Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3836; JT2005(6)SC298; [2005]142STC1(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. These appeals are inter-linked and, therefore, are taken up together for disposal. Civil Appeal Nos. 2641 and 2642 of 2000 relate to respondent- Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. (in short 'Gujarat Ambuja') while Civil Appeal Nos. 3744-46 of 2000 relate to respondent-Associated Cement Ltd. (in short 'ACC'). The common question so far as the appeals are concerned linking the respondents in the appeals relates to one issue i.e. liability to pay purchase tax on the royalty paid by the respondents. As other issues are involved in Gujarat Ambuja's cases, the factual scenario in Civil Appeal Nos. 2641-2642 of 2000 needs to be noted in some detail.2. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgments rendered by a Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court. Writ Petitions were filed by the present respondents questioning the action taken by the Sales Tax Authorities and the revisional orders passed setting aside the orders of assessment framed for the assessment years 1995-96...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2959; 2005(3)AWC2499(SC); [2005(3)JCR199(SC)]; JT2005(6)SC468; (2005)4MLJ43(SC)
ORDERA.K. Mathur, J. 1. I.A.Nos.14 to 17 have been filed in C.A.Nos.6716-6719 of 1999 with prayer that Order dated 5.4.2005 be recalled as applicants were not served & they may be heard in the matter. We have heard learned counsel for parties and we don't find any merit.2. Applicant No. 1- Omaditya Verma was respondent No. 1 in C.A. No. 6716 of 1999 arising out of S.L.P. (c) No. 18435 of 1998. Dasti notice was served on him on May 25, 1999 in S.L.P. (c) No. 18435 of 1998 and affidavit of dasti service has been sworn in by Shri H.S. Gaba, the Asst. Regional Manager of the appellant.-U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and filed in the Registry along with duplicate copy of the notice which bears his signature. Applicant No. 2- Smt. Santosh was respondent No. 5 in C.A.No. 6716 of 1999 arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 18435 of 1998. Notice in S.L.P(C) No. 18435 of 1998 was duly served on her by registered post and acknowledgment due card which was signed by her on March 5, 1999 has been rece...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3200; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)856; 2005(3)AWC2964(SC); 2005(6)BomCR172; 2005CriLJ3731; [2006(2)JCR174(SC)]; JT2005(6)SC276; 2005(3)MhLj930; 2005MPLJ415(SC); (2005)6SCC98;
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Order passed by learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court giving certain directions while dealing with application filed under Sections 14 and 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (in short the 'Act') read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution') is challenged in this appeal. The foundation of such application was alleged non-compliance of the directions given by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 129/84 by order dated 16th September, 1997. By the impugned order learned Single Judge has given certain directions while disposing of the Contempt Petition.3. According to the learned counsel for the appellants such directions could not have been given while dealing with application for contempt. Such exercise of power is not authorized in law. During the hearing of the application by the High Court the respondent No. 1 (applicant before the High Court) had contended that in v...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2005(4)ALT59(SC); 2005(3)AWC2501(SC); 2005(3)BLJR1752; 2006(1)BomCR870; III(2005)CPJ2(SC); [2006(2)JCR175(SC)]; JT2005(6)SC289; (2006)148PLR143; (2005)5SCC784; 2005(2)LC105
Arijit Pasayat, J. 1. Leave granted.2. The United Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'insurer') and its Branch Manager, Purulia Branch call in question legality of the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short the 'National Commission') upholding the order of the Stats Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short the 'State Commission'). The revision filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the 'Act') was dismissed. The respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'complainant') had lodged a complaint before the District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum. Purulia (in short the 'District Forum') alleging that the appellants had erroneously repudiated the claim made by him for the damage suffered by him on account of an accident covered by the policy of insurance taken by him.3.The factual background in a nutshell is as follows:The complainant is the owner of an Ambassador Diesel Car which was registered as a ta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3987; 2005(3)AWC2483(SC); JT2005(6)SC196; (2005)5SCC793; 2005(2)LC1010(SC)
G.P. Mathur, J.1. This appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') has been preferred by a candidate against the judgment and order dated 3.9.2004 of the High Court of Uttaranchal by which the election petition filed by him challenging the election of the respondent Surendra Singh Negi was dismissed2. The Election Commission of India issued a notification calling upon the electors of Uttaranchal to elect members of Uttaranchal Vidhan Sabha including those from 29 Kotdwar Legislative Assembly Constituency. According to the notification the schedule of the election was as under: -i) Last date for filing of nomination paper 23.1.2002ii) Date of Scrutiny of nomination paper 24.1.2002iii) Date for withdrawal of nomination 28.1.2002iv) Date of poll, if any 14.2.2002v) Date for counting of votes andDeclaration of result 24.2.2002The appellant filed four sets of nomination papers, which were rejected by the Returning Officer o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3966; 2005(3)AWC2492(SC); 2005(3)ESC484; [2005(3)JCR209(SC)]; JT2005(6)SC137; (2005)IIILLJ4SC; (2005)141PLR397; (2005)5SCC591; 2005(3)SLJ170(SC); 2005(2)LC932(SC)
G.P. Mathur. J.1. This appeal, by special leave, has been filed against the judgment and order dated 145.2001 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant challenging the award of Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak directing reinstatement of the respondent Rudhan Singh with continuity of service and 50% back wages was dismissed.2. The respondent Rudhan Singh was appointed in various capacities on a class IV post with the appellant Haryana Roadways and he worked from 16.3.1988 to 28.2.1989 with some breaks. Thereafter, he was not given any appointment. He raised a demand for being reinstated before the Conciliation Officer, Rohtak on 24.8.1991. The conciliation efforts having failed the State Government exercising powers under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the 'Act') made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak as to whether the termination of service of the respondent i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2960; JT2005(6)SC170; (2005)141PLR402; (2005)5SCC569; 2005(3)SLJ186(SC)
G.P. Mathur, J. 1. This appeal, by special leave, has been preferred by the State of Punjab and others challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.1.2001 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana by which the Second Appeal preferred by the appellants was dismissed and the decree passed by the courts below decreeing the respondent's suit was affirmed.2. The respondent Sukhwinder Singh joined on 4.8.1989 as a police constable and was allotted number 644 in District Amritsar in the State of Punjab. He was sent for training at Police Recruit Training College Jahan Khelan. He absented from duty w.e.f. 22.2.1990 without making any application for grant of leave or seeking permission for his absence. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Amritsar, passed the following order on 16.3.1990:-'Constable Sukhwinder Singh No. 644/ASR of this District is discharged from service w.e.f. 16.3.1990 under Punjab Police Rules 12.21 as he is not likely to become an efficient police officer.'The respondent Suk...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3996; 2005CriLJ3435; JT2005(6)SC293; (2005)5SCC554
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. This is another sad example where a learned Single Judge, Madhya Pradesh High Court, totally oblivious of the consequences has passed an order directing reduction of the custodial sentence to the period already undergone. We have come across a large number of such cases which have been disposed of in very casual and mechanical manner with no trace of application of mind regarding the question of sentence.3. The respondents (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') faced trial for commission of offences punishable under Sections 294, 307, 333 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). Allegation was that on 2.4.2002 around 9 P.M. at a public place near the bookstall on platform Nos. 2 & 3 of Harda Railway Station, they misbehaved and abused constable complainant Umesh Singh in vulgar words. They committed criminal intimidation by threatening to kill him. Accused Deepak alias Deepu was charged for commission of offence punishable u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2920; JT2005(6)SC79; (2005)5SCC665
G.P. Mathur, J.1. This writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has been filed by way of public interest litigation for declaring certain provisions of the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, (Act No. 39 of 1983) 1983 as ultra vires the Constitution of India, null and void and consequent declaration that the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Rules made thereunder shall apply to the State of Assam. The second prayer made is to declare the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Rules, 1984 as ultra vires the Constitution of India and also under Section 28 of the aforesaid Act and, therefore, null and void. Some more reliefs have been claimed which will be referred to at the appropriate stage. The respondents to the writ petition are the Union of India and the State of Assam. 2. The case set up in the writ petition is that the petitioner is a citizen of India and is ordinarily resident in the State of Assam. He is a former President of the All Assam Stu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC2911; [2005(3)JCR219(SC)]; JT2005(6)SC20; (2005)5SCC581
G.P. Mathur, J.1. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution has been filed praying for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or other directions be issued to:-'a) Conduct an inquiry by any Hon'ble Judge of the Hon'ble High Court or an independent and impartial Authority regarding the FIR 521 Dt. 9.7.98 lodged at Sector 20 P.S. NOIDA and the harassment caused to the petitioner for the last six years and grant compensation to the petitioner for rehabilitation at Delhi.b) grant compensation to the petitioner for a further period of two years for restoration of his earlier practice and for settling in Delhi with his family.c) Conduct an inquiry into the loss caused to Y. Pitchaiah the client of the petitioner whose original record was stolen by the accused after he fought the litigation for 15 years in the courts below.d) Conduct an inquiry by any Hon'ble Judge of the Hon'ble High Court or an independent and impartial Authority regarding six years of delay in prosecutin...
Tag this Judgment!