Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2005]147TAXMAN422(SC)
ORDER1. Issue notice.2. Until further orders, operation of the impugned orders rendered by the High Court shall remain stayed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(5)CTC700; 122(2005)DLT364(SC); [2005(106)FLR917]; JT2005(6)SC450; (2005)IIILLJ475SC; (2005)6SCC106; 2005(3)SLJ449(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. The union of India and the Additional Commissioner of Police (OPS), New Delhi have questioned correctness of the order passed by a Division Bench of the Delhi. High Court dismissing writ petition filed by the present appellants as infructuous.2. The controversy lies within a very narrow compass and is as under:Respondent (herein referred to as the 'employee') was proceeded against departmentally on the charge that on 27/28.2.1996 while posted in the vigilance cell at the Indira Gandhi International Airport he accepted illegal gratification for getting two Afghan nationals cleared through Customs without paying the Customs duty payable. He was ultimately dismissed by the disciplinary authority by order dated 7.8.1997. The appeal preferred by him was also rejected by the appellate authority by order dated 20.11.1997. Challenging these orders the respondent-employee filed Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (in s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3087; 2005(4)AWC3210(SC); 2005(3)BLJR2122; 2006(1)BomCR882; [2005]126CompCas809(SC); 2005(5)CTC195; 2005(2)CTLJ121(SC); [2005(4)JCR34(SC)]; JT2005(6)SC416; 2005(4)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted in S.L.Ps.2. These appeals involving common questions of fact and law were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.3. The basic fact of the matter is as under:The Life Insurance Corporation (for short 'the Corporation') was created under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). It floated a 'Salary Savings Scheme' which envisaged a life insurance policy for the salaried class employees a proposal where for was made to the concerned employers. Although the Scheme as such is not on records of the case, the same has been referred to at some detail in the judgment of this Court in Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking v. Basanti Devi and Anr. : AIR2000SC43 and we intend to refer thereto in extenso as it throws considerable light on the issue which falls for our determination.4. The Corporation issued a brochure in relation to the said Scheme wherein it was stated:'It is a simple, economical plan where...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3794; 2005(4)AWC3301(SC); (SCSuppl)2006(1)CHN1; JT2005(6)SC536; (2005)11SCC218
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Leave granted.2. The above appeals were preferred by the appellant/plaintiff against the final judgment dated 11.03.2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in O.S.A. Nos. 23 and 24 of 2003 and Cross Objection Nos. 4 and 5 of 2003. Respondent Nos. 1-3 - T.N. Kasiviswanathan, T.N. Natarajan and T.N. Shanmughavel and the appellant - T.N. Rajasekar are brothers. The fourth respondent Kalyani Gopalan is the sister of the appellant. The appellant's brother T.N. Ganapathi was sick and died on 06.05.1997 leaving the appellant and the respondents herein as his legal representatives of Class-II heir as per the Hindu Succession Act.3. The suit property is the absolute property of T.N. Ganapthi. He died unmarried and issueless. The appellant and the respondents have succeeded to his estate.4. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant T.N. Rajasekar and the first respondent T.N. Kasiviswanathan died. Their legal representatives were brought on record in I.A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC4192; 2005(3)ESC451; [2005(106)FLR910]; JT2005(6)SC444; 2005(3)KLT754(SC); (2005)6SCC49; 2005(3)SLJ113(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. State of Uttar Pradesh and Executive Engineer, Sharda Sahayak Khand-36, Jaunpur, U.P. calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court holding that the respondent's date of birth was 1.9.1939 and not 1.9.1930 as claimed by the appellant-State.2. Factual background in a nutshell is as follows:The respondent-employee was engaged as Class IV employee on 2.1.1972. In the service records the date of birth was indicated to be 1.9.1930. By order dated 31.1.1991 the Executive Engineer-appellant no.2 intimated the respondent-employee that he had superannuated on 30.9.1990 having completed 60 years of age. It was indicated that by mistake he was allowed to work for three months more and paid, and, therefore, direction was given to refund the amount. The said order dated 31.1.1991 was challenged by the respondent in a writ petition. His stand was that according to the school records his date of birth was 1.9.1939 and without ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : III(2005)ACC508; AIR2005SC3971; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)852; 2005(4)AWC3304(SC); 2005(5)CTC695; [2006(2)JCR161(SC)]; JT2005(6)SC476; (2005)141PLR543; (2005)6SCC156
Ashok Bhan, J.1. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (c) No. 5591 of 1999 & 9788 of 1998.2. In this batch of three appeals the question which arises for determination is as to whether the High Court was justified in exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and award compensation to the respondent writ petitioners even though the appellants - who was the respondent in the writ petition - had denied the liability on the ground that the deaths had not occurred as a result of their negligence but because of the negligence of the respondent themselves or of an act of God or because of an act of some other persons. These appeals were ordered to be listed along with the case - Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (GRIDCO) and Ors. v. Sukamani Das (Smt.) and Anr., : (1999)7SCC298, but were delinked as the service had not been completed on the respondents. The Bench disposed of the batch of 10 appeals and these appeals were ordered to be heard after service i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3081; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)861; 2005(3)AWC3055(SC); (SCSuppl)2006(1)CHN18; JT2005(6)SC429
Arun Kumar, J.1. The question for consideration in this appeal is: Whether a suit to establish a right to be hereditary 'archaks' (Pujaris) in a temple and a share in the offerings made to the deity, is a suit in relation to personal/ private right of the archaks or it is a suit in the nature of exercising a public right in a public trust? The question has arisen in the context of bar created by Section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. Regarding suits falling within the categories enumerated in Section 50 of the Act, either the Charity Commissioner has to file them or they have to be filed after obtaining consent in writing of the Charity Commissioner.2. Briefly, the facts are: the plaintiffs (respondents herein) claiming to be hereditary archaks of the temple in suit from times immemorial and having a right to perform their duties (poojapal)as archaks in the temple, filed a civil suit for declaration to establish these rights. According to the plaintiffs, their family has bee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3975; 2005(101)ECC409; 2005(186)ELT261(SC); JT2005(6)SC474; (2005)6SCC63
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. This is an appeal under section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short 'the said Act').2. M/s Apex Traders, Sahibabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') were engaged in the manufacture of aerated waters of brands, namely, Thums Up, Limca and Gold Spot in the pack sizes of 500 ml. and 1000 ml. falling under chapter 22 of the schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The assessee filed its price-list in part-I effective from 1.3.1994 in respect of 1000 ml. and 500 ml. glass bottle packs of durable and returnable nature. They also filed the price-list in part-I effective from 1.3.1994 in respect of plastic bottled packs of 1000 ml. of non-returnable nature of brands, namely, Thums Up, Limca and Gold Spot. The assessee claimed deduction from the wholesale trade price on account of freight and rent on containers (ROC). By Finance Act, 1994, the Central Excise Rules were amended and the practice of filing of price-list was abolished. Therefore, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3977; 2005(101)ECC433; 2005(186)ELT257(SC); JT2005(6)SC439; (2005)6SCC58
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. A short question which arises for determination in these appeals filed by the department under Section 35-L (b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short 'the said Act') is whether the assessee had undervalued the aerated water by excluding two items, namely, the amounts received under credit notes as price support incentive and rent on containers (ROC) from the assessable value?2. For the sake of convenience, we mention hereinbelow the facts in civil appeal No. 772 of 2001, in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-I v. Bisleri International Private Limited(formerly known as M/s Coolade Beverages Ltd.).3. M/s. Coolade Beverages Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') were manufacturers of aerated waters. The manufacturing activity of the assessee basically consisted of bottling. The assessee obtained the concentrate (raw-material) for aerated water from a subsidiary of Coca Cola Corporation. The name of that subsidiary was M/s Britco Food Compa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3107; [2005(106)FLR915]; [2006(1)JCR176(SC)]; JT2005(6)SC410; (2005)IIILLJ350SC; (2005)6SCC70; 2006(1)SLJ64(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. The Union of India calls in question legality of the order passed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by it. By the impugned order the High Court summarily dismissed the writ petition and in effect affirmed the view expressed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (in short 'the Tribunal'), though it did not specifically refer to it.2. Factual background needs to be stated in brief:Respondent filed an original application before the Tribunal claiming that he was engaged as a casual labourer for quite sometime and has been disengaged by verbal order on 31.12.2000. According to him, he had completed the requisite period of service for grant of temporary status. According to him his case is clearly covered by the Scheme circulated by Department of Personnel & Training (in short 'DOPT') in the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, P.G. and Pensions. It was claimed that the department had circu...
Tag this Judgment!