Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(201)ELT513(SC); JT2006(8)SC210; 2006(8)SCALE737; (2006)7SCC592
Ashok Bhan, J.1. Revenue has filed this appeal against the final Order No. 1813/2000-B dated 25.10.2000 in Appeal No. C/164/89-B2 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') whereby the Tribunal has set aside the order in original as well as the order passed in the appeal and held that the machinery and equipment imported by the assessee-respondent was classifiable under Heading 98.01 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (for short 'the Tariff Act') and granted the benefit of Project Import under the Project Import Regulation to the assessee.Facts:2. Assessee-respondent (for short 'the respondent') is engaged in the setting up of industrial unit such as fertiliser plant. M/s. Indian Farmers Fertilisers Cooperative Ltd. entered into a contract with their parent Company M/s. Toyo Engineering Corporation, Japan for designing, engineering, fabricating and commissioning an Ammonia Storage Package Unit and a Co-generation Pl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(202)ELT13(SC); JT2006(8)SC615; 2006(8)SCALE748; (2006)10SCC280; 2006(2)LC1156(SC)
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. This appeal is filed by the Commissioner of Customs (ICDs), Tughlakabad against the final order No. 1425/04-NB-A dated 20.12.2004 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No. C-396/04- NB/A by which the CESTAT has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent.2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are as under:The respondent-Company i.e., M/s Prodelin India (P) Ltd. (for short 'M/s PIPL') was set up under an agreement between M/s Prodelin Corporation U.S.A. (for short 'M/s PC USA') and one Mr. Ashok Mago of New Delhi for marketing facility for promotion and selling VSAT Antennas, accessories and other communication equipments, assembly of equipments, testing, servicing etc. As per the joint venture agreement M/s PC USA owns 75% of equity shares in M/s PIPL which shall assemble and test feed components provided by M/s PC USA and will service, test and install these products. Technical service fee was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007CriLJ49; 2006(8)SCALE745
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants and thereby confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned Sessions Judge, Rupnagar. The appellants were convicted for offences punishable under Section 302/323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). Accused appellant-Narinder Singh was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC with a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default stipulation. He was, further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months in terms of Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- with default stipulation. Accused-appellant, Amarjit Singh was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and to pay a f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC3056; JT2006(8)SC282; RLW2007(1)SC273; 2006(8)SCALE604; (2006)7SCC442
K.G. Balakrishnan, J.1. This criminal appeal has been filed by the two appellants herein who have been found guilty by the High Court of Bombay for various offences. These appellants were charged for various crimes alleged to have been committed by them during the period June 1990 to October 1996. They were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolapur and found guilty and sentenced to death. The High Court confirmed their conviction on various counts and the sentence imposed on them.2. The appellants Renuka Bai @ Rinku @ Ratan and Seema @ Devki @ Devli are sisters. Their mother, Anjanabai, a co-accused died in 1997 and hence she could not be tried. Approver Kiran. Shinde who had studied upto 7th standard and left the school in 1982, belonged to Pune. He obtained some training in the work of tailoring and was doing tailoring work in a shop belonging to one Suresh. In 1983 he came in contact with the first appellant Renuka Bai and in December 1989 he married Renuka at a temple near Sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(8)SCALE742; (2006)7SCC439
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellant was convicted for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 46A(a)(ii) of the Bengal Excise Act, 1909 (in short the 'Act'). According to the prosecution he was in unlawful possession of 40 litres of illicit distilled liquor.3. The trial found him guilty and convicted him in terms of Section 46A(a)(ii) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation.The said order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court at Diamond Harbour, 24 Parganas (South) was maintained by learned Additional Sessions Judge, 6th Court, Alipore, 24 Parganas (South). The High Court also did not find any substance in the revision filed before it and dismissed the same.4. The background facts leading to prosecution and culminating in conviction essentially are as follows:On 17.01.1996 at about 10.30 A.M the present appellant was apprehended on Falta Road near Fatehpur market for unlawfu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2006(111)FLR318]; JT2006(8)SC501; 2006(4)KLT44(SC); (2006)IIILLJ806SC; 2006(8)SCALE693; (2006)7SCC651; 2006(3)ShimLC304; 2007(2)SLJ74(SC)
Y.K. Sabharwal, C.J.1. The validity of Rule 10(1) of the West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971 [for short 'the Rules'] is in question in this appeal. The Rules have been framed in exercise of power under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Rule 10(1) provides for withholding of pension and reads as under :10. Right of the Governor to withhold pension in certain cases.-- (1) The Governor reserves to himself the right of withholding of withdrawing a pension or any part of it whether permanently or for a specified period, and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if the pensioner is found in a departmental or judicial proceeding to have been guilty of grave misconduct or negligence, during the period of his service, including service rendered on re-employment after retirement: Provided that-(a) such departmental proceeding if instituted while the officer was in service, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC3341; 103(2007)CLT57(SC); 2007(1)CTLJ135(SC); 2007(1)MhLj496; 2006(8)SCALE696
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant summarily. Writ petition was filed by the Respondent alleging that his pre-existing enlistment was not revalidated on erroneous premises. The writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court. The Letters Patent Appeal questioning correctness of learned Single Judge's order was dismissed.2. Respondent's application for revalidation of enlistment was refused on the ground that he did not fulfill the requisite criteria. It was indicated that on evaluation of his performance he fell short of the required marks and, therefore, his request for revalidation was not acceptable. Before the High Court the stand of the respondent was that the methodology adopted in assessing his performance was erroneous. It was denied of legitimate marks. Primarily on two grounds the marks were denied to the respondent. 3. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(3)ARBLR369(SC); 2006(4)AWC3581(SC); [2006(4)JCR123(SC)]; (2006)4MLJ936(SC); 2007MPLJ232(SC); 2006(8)SCALE707; (2006)8SCC21
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Leave granted.2. Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of both sides.3. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dt. 21.12.2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in Writ Petition No. 5454 of 2005. The respondent is the insured. The respondent invoked arbitration as per Condition No. 7 of the Policy. The respondent appointed one Shri V.P. Shah as Arbitrator. The appellant-Insurance Company appointed Shri A. Sankaran as Arbitrator. Both the Arbitrators appointed Shri B.R. Mehta as Presiding Arbitrator. On 10.10.2003, the Majority Award was passed by the Presiding Arbitrator, Shri B.R. Mehta and Co-Arbitrator Shri V.P. Shah awarding Rs. 2,12,49,336.00 (Rupees two crore twelve lakh forty nine thousand three hundred thirty six only) with future interest @ 18%. The Minority Award was passed by Co-Arbitrator Shri A. Sankaran who awarded a sum of Rs. 1,23,08,104/- and interest of Rs. 43,57,066/- upto 10.10.2003 and cost ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(6)ALD5(SC); 2007(1)AWC66(SC); 103(2007)CLT12(SC); 2006(5)CTC186; [2006(4)JCR119(SC)]; JT2006(8)SC454; 2006(6)MhLj275; (2006)4MLJ939(SC); 2006(8)SCALE698; (2006)8SCC25
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court dismissing the writ petition No. 2521 of 2005 filed by the appellant. By the impugned judgment the High Court upheld the view of the trial court in Summary Suit No. 10 of 2001 that the appellant has not made out a case for unconditional leave to defend in terms of Order XXXVII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, ( in short the 'CPC'). 3. The factual background in a nutshell are as follows:Summary Suit No. 10 of 2001 has been filed by the respondent before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Kalyan for recovery of an amount of Rs. 98,81,426.63. In addition, the plaintiff has claimed interest from the date of filing of the suit till the realisation of the amount. The suit was filed on 05.07.2001. After issuing notice, the writ petitioner- defendant filed an application under Order XXXVII Rule 3(5) of C.P.C. for leave to defend un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(3)ARBLR340(SC); 2006(6)BomCR309; [2006]134CompCas119(SC); JT2006(8)SC230; 2006(8)SCALE668; (2005)11SCC521; 2006AIRSCW5130
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Leave granted.2. The above appeal was filed by the appellant seeking special leave to appeal against the final order dated 02.03.2006 passed by the High Court of Bombay in Arbitration Petition No. 459 of 2004. By the said order, the High Court, according to the appellant, has wrongly assumed jurisdiction to entertain petitions under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') despite holding that the entire cause of action has arisen outside its territorial jurisdiction.In other words, the appellant seek to impugn the judgment dated 02.03.2006 whereby the High Court has held that jurisdiction of the Court under the provisions of the Arbitration Act may be assumed by a Court exercising jurisdiction in a place where no part of the cause of action has arisen, if the respondent being a Company has a Corporate Office at the place where the Court is moved.3. The facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are as foll...
Tag this Judgment!