Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(197)ELT146(SC); JT2006(5)SC6; 2006(4)SCALE356; (2006)4SCC786
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.1. This Statutory Appeal is filed by M/s Indcon Structurals (P) Limited under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the Final Order No. 1557/2000 dated 14th November, 2000 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the CEGAT'), Chennai, in appeal No. E/1554/94-D-MD, setting aside the Order dated 16th May, 1994 recorded by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras.2. The appellant-Company is engaged in manufacture of flooring cement tiles using cement, sand, blue metal and gravel along with pigment. These are in the form of tiles used for constructing the floor itself or the wall, as the case may be.3. The appellant-Company filed classification list claiming the benefit of Notification No. 59/90-CE on the ground that the cement tiles in question are not floor coverings in rolls or in the form of tiles as per the description against serial No. 4 of sub-heading 6807.00 of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC3456; 2006(2)ARBLR83(SC); 2006(3)AWC2262(SC); (2007)1CALLT18(SC); [2006]131CompCas326(SC); (2006)5CompLJ191(SC); 2006(3)CTC557; [2006(3)JCR3(SC)]; JT2006(5)SC203;
B.N. Srikrishna, J.1. This is an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for appointment of a Presiding Arbitrator/ Chairperson of the Arbitral Tribunal under the arbitration agreement. It has been placed before me as the person designated by the Chief Justice to act under Section 11(6) of the Act.2. The Respondent-Company has a lease of the land situated at Plot No. A-11, Sector-62, Noida from the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority for a period of ninety years. The Respondent wanted to construct and develop an Exhibition center on the said land. There were negotiations between the Petitioner-Company and the Respondent-Company, as a result of which an exclusive Management Agreement was arrived at on 29.10.2003. Under the said agreement, the Petitioner was granted the exclusive right to manage the said plot of land for a period of ten years from the date on which 'Vacant Possession' was handed over to i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC3615; [2006(110)FLR15]; JT2006(4)SC593; (2006)IILLJ824SC; 2006(4)SCALE362; (2006)9SCC623; 2006(3)SLJ190(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. Order of learned Single Judge allowing writ petition filed by the respondents was affirmed. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:Respondents retired from the services of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (in short the 'Board') on 30.4.1990 after attaining the age of superannuation. The Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. (in short the 'Corporation'), is the successor company of the Board which came into existence with effect from 1.2.1990 by virtue of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Reforms Act, 1998 (in short the 'Reforms Act'). The pay scales of the employees were revised with effect from 1.7.1990 by which time the respondents herein were drawing maximum pay in the concerned scale. The rational of fixing the date with effect from 1.7.1990 was that emp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC1871; 2006(5)ALT20(SC); 2006(3)AWC2269(SC); (SCSuppl)2006(3)CHN99; 2006(3)CTC198; [2006(3)JCR14(SC)]; JT2006(5)SC1; 2006(4)MhLj764; (2006)3MLJ1(SC); 2006(II)OLR(SC
Ruma Pal, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant had purchased certain property in a Court sale. The High Court has set aside the sale. The decision of the High Court has been impugned in this appeal. The disputed property was the subject matter of a suit for partition between the respondents or their predecessors-in-interest. The property was not partible. The Trial Court accordingly directed sale of the suit property. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed to sell the suit property. The order directing sale required the Advocate Commissioner 'to sell the suit property in auction between the parties to the suit or in public auction, if the parties are not coming forward after following the due procedure like giving wide publicity'.3. The Advocate Commissioner issued notice to the parties to the suit through their respective advocates on 25th June, 2002. The notice said that the warrant of commission would be executed by the sale of the property on 30th June, 2002 by auction and that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2471; 2006(1)ALD(Cri)694; 2006CriLJ3279; JT2006(4)SC576; 2006(4)SCALE325; (2006)4SCC776
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Heard counsel for the appellants.None appears for the respondent in spite of service of notice. The State of Maharashtra and the Superintendent, District Prison, Akola, Maharashtra challenge the order passed by learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench accepting respondent's prayer for release on furlough. By the impugned order, learned Single Judge directed release of the respondent on furnishing his surety of Rs. 500/- lying in deposit with the jail authorities.3. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants, the High Court has not kept in view Rules 4(4) and 6 of the Prison (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 (in short, the 'Rules'). The said Rules have been framed in exercise of powers conferred by Clauses (5) and (28) of Section 59 of the Prisons Act, 1894 (in short the 'Act') in its application to the State of Maharashtra as it stood then. The expression 'Furlough System' is defined in Clause 5(A) of Section 3 of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(4)SCALE246; (2006)11SCC582
Y.K. Sabharwal, C.J.1. The question for consideration at this stage is whether the mining activity carried out in Villages Khori Jamalpur and Sirohi in District Faridabad in Haryana are in violation of the orders passed by this Court on 6th May, 2002. According to the State Government and lease- holders, the mining activity is carried on in an area measuring 75.05 hectares in Khori Jamalpur and 50.568 hectares in Sirohi, totaling 125.618 hectares and it is neither in violation of the orders of this Court nor of law. On the other hand, the petitioner and learned Amicus Curiae, submit that the mining activity is in violation of the order dated 6th May, 2002 and in any case, the mining activity results in degradation of environment.2. On 6th May, 2002 this Court directed the Government of Haryana to stop all mining activities and pumping of ground water in and from an area upto 5 kms. from the Delhi-Haryana border in the Haryana side of the ridge and also in the Aravalli hills. The mining...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2550; [2006]283ITR1(SC); JT2006(4)SC611; 2006(4)SCALE300; (2006)7SCC241; [2006]145STC544(SC)
ORDER:5. In Atiabari Tea Co. Ltd. etc. v. State of Assam and Ors. : [1961]1SCR809 , it was held that taxing laws are not excluded from the operation of Article 301, which means that tax laws can and do amount to restrictions on the freedoms guaranteed to trade under Part-XIII of the Constitution. However, the prohibition of restrictions on free trade is not an absolute one. Statutes restrictive of trade can avoid invalidation if they comply with Article 304(a) or (b).6. In Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan 0065/1962 : [1963]1SCR491 , it was held that only such taxes as directly and immediately restrict trade would fall within the purview of Article 301 and that any restriction in the form of taxes imposed on the carriage of goods or their movement by the State Legislature can only be done after satisfying the requirements of Article 304(b). The statute which was challenged in Atiabari Tea Co. : [1961]1SCR809 was the Assam Taxation (on goods carried by Roads an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC1946; 2006(1)ALD(Cri)777; 2006(3)ALD42(SC); JT2006(5)SC18; 2006(II)OLR(SC)1; 2006(4)SCALE336
Y.K. Sabharwal, C.J.1. Concerned by the plight of the undertrial prisoners languishing in various jails in the country, various directions were issued by this Court from time to time. Presently, we are considering mainly the issue of directions for the development of children who are in jail with their mothers, who are in jail either as undertrial prisoners or convicts. Children, for none of their fault, but per force, have to stay in jail with their mothers. In some cases, it may be because of the tender age of the child, while in other cases, it may be because there is no one at home to look after them or to take care of them in absence of the mother. The jail environment are certainly not congenial for development of the children.2. For the care, welfare and development of the children, special and specific provisions have been made both in Part III and IV of the Constitution of India, besides other provisions in these parts which are also significant. The best interest of the child...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2466; 2006(3)AWC2257(SC); [2006(110)FLR622]; JT2006(5)SC114; (2006)IILLJ829SC; 2006(4)SCALE507; (2006)4SCC733; 2006(3)SLJ178(SC); 2006SC353
C.K. Thakker, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated July 8, 2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 4084 of 1985. The facts necessary for determining the controversy in the appeal may now be stated:The appellant U.P. State Road Transport Corporation was constituted in 1972 succeeding the erstwhile U.P. Government Roadways. On November 20, 1973, the first respondent herein Sarada Prasad Misra was appointed as Conductor on purely temporary basis. According to the appellant, even thereafter, he was appointed from time to time on temporary basis as and when the appellant was in need of his services. Finally, the first respondent was appointed by order dated September 1, 1975 as Conductor on purely ad-hoc basis temporarily for a period of one month from September 1, 1975 to September 30, 1975. It was expressly stated in the order of appointment that his services will be terminated at any t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC1883; 2006CriLJ2369; 2006(2)CTC691; (2007)1GLR66; JT2006(4)SC540; 2006(2)KLT740(SC); 2006(4)SCALE280; (2006)11SCC114
ORDER' signed by all the parties. Learned counsel appearing on both sides submitted that all the parties have signed this document. Today except Mona Narang and Ramona Narang (two ladies), all the rest of the parties are present before us when these proceedings are dictated. As for Mona Narang and Ramona Narang learned Counsel submitted that Mona Narang had affixed the signatures and the power of attorney holder of Ramona Narang has signed the above document in his presence. This is recorded.Both sides agreed that all the suits can be disposed of in terms of the settlement evidenced by 'MINUTES OF CONSENT ...
Tag this Judgment!