Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(2)JKJ16[SC]; 2006(6)SCALE128; (2006)5SCC772; [2006]147STC114(SC)
B.P. Singh, J.1. The appellant herein claiming to be a 'prestigious unit' having a capital investment of over Rs. 25 crores claimed exemption from payment of General Sales Tax and Central Sales Tax under Notification No. SOR 247 of August 20, 1998 issued by the Government of Jammu & Kashmir pursuant to its Industrial Policy of 1998-2003. Under the said Industrial Policy, a package of incentives was offered to industrial units, and in particular to 'prestigious units' having a capital investment of Rs. 25 crores or more. The appellant Company set up a soft drink manufacturing unit in Jammu. The claim of the appellant was negatived by the State Government, which led to the filing of two writ petitions before the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir. A learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petitions holding that the petitioner was not entitled to the incentives claimed under the aforesaid Industrial Policy, as it did not validly acquire the status of a 'prestigious unit'. A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC3604; 2006CriLJ3619; 2006(5)SCALE625; (2006)9SCC422
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J. 1. Leave granted.2. The appellant challenges the order of the Special Judge of the Bombay High Court rejecting his application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') in C.R. No. 135 of 2002 registered at Bund Garden Police Station, Pune. The crime is one registered under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(2), 3(5) and 24 of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MCOCA' ) The crime was originally registered on 7.6.2002 against three accused. But, as the investigation progressed, several others were brought in as accused and ultimately as on the day of making the application before the Special Court, 65 persons have been arraigned as accused and shown as arrested. The appellant is accused No. 62. The appellant was arrested on 8.12.2003.3. It may be stated that originally the case was being investigated by the Bombay Police. But...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2038; 2006(4)ALD84(SC); [2006(3)JCR319(SC)]; JT2006(5)SC556; 2006(4)KarLJ545; 2006(6)SCALE1; (2006)6SCC371
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. In consonance with the principle of 'Sustainable Development', a serious endeavour has been made in the impugned judgment to strike a golden balance between the industrial development and ecological preservation.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment passed in writ petition No. 36638 of 1999 dated 26.11.1999 by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore.3. The respondent agriculturists, who were affected by the acquisition of lands of different villages, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution with a prayer that the appellant Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (in short KIADB) be directed to refrain from converting the lands of the respondents for any industrial or other purposes and to retain the lands for use by the respondents for grazing their cattle. The respondents have filed a writ petition indicating that they are residents of villages and their lands bearing Survey Nos. 79 and 80 of Nallurahalli village are gomal land...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2211; 2006(1)ALD(Cri)941; 2006CriLJ2917; JT2006(5)SC479; 2006(5)SCALE654; (2006)5SCC381
S.B. Sinha, J.1. The State of Himachal Pradesh is in appeal before us aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 24.9.1997 passed in Criminal Revision No. 149/1994, whereby and whereunder the revision application, filed by the respondent herein, against the judgment and order dated 1.12.1994 passed by the Sessions Judge affirming a judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur District at Nahan, convicting the respondent for commission of an offence punishable under Section 409 of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, has been allowed. 2. The respondent was a Post Master at Chhapang, within the Police Station Pachhad in the District of Sirmaur. One Rajbir Singh (PW-3), uncle of the respondent-accused, was at the relevant time working in the Government High School, Ramadhon. He had deposited a sum of Rs. 8,000/- with the respondent-accused for purchase of National Savin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2319; (2006)6CompLJ310(SC); [2006(110)FLR211]; [2006(4)JCR25(SC)]; (2006)IILLJ1113SC; (2006)3MLJ90(SC); 2006(6)SCALE101; (2006)5SCC493; 2007(1)SLJ151(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. The Appellant is a Government Company. It is a public sector undertaking. It is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. A policy decision was taken by the Appellant not to make any further recruitment in Marketing Division in any category of post stating:It has been decided that with immediate effect the strength of the Marketing Division be pagged to the number of individuals in position in the Marketing Division as on 31.03.1998. It has also been decided that no further recruitment be made in the Marketing Division in any category of post. However, as and when if any post is required to be filled up in any category due to exigencies of work, the approval of D(F)/MD be obtained and the paper routed through the Corporate Office Personnel Department.2. Despite such ban the Respondents had been appointed. Before such appointment the employment exchange was not intimated about the vacancy in terms of the provisions of Employment Exchange (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : III(2006)BC321(SC); (SCSuppl)2006(4)CHN121; 2006(6)SCALE50; (2006)5SCC539
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.Leave granted. 1. The appellants approached the High Court of Calcutta praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the State and its police authorities to give the appellants the necessary protection in respect of the property of the first appellant, the Howrah Mills Co. Ltd. The appellants pointed out that the company was before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (in short 'the BIFR') for its reconstruction and a proposal to sell away a portion of its land as a means to revive the industry, has been approved by the BIFR, especially since the State of West Bengal had also agreed before it to such a course. The company owned a vast extent of land out of which a portion was to be sold and the process for sale is at an advanced stage. Meanwhile, attempts were being made to interfere with the possession of the appellants over the property and in spite of requests in that behalf, the police authorities were not rendering the necessary hel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2304; 2006(4)ALD102(SC); 2006(6)SCALE66; (2006)11SCC42; 2006(3)SLJ275(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Banaras Hindu University was constituted under the Banaras Hindu University Act No. XVI of 1915. ('the Act'). The Act contains constitution of various bodies functioning thereunder. Section 10 of the Act, inter alia, provides for constitution of an Executive Council as an executive body to be in-charge of the management and administration of the revenue and property of the University and conduct of all administrative affairs thereof, not otherwise provided for. Section 17 of the Act lays down the mode and manner in which the Statutes of the University are to be framed subject to the provisions of the Act which includes all appointments, powers, duties and affairs of the University. Section 18 of the Act provides for ordinance making power in respect of the matters enumerated thereunder, which would be subject to the provisions of Section under the Statute.2. Dr. Shrikant, the Respondent herein, was appointed as Lecturer in Ophthalmology, Institute of Medical Sciences, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC2296; (2006)IIILLJ509SC; (2006)4MLJ618(SC); 2006(6)SCALE205; (2006)9SCC82; 2007(1)SLJ84(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted in S.L.P.2. Whether educational qualification can be considered to be a relevant criteria for the purpose of payment of wages is the question involved in these appeals which arise out of a judgment and order dated 11.12.2002 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital in C.M.W.P. No. 235(M/S) of 2001 allowing the writ petition filed by the Respondent herein and an order dated 13.5.2003 refusing to review the said order.3. Doiwala Sugar Company Limited (Company) was having a sugar mill at Maholi. There exists a post of Assistant Laboratory Incharge in all the sugar mills. The post carried certain grades. The wages of the employees in the sugar factory in the State of Uttar Pradesh used to be governed by the terms of awards of the Wage Board appointed by the Government of India from time to time. An award was made by U.P. Sugar Wage Board in the year 1970 prescribing different scales of pay for different categories of employees w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2006(109)FLR1203]; (2006)IILLJ1046SC; 2006(6)SCALE107; (2006)5SCC123; 2006(3)SLJ457(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 3.6.2004 passed by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High court, whereby and whereunder an intra-court appeal filed by the appellant herein from a judgment and order dated 23.4.2004 passed by a learned Single Judge affirming an Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court (CGIT) dated 13.9.1999 was dismissed. 3. The respondent herein was a casual workman. He had worked with the appellant-Bank from 6.8.1994 till 17.11.1994. His services were terminated. An industrial dispute was raised by him culminating in a reference made by the Appropriate Government to the Industrial Tribunal which reads as under:Whether the action of the management of SBBJ, Jaipur is justified in terminating the services of Workman Shri Om Prakash Sharma S/o Shri Sita Ram Sharma w.e.f. 19/11/94 and employing another junior workman Shri Vijay Kumar in his place without giving any opportunity of emplo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(3)AWC3078(SC); 2006(6)SCALE56; (2006)11SCC129
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. The respondents herein are owners of distilleries. Right to manufacture various categories of Indian Made Foreign Liquor within the meaning of the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Excise Act, 1910, as amended in 1950, (for short, 'the Act) has been granted to them by the State of Uttar Pradesh. They have been granted licence for manufacturing potable liquor. They indisputably have been paying excise duty in terms of the provisions of the Act. 3. The State of Uttar Pradesh on or about 03.02.2001 allegedly adopted a policy decision for the excise year 2001-02 which commenced from 01.04.2001 to the effect that the distilleries had to obtain and affix security holograms issued by the department to prevent evasion of duty and smuggling of liquor. The Excise Commissioner issued a circular on 21.02.2001 providing that every distillery would receive holograms from his office, where for plants had been established. Another circular letter was issued on 24.03.200...
Tag this Judgment!