Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(112)ECC616; 2006LC616(SC); 2006(203)ELT529(SC); JT2006(9)SC491; 2006(11)SCALE78; 2006(2)LC1428(SC)
Markandey Katju, J.1. These appeals have been filed under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the impugned order of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'The Tribunal'), South Zone Bench, Bangalore dated 10.5.2005.Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The appellant is a private limited company which undertakes various activities, which includes civil works, painting, ceiling work, electrical work, laying of vinyl flooring, tables, chairs, sofa sets, erection of immovable items viz., partitions (wooden/glass/aluminium/gypsum board), storages, workstations, laying of wooden flooring, column cladding, skirting, mirror paneling, window sill, wooden steps, doors, huge conference tables and huge reception tables depending on the customer's requirements. The customer places a purchase order to the appellants on a turn-key basis for the entire activity. The customer usually gives a bare open floor which h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(112)ECC592; 2006LC592(SC); 2006(203)ELT532(SC); JT2006(9)SC469; 2006(11)SCALE81; (2007)1SCC62
S.B. Sinha, J. 1. Completion of an assessment proceedings whether is a sine qua non for issuance of notice under Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short 'the Act') is the question involved in this appeal which arises of a judgment and order dated 18.6.2004 as modified by an order dated 2.7.2004. 2. M/s. ITC Ltd., Respondent No. 1 herein manufactures cigarettes. It gets the work done also by way of job work through various factories. These factories inter alia belonged to M/s. Master Tobacco Company situated at 36/40, Mahalaxmi Birdege Arcade, Mahalaxmi Road, Mumbai and M/s. Crown Tobacco Co. situated at 9, St. John Baptist Road, Bandara, Mumbai. A provisional price list was issued by the Department for the period 1.3.1973 to 28.2.1983.It appears that their existed a dispute as regards mode of valuation for the purpose of levy of excise duty. By a judgment and order dated 19.7.1995, this Court opined that excise duty should be paid on the wholesale dealers price to their...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC3406; 2006CriLJ4776; [2007(1)JCR302(SC)]; 2006(10)SCALE512; (2006)10SCC635
Markandey Katju, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court dated 22.12.2005 in Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1988 by which the conviction of the accused, Sukumar Roy under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 IPC, has been upheld.Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. The crux of the prosecution case is that on 11.8.1984 at about 12 o'clock the deceased Prafulla Nayak was collecting seedling from his land at mouza Amtala, the accused Phani Bhusan Roy, his son accused Sukumar Roy, his wife Urmila Roy alias Tobi Roy and Tarani Roy, the wife of his elder brother entered into the land with lathi, bhali etc., in their hands and an altercation ensued between the parties when Phani told the deceased that he purchased the land and as such he would cultivate the land. In course of the altercation the accused Phani struck Prafulla on his head with lathi and the accused Sukumar hit Prafulla with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(10)SCALE589; (2007)1SCC513; 2007(3)SLJ257(SC)
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.1. Leave granted.2. The challenge in this appeal by special leave is to the final judgment and order dated 29.05.2006 of the High Court of Delhi, whereby the Writ Petition No. 5214/2005 filed by Maj. Gen. R. S. Balyan-appellant herein came to be dismissed. By the order coming under challenge, the High Court held that seniority of the appellant and Maj. Gen. Rakesh Puri (Respondent No. 5) and Maj. Gen. P.K. Mago (Respondent No. 6) ought to be determined according to Para 2 of the Government of India O.M. No. 2(4)/92/D(Inspection) dated 04.05.1993, as amended vide O. M. No. 21(4)/92/D(Inspection) dated 22.12.1993 and not by Para 68 of the Regulations for the Army, 1962 (revised edition 1987).3. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows.The appellant was commissioned in the Army on 09.06.1968 whereas the Respondent No. 5 was commissioned in the Corps of Engineering on 25.12.1966 as Second Lieutenants. In the common seniority list of Second Lieutenants, respondent N...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(2)ALLMR(SC)924; [2006(111)FLR1184]; 2006(11)SCALE195; (2007)1SCC445; 2006(2)LC1423(SC); 2007AIRSCW214; 2007(1)KCCRSN28; AIR2007SC622
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 22.7.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 4467 of 2005 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by Appellant herein was dismissed. 3. The appellant at all material times was working as Block Development Officer. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him on the purported charge that he had committed serious misconduct, causing loss to the government to the tune of Rs. 2,85,658/-. A departmental inquiry was conducted on the said charges. The Inquiry Officer in his report held the appellant to be guilty thereof. Two show cause notices were issued to him. On 21.12.1998, in the show cause notice, imposition of punishment of recovery of government losses to the tune of Rs. 2,85,658/- and forfeiture of pension for a period of five years was proposed. Another notice was serviced on him on 20.07.2000 proposing imposition of punis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC829; 2006(4)ARBLR155(SC); JT2006(10)SC62; 2006(11)SCALE425; 2006(2)LC1469(SC)
ORDERLearned Attorney General argues that there is no clause providing for escalation to reimburse the expenses incurred by the contractor in the contract agreement. In spite of the same the Arbitrator has awarded escalation in expenses. Issue notice on SLPs as also on the prayer for interim relief. 6. In our opinion, the argument of the learned senior counsel for the FCI that there is no clause in the contract providing for escalation to reimburse the expenses and, therefore, the arbitrator had exceeded his jurisdiction has no substance. The issue of jurisdiction of the arbitrator to go into the claim of the claimant towards compensation and neutralization of the extra expenditure incurred on account of statutory wage revisions had already concluded in the earlier proceedings arising out of the application filed by the claimant firm under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act for appointment of the arbitrator. The FCI in the said proceedings specifically contended that there was no escala...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC1; 2007CriLJ29; [2007(1)JCR334(SC)]; 2006(10)SCALE510; (2006)11SCC174
ORDER1. Perused the report of the Registrar (Judicial) dated 26.09.2006. The special leave petition was filed on 10.06.2004, which was sent by one Nathu @ Parasram, who is in custody. He had sent a copy of the judgment passed by the High Court. The record was, however, put up on 04.09.2006. It is in the aforementioned premise that an inquiry was directed to be conducted. The Registrar (Judicial), in his report, inter alia, stated that the office had sent for the records of the courts below which caused delay. 2. Our attention in this behalf has been drawn to Order XXI Rule 8 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966+, relevant portion whereof is in the following terms:8. (1) If the petitioner is in jail and is not represented by an advocate on record he may present his petition for special leave to appeal together with the certified copy of the Judgment and any written argument which he may desire to advance to the officer-in-charge of the jail, who shall forthwith forward the same to the Regis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(2)ALT45(SC); 2006(4)ARBLR90(SC); 2007(1)AWC591(SC); 2006(5)CTC878; 2006(11)SCALE350
S.B. Sinha, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Dev Papers (P) Ltd., Meham, is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Appellants herein as also Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 were its shareholders. One R.P. Gupta was representing the appellants whereas Satyadev Gupta was representing the defendants-respondents in the Board of Directors. Disputes and differences having arisen between the parties, a suit came to be filed by Appellants. Admittedly, an arbitration agreement had been entered into by and between Plaintiffs-Appellants and some of the Defendants. However, some of the Defendants were not parties to the said agreement. In view of the existence of the said arbitration agreement, an order was passed by the learned trial Judge in terms of the Arbitration Act 1940. The matter came up to this Court on an earlier occasion. Plaintiffs-Appellants herein made a representation before this Court that they would amend the plaint by deleting the names of Respondents who were parties to the arbitr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2006(111)FLR1190]; (2007)ILLJ1004SC; 2006(11)SCALE264; (2007)1SCC338
Markandey Katju, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 17.11.2003 passed in Writ Petition No. 17676 of 2003.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.3. The respondent worked as General Manager of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Tribes Cooperative Finance Corporation Limited (TRICOR), Hyderabad from 15.6.1998 to 13.10.1999. On the basis of the report submitted by the Managing Director dated 18.11.1999, the following charges were framed against him:Article No. 1:That the said Dr. Venkata Raidu, while functioning as A.P. Scheduled Tribes Cooperative Finance Corporation Limited (TRICOR), A.P. Hyderabad and presently working as Deputy Secretary (Administration) at Gurukulam A.P., Hyderabad violated the Orders issued by the Government from time to time and despite the specific instructions of the Managing Director, TRICOR, A.P. Hyderabad issued in the year 1997 and in the year 1998 in connection...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2006(111)FLR916]; (2007)ILLJ229SC; 2006(10)SCALE614; (2006)8SCC552
AR. Lakshmanan, J.CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4534/20041. This appeal was filed by the Managing Director, Bhadra Shahakari S.K.Niyamita against the President, Chitradurga Mazdoor Sangh and Ors. against the judgment dt.25.02.2003 passed by the High Court in W.P. No. 13524/1999. The Writ Petition was preferred by Chitradurga District Mazdoor Sangh calling in question the inaction of the Management in implementing the settlement produced as Annexure-A dt.14.05.1998 and for a consequent direction to the Management to implement the aforementioned settlement. The High Court in para 40 of its judgment observed as follows:In the result and for the foregoing reasons, we allow the writ petition with costs quantified at Rs. 3000/- payable by the first Respondent to the Petitioner's counsel within two weeks. A writ of mandamus shall issue to the management of the first Respondent sugar factory to implement the settlement Annexure-A dated 14.05.1998 and continue 51 workmen already reinstated into service and ...
Tag this Judgment!