed by Hindustan Copper Limited against Arbitration award passed by Justice L.M. Ghosh (Retd.) on September 25, 2000, under the Arbitration Act 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').3. To appreciate the controversy raised in the present appeals, relevant facts may be stated in brief. On March 10, 1988, Hindustan Copper Limited ('HCL' for short) invited tender for supply of oxygen for its plant at Ghatsila The tender contained a condition that successful bidder will set up an oxygen plant in the vicinity of HCL. The tender of Bhagwati Oxygen Limited ('BOL' for short) was accepted and an agreement had been entered into between HCL and BOL on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2080; 2005CriLJ2179; 118(2005)DLT710(SC); [2005(2)JCR228(SC)]; JT2005(4)SC109; (2005)5SCC181
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. The true scope and ambit of Section 51 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 (in short the 'Act') falls for determination. Notice dated 20.5.2002, was issued by Deputy Commissioner of Police, (South-West) District, New Delhi, under Section 50 of the Act requiring the notice to show cause as to why action in terms of Section 47 of the Act should not be taken against him. In the notice it was noted that since March 1997 he was engaged in several illegal acts in his activities and movement in the area of P.S. Dwarka, were causing alarm to the residents. List of 7 cases under various penal statutes on the basis of the records of the concerned police station was given. It was indicated that the witnesses including camera witnesses were not willing to give evidence in public against him because of the fear of danger to their person and properties. There was no written reply to the notice, but the notice appeared and examined a witness to show that he was innocen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(99)ECC665; 2005(182)ELT289(SC); (2005)3SCC645
ORDER1. These Appeals are filed against the Judgment of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT), at New Delhi dated 28th February, 2003.2. The only question raised for our consideration is whether the Tribunal has power to reduce penalty under Section 11AC The Tribunal has held that this was not a fit case for imposition of penalty equivalent to the amount of duty and has reduced penalty to Rs. 25,000/-.3. On the facts of this case we see no reason to interfere. We leave open the question whether the Tribunal has power to reduce penalty to be decided in an appropriate case.4. The Appeals will accordingly stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!