Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC1214; 2007(2)ALD106(SC); 2007(1)ALLMR(SC)929; (2007)1CompLJ248(SC); 2007(1)CTC687; [2007(2)JCR292(SC)]; 2007(1)KLT199(SC); (2007)2MLJ260(SC); 2006(12)SCALE465
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (in short the 'Commission'). By the impugned order, the Commission dismissed the revision petition filed in terms of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the 'Act').3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The respondent is a consumer of electricity and a meter was installed by the appellant at his factory premises. An inspection was done on 04.07.2000. The Inspecting staff found that there was tampering with the meter and, therefore, a demand of Rs. 1,07,326/- was made purporting to be charges payable for actual consumption of energy. Questioning the demand, a complaint was filed before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar, Jagadhiri, Haryana (in short 'District Forum'). 4. The basic stand of the respondent as complainant was that prior to the inspection, on 02.07.2000 there was a s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC1211; [2007(3)JCR77(SC)]; JT2006(10)SC284; 2006(12)SCALE367; 2007AIRSCW1269
H.K. Sema, J1. The challenge in these appeals is to the orders dated 22.8.2003 and 27.2.2004 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court affirming the order dated 30.10.2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) allowing the petition of the respondents. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows:The respondents were working as Junior Hydro- Geologist, Junior Geophysicist Chemists and Hydro- Meteorologists (Scientists Grade 'B'). Their cases for consideration for promotion to the posts of Scientists Grade 'C' were declined on the ground that the departmental candidate should have put in at least 5 years as Scientists Grade 'B' in the scale of Rs. 2200-4000 in accordance with Rule 7 (2)(b) read with column 12 of Central Ground Water Board (Scientific Group 'A' Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1995 (hereinafter 'the Rules'). We will deal with the Rules later at an appropriate time. 3. The grievance raised before the Tribunal was that the deputationists with 8 years of experienc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC457; 2007CriLJ309; [2007(2)JCR66(SC)]; 2007(I)OLR(SC)231; 2006(11)SCALE498
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this Appeal is to the order of a learned Single Judge of the Guwahati High Court dismissing the Criminal Revision filed by the appellant. 3. The background facts in a nutshell are as follows:The appellant was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') by learned sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jonai. The allegation against the appellant was that he had mis- appropriated a sum of Rs. 91,006/-. While taking over charge as Deputy Inspector of Schools on 12.11.1991, he had received cash amounting to Rs. 91,796/-, as per the accounts maintained. When the cash was physically verified only Rs. 790/-was found, and it was, therefore, inferred that he had committed misappropriation of cash. He faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 409 IPC. Questioning his conviction and sentence of two years with fine as imposed by the trial Court, an appeal was f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC386; (2006)206CTR(SC)290; [2006]287ITR209(SC); JT2006(10)SC537; 2006(12)SCALE429; 2006(2)LC1515(SC)
Ashok Bhan, J.1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 9.7.2001 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in ITRC Nos. 38, 39 & 40 of 1996 vide which the High Court has allowed the reference cases 39 and 40 of 1996 thereby answering the questions in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. ITRC No. 38 of 1996 filed by the assessee has been dismissed by the High Court. Since these appeals arise from the common order passed by the High Court, we also propose to dispose them of by a common order.FACTS2. The facts relevant for disposing of these references in short are. P.R. Metrani and Y.R. Metrani were two brothers and are the members of the Joint Hindu Family. P.R. Metrani (HUF) assessee was a partner in a firm called M/s. R.N. Metrani and Sons. Y.R. Metrani was also a partner in this firm. P.R. Metrani as well as Y.R. Metrani have died during the pendency of these cases. A search of the residential premises Ranganatha Nilaya was conducted by th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(12)SCALE55
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution'). 3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:The writ petition was filed for quashing the order dated l.4.2005 passed by the Joint Director (Personnel and Administration), Ordnance Equipment Factories, Kanpur, (in short 'OEF'), the respondent No. 4 and the order dated 21.6.2005 passed by the Director General, Ordnance Factories, Government of India, Kolkatta, respondent No. 6. A further relief was sought for restraining the respondents from interfering with the running of the O.E.F. Secondary School (hereinafter referred to as the 'Secondary School') from the premises in question pursuant to the aforesaid orders and for restraining the respondents from demanding an amount of Rs. 18,307/- towards monthly...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC129; 2007CriLJ295; JT2006(10)SC174; 2006(11)SCALE477
A.K. Mathur, J.1. Both these appeals arise against the same order therefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment. Brief facts giving rise to these appeals are Kulwinder Singh son of Pal Singh is a resident of village Loharke. On the basis of the statement of Kulwinder Singh, a first information report was registered at the Police Station, Raja Sansi on 22.12.1999 to the effect that they are agriculturist. It is alleged that on the fateful day while they were going to the field for cultivation, they passed through a small passage across the land of accused Mohan Singh. On the eastern side of the passage there is land of accused Mohan Singh and he has encroached the passage which has reduced the width of the passage. On 21.12.1999 at about 4.oo P.M. the complainant, along with brother Gurwant Singh and father Pal Singh were transporting bricks in their tractor trolley to their land for some pucca construction of the pucca tube well. When they were passing through the passage, on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC128; 2007(4)BomCR225; 2006(204)ELT205(SC); 2006(11)SCALE656
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Leave granted. 2. Heard Mr. Arun Jaitley, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. R. Mohan and Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the respondents.3. We have perused the order passed by the High Court dt.22.06.2006 in Writ Petition No. 994 of 2006 filed by M/s Aiges India Marketing Pvt. Ltd. against Union of India and another. We are not, in this case, concerned with the merits of the case put forward by the appellant or the respondents. We confine ourselves only to the observations made by the High Court in its order dt.22.06.2006 in para 11 and 12 against the appellant who was the advocate-on-record for Union of India. The observations made by the High Court in para 11 and 12 of its order reads thus:11. On 9th February, 2005, this Court simply adjourned the matter as the counsel for the revenue sought time to file an affidavit in reply of the Commissioner (Investigation). However, the Central Government Advocate in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(1)ALLMR(SC)933; IV(2006)CPJ21(SC); [2007(1)JCR122(SC)]; JT2006(10)SC103; 2006(12)SCALE24
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court. While holding that there was no provision under any rule or regulations of the Appellant-Board for revaluation, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was awarded for wrong intimation about the total marks actually received by the respondent No. 1. 3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:Respondent No. 1 appeared at the High School Certificate Examination-2004 conducted by the appellant-board. Result of the said examination was published on 25.6.2004. Initially, respondent No. 1 was declared to have passed in the 1st Division securing 654 marks out of 750 marks. Respondent No. 1 made a representation pointing out that the marks appear to have been wrongly mentioned in the marks sheet. Answer scripts were verified, and it was found that the marks awarded in one paper i.e. SSH were wrongly shown as 35 though respondent No. 1 had really secured 65 marks. It was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(2)ALLMR(SC)443; 2007(2)CTC349; JT2006(10)SC578; 2007(1)KarLJ398; 2006(12)SCALE295
ORDER1. This appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short, the Act) has been preferred by the elected candidate. The facts are brief and few. The appellant was an elected member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly which was dissolved in February 2004. By judgment and order dated 28th July 2000, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of seven years by the VI Addl. Sessions Judge, Solapur, in S.C. No. 203/1999. Immediately thereafter, Criminal Appeal No. 658 of 2000 was preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Pending the appeal, the Bombay High Court granted stay of the execution of the sentence.2. The fresh elections to Karnataka Legislative Assembly were notified. The election programme notified was as under:Last date of nomination : 31.03.2004Date of scrutiny of nomination : 02.04.2004Last date for withdrawal : 05.04.2004Date of polling : 20.04.2004Date of d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(12)SCALE52; (2006)11SCC353; (2007)5VST406(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted. 2. The controversy in the present appeal lies within a narrow compass. The appellant is a dealer registered under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (in short the 'Act') and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (in short the 'CST Act'). The present disputes relates to the assessment years 1998-1999 and 1999-2000. The State Government in the Commercial Tax Department issued a letter to the Andhra Pradesh Backward Classes Cooperative Finance Corporation Limited (in short 'Corporation') directing that taxes are to be deducted at a source on the payments made by it to the appellant. It was stipulated that the amounts so deducted at source are to be deposited with the Commercial Tax Department. The Corporation directed to its Executive Director to credit sales tax deducted at source by Account Payee cheque in favour of the concerned Assessing Officer in terms of discussion held at a meeting held on 27.03.1999 where the Managing Direct...
Tag this Judgment!