Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3416; [2005(107)FLR251]; JT2005(8)SC252; (2005)7SCC405
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B.Civil Spl. Appeal No. 906 of 1999 dated 13th August, 2002. The High Court by a very brief order observed that since notice issued by Labour Court was not accepted by the Department for the reason that copy of the claim petition was not annexed thereto, the award must be set aside. Accordingly, the High Court remanded the matter to the Labour Court for fresh decision in accordance with law.2. We have heard counsel for the parties at length and perused the record placed before us. We find that there is much to be said in favour of the appellant-P.W.D.Karamchari Sangh. However, in view of the order passed by the High Court, we do not wish to interfere, but justice demands that since the matter has been delayed primarily on account of the unfair stand taken by the respondent, while we uphold the order we direct that the respondents shall pay to the work...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3672; JT2005(8)SC296; (2005)7SCC556
B.P. Singh, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 18310 of 1998. The appellants/petitioners claiming to be the proprietors and co-sharers in the Shamlat Deh lands which comprised in three villages, namely - Kairwali, Amritpur Khurd and Amritpur Kalan impugned the Consolidation Scheme in respect of Shamlat Deh lands of the aforesaid three villages published on February 8, 1995. They also challenged the order of the Director of Consolidation, Haryana, in Case No. 148 of 1996 dated June 6, 1997 whereby he held that the aforesaid Scheme had been prepared in accordance with the direction of the High Court contained in its judgment dated August 10, 1987 and upheld by an order of the High Court dated November 16, 1995. The High Court by its impugned judgment and order dismissed the writ petition and held the Consolidation Scheme so published to be valid and in accordance with law. 2. Before...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3417; 2005(4)AWC3079(SC); [2005(107)FLR262]; (2005)IIILLJ725SC; (2006)2MLJ162(SC); (2005)7SCC338; 2006(1)SLJ77(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the legality of the judgment rendered by a Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court holding that the order of termination passed in the departmental proceedings against the appellant was justified.2. The factual background is essentially as follows:The appellant was working as a Conductor in the organization of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. Charges were made against him which related to not issuing tickets at the boarding point itself to the passengers who were in the bus, failure to collect fare and issue tickets to persons who were alighting at a particular destination and not properly maintaining records of tickets and fare. Explanation of the appellant was considered and was found to be not, satisfactory and disciplinary proceedings were initiated. The Enquiry Officer found him guilty of the charges leveled and after giving him opportunity of hearing as regards the quantum of punishment, order of removal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3269; 2005(3)BLJR2179; 2005CriLJ3755; [2005(4)JCR137(SC)]; (2005)13SCC205
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. Seven accused persons were found guilty by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya, for the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. Some of the accused were found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act. These accused persons filed three criminal appeals before the High Court of Patna and by the impugned judgment all the three criminal appeals were dismissed and their conviction and sentence were confirmed.2. The incident happened on 15.8.1996. PW 9 Suresh Singh along with his brothers Dani Singh and PW 8 Mukhdeo Singh were carrying out agricultural work in their paddy field. PW 1 Rajendra Munjhi, a labourer too was working with them. One Kundan Kumar had brought the breakfast for them. At about 11.00 a.m., a tractor came from the southern side and stopped at a distance of 500 yards away from the field. Five to six persons got down from the tractor and came near the field and one of them, Anil Singh was arm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3475; 2005(5)ALLMR(SC)968; 2006(1)BomCR184; [2005]127CompCas443(SC); IV(2005)CPJ30(SC); 2005(5)CTC289; [2005(4)JCR136(SC)]; (2005)7SCC393; [2005]64SCL22(SC); 2005(
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. Leave granted.2. Heard the teamed Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (in short 'MSEB'). By the impugned Judgment, the Writ Petition filed by the appellant company was rejected by the High Court. The appellant company, M/s. Amit Products (India) Ltd., is a company incorporated in India and registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The appellant company obtained Provisional Registration Certificate as a small scale industry from the Director of Companies of Government of Maharashtra. The Director of the Appellant Company Shri Shridhar Natekar filed an application for getting electricity connection. This was rejected by the respondent MSEB. MSEB insisted on clearance of all arrears of electricity charges payable by M/s. Amar Amit Jalna Alloys Pvt. Limited which according to the MSEB was the previous consumer. The appellant company contended that they are not liable to pay the electricity c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : III(2005)ACC785; AIR2005SC3324; 2005(4)AWC3073(SC); JT2005(8)SC115; (2005)7SCC615
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. These civil appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad, declaring section 10(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997 (for short 'the 1997 Act') as ultra vires articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.2. The facts lie within a narrow compass and they are as follows:Sukhpal Singh is the owner of a tanker bearing registration No. MP-24C-0377. The said tanker is covered by national permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority, Durg. The national permit granted was for Chattisgarh, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh. Sukhpal was granted an authorization certificate on the basis of the national permit valid up to 14.2.2003.On 26.2.2002, while carrying goods from Bhilai Steel Plant to Sonepat, the tanker in question entered the State of U.P and after unloading the goods returned from Sonepat. While doing so, the tanker crossed the U.P. border at Masaura and when it was about 8 kms. in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3742; 2005(4)AWC3165(SC); [2005(107)FLR163]; [2005(4)JCR233(SC)]; (2005)IIILLJ767SC; (2005)7SCC597
Ruma Pal, J.1. Leave granted.2. The two issues which arise for determination in this appeal are;1) Whether it is necessary for the Disciplinary Authority to give reasons for agreeing with the Enquiry Officer's report when the delinquent officer has submitted a representation challenging the report of the Enquiry Officer?.2) Whether the Disciplinary Authority is bound to issue notice to the delinquent officer before passing the order of punishment?3. The respondent was employed as an Assistant Materials Manager with the appellant. It is alleged that Lot No. 259 consisting of 36,000 jute bags supplied by M/s. Swastik Laminated Industries to the appellant No. 1 was found to be defective and was rejected. The rejected bags were required to be returned to the supplier after they had been defaced. On the allegation that the respondent did not adhere to the procedure and instructions while despatching the 36,000 jute bags to the supplier and had not defaced them, disciplinary proceedings were...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : III(2005)ACC749; AIR2005SC3428; 2005(5)CTC807; (2006)1GLR1; JT2005(8)SC39; 2005(6)KarLJ1; (2005)141PLR775; (2005)7SCC364
S.H. Kapadia, J. 1. The short question which arises for determination in this civil appeal, by special leave, is whether the taxation authority under the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 was right in taxing the 'tractor-trailer' as a separate and distinct vehicle, different from a tractor and denying exemption sought by the appellant under section 16 of the said 1957 Act on the ground that the tractor-trailer was a distinct category of 'goods carriage' requiring permit under section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.2. The brief facts which are relevant to be noticed as under:The appellant are transporters of heavy equipments using mechanized carriage depending upon the items to be transported. During the period 8.12.1989 to 31.3.1990, they were engaged by Central Power Research Institute of India (CPRI) to transport for them six units of transformers from Madras Port to its site at Bangalore. The goods were to be lifted from Madras Port and transported to CPRI at Bangalore...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC3423; [2005(107)FLR160]; (2005)7SCC144
G.P. Mathur, J. 1. Leave granted.2. This appeal, by special leave, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 5.9.2002 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, by which the writ petition preferred by the appellant for quashing the order dated 6.11.1995 compulsorily retiring the appellant from service was dismissed.3. The appellant, who was a Sub Inspector of Police, was served a notice dated 8.6.1989 by the Commandant, 3rd Battalion, Haryana Armed Police, by which he was informed that he had attained the age of 55 years on 9.6.1989 and as he was not considered fit to be retained in service beyond the said age, he was being given notice of three months as required under the provisions of Punjab Police Rules 18(1)(c) read with note below therein and Rule 5.32 of C.S.R. Vol. II and accordingly he will be deemed to have retired from service after the expiry of period of notice i.e. on 7.9.1989. The appellant challenged the aforesaid notice of compulsory retirement by filing Ci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2005SC4000; (2005)197CTR(SC)590; 2005(192)ELT3(SC); [2005]277ITR435(SC); JT2005(8)SC50; (2005)7SCC294; 2005(2)LC1425(SC)
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. The question which arises for determination in this civil appeal filed by the department is -- whether the department was right in rejecting the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme declarations filed by the respondent-assessee on the ground that the assessments had become final in the year 1992-93 (when the assessee's appeals were dismissed for failure to pre-deposit self-assessed tax) and that the respondent herein had filed revisions under the Income Tax Act and Wealth Tax Act in November/December, 1998 only to obtain the benefit of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, which came into force w.e.f. 1.9.1998. According to the department, the revisions filed by the assessee were time barred and as such they were not 'pending' in terms of Section 95(i)(c) of the said Scheme. 2. The undisputed facts which lie within a very narrow compass are as follows:In respect of assessment years 1984-85 to 1991-92, the assessee was liable to pay tax under assessment orders passed vide Section 143...
Tag this Judgment!