Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC1712; AIR2007SC628; 2007(1)AWC431(SC); 2006CriLJ2108; JT2007(1)SC306; 2006(13)SCALE382; 2006(3)SCALE194; (2007)1SCC257; 2006(1)LC644(SC); 2007AIRSCW222; 2007-I-LLJ616(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. The State of U.P. has herein questioned an interim order dated 15.3.04 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court as also order dated 22.8.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the said Court affirming the same.3. The respondent was said to have been appointed on daily wages for specific work on Muster Roll purported to be under the provisions of paragraphs 429, 430 and 431 of the Financial Hand Book Volume-VI read with paragraph 476 of the Part-I of the Public Works Department of Manual of Orders in local arrangements.4. A writ petition was filed by the respondent herein, inter alia, praying for his regularisation. A learned Single Judge of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court on the day of preliminary hearing while issuing rule passed the following order:In the meantime, the opposite parties No. 3 to 5 shall examine the petitioner's claim for regularization under the Regularization Rules 2001 and pass appropriate orders. How...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(12)SCALE192
Markandey Katju, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 11.2.205 of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in LPA No. 1045/2004 of CWP No. 62 of 2004. Heard the appellant in-person and Mr. V.B. Saharya, learned Counsel for the DDA.3. The impugned judgment states as under:This appeal is preferred against the order made by learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 62/2004 on 28.9.2004. Learned single Judge has examined the aspect of property tax which has no concern with the services provided by the Delhi Development Authority. About the ground rent the learned single Judge has taken into consideration the facts and the explanation put forth by the respondents and the accounting practice was found to be not unscientific. In this view of the matter, we would not like to interfere. Hence the appeal is dismissed.4. In our opinion the impugned judgment is a cryptic judgment, and with due respect to the Division bench we feel that the matter i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2007(1)SC1; 2006(12)SCALE274; [2006]148STC675(SC)
Markandey Katju, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal has been file against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dated 20.1.2004 in STA No. 70 of 2003, by which the appeal was dismissed.Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. The appellant is a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('KST Act' for short). The appellant is the Licensee and registered user of the trade mark 'Whirlpool' in terms of the Trade Mark & Trade Name Licence Agreement dated 24.2.1995 executed between M/s. Whirlpool Corporation, USA, which is stated to be the proprietor and owner of the said trade mark and the Appellant. The licence granted to the appellant to use the trade mark is non-transferable.4. On 4.2.2003, the appellant entered into an agreement with M/s. Applicomp India Limited (for short 'Applicomp' or the 'Manufacturer') under which Applicomp agreed to manufacture and supply electronic products and electrical appliances such as Refrigerator...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2006)206CTR(SC)301; [2007(112)FLR332]; [2006]287ITR333(SC); JT2006(10)SC393; 2006(12)SCALE265; (2007)1SCC571; 2006(2)LC1532(SC)
Markandey Katju, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal by special leave has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Calcutta High Court dated 26.6.2003 in ITA No. 404 of 2000. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. The respondent M/s. Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd. had by an agreement dated 24.3.1988 with the vendor, purchased an Undertaking and by the same agreement had also taken over the accrued and future gratuity liability of the vendor, which amounted to Rs. 3.5 crores. The respondent assessee claimed that since this amount of Rs. 3.5 crores towards gratuity is capital expenditure hence it is entitled to depreciation on the sum under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act. The CIT (Appeal) as well as the tribunal allowed the assessee's claim and their orders were upheld by the High Court by the impugned judgment.4. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended in this appeal that the expenditure on the taking over the gratuity liability of the employees of the ve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC906; [2007(112)FLR325]; 2006(12)SCALE262; 2007(3)SLJ338(SC); 2007AIRSCW607; 2007-I-LLJ-770; 2007(1)KCCR313(SC).
Markandey Katju, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 22.3.2006 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 7409 of 2004.3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.The respondent was initially appointed as a Clerk in the Postal Department of the Union of India on 30.11.1965 on the basis of the marks obtained by him in the SSLC Examination. The SSLC certificate of the respondent indicated that he belongs to the 'Konda Kapu' community which is admittedly a Scheduled Tribe community in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Thereafter the respondent appeared for a departmental test for promotion to the post of Upper Division Clerk against a post reserved for the Scheduled Tribe community, and the respondent was promoted as an Upper Division Clerk in Scheduled Tribe category. His promotion order specifically stated that he has been promoted as an Upper Division Clerk under Scheduled Tribe category vide promotion...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : I(2007)BC480(SC); [2006]134CompCas645(SC); JT2006(10)SC529; 2006(12)SCALE286
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted. 2. The 1st Respondent herein was appointed as a Consignment Agent by an agreement dated 23.12.1993 in regard to the sale of products of the Appellant Company-plaintiff, namely, Salt and Tea in South and Central Bihar. In terms of the said agreement it was required to furnish a Bank Guarantee for a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs. The transactions between the parties started in January, 1994. Some of the clauses in the said Bank Guarantee are as under:(1) We...(hereinafter referred to as the Bank) do hereby agree to pay the Principal Co. an amount not exceeding Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lacs only) against any loss or damage caused to or suffered or would be caused to or suffered by the Principal Co. by reason or any breach of contract by the consignment agent as their due performance of their duties as consignment agent for the Principal Co., the major term being settlement of the Principal Co.'s bills by the consignment agent within 30 days from the date of receipt ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2007(2)JCR216(SC)]; 2007(1)KarLJ337; 2006(12)SCALE270; (2007)1SCC486
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the Habeas Corpus Petition filed questioning detention of his brother Shri Shivalingappa (hereinafter referred to as the 'detenu') under the provisions of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1985 (in short the 'Act'). The detention order was passed on 26.5.2005 by the District Magistrate holding that the detenu was indulging in such activities which amounted to immoral activities as detailed in the Act. The order of detention was approved by the State Government and the Advisory Board. The main ground of challenge in the writ petition was alleged non-compliance with the procedure contemplated under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution'). It was specifically averred that detaining author...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007CriLJ314; 2006(12)SCALE188; 2006AIRSCW5916; (2007)2SCC(Cri)551; (2007)1Crimes260(SC); 2007(1)KCCR351(SC).
Markandey Katju, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 5.5.2003 of the High Court of Jharkhand in Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 1991(P).Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. The prosecution case in brief is that Jharia Kisku, father of the first informant, had gone to Simlong Hatia on Monday and when he did not return by night, then on the next day at about at 8 A.M., Prame Hansda (appellant No. 1) informed the first informant that his father Jharia Kisku was caught while he was committing theft of one Bati in his house in the night of Monday and thereafter he was tied with a rope. Thereafter the first informant and others went to Baraghaghari and they found Jharai Kisku tied at the house of the Pradhan. On their arrival a Panchayat was called for. It was stated that after committing theft of one Bati, Jharia Kisku was trying to flee away and thereafter he was caught and he was assaulted and tied with a rope. A sum of Rs. 100/- was a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007CriLJ315; 2006(12)SCALE259; 2006AIRSCW5918; (2007)2SCC(Cri)216; (2007)1Crimes256(SC).
Markandey Katju, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order of the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) dated 17.10.2005 in Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 1992 by which the High Court has affirmed the sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court by judgment dated 20.2.1992 under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC as well as fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of which two months R.I. was also awarded.Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.2. There were four accused originally before the Trial Court namely (1) Anil Shivram Pawar, (2) Manilal Hiraram Chaudhari, (3) Premraj HIraram Chaudhari and (4) Gangaram Shantaram Salunkhe (the appellant in the present case.) All the four accused had been convicted by the Trial Court but in appeal the High Court acquitted accused No. 1 but maintained the conviction of accused No. 2, 3 and 4 under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. In the present case the appellant is only accused No. 4 Gan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2007(112)FLR509]; JT2006(10)SC624; 2006(12)SCALE278; 2007(3)SLJ125(SC)
Altamas Kabir, J.1. Leave granted.2. Shri L.P. Tiwari, respondent No. 1 in the first matter and Shri DP. Dwivedi, respondent No. 1 in the second matter, were serving as State Service Forest Officers in the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests in the office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. Both the said officers became eligible to be promoted to the Indian Forest Service under the provisions of the I.F.S. (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations') Regulation 3 of the said Regulations provides for the appointment of a Selection Committee consisting of the Chairman of the Union Public Service Commission or where the Chairman is unable to attend, any other Member of the Union Public Service Commission along with the following members as far as the State of Madhya Pradesh is concerned:(i) Chief Secretary to the Govt. of M.P;(ii) Secretary to the Govt. of M.P. dealing with Forests;(iii) Principal Chief Conservator ...
Tag this Judgment!