Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2006(110)FLR1216]; JT2006(8)SC166; 2006(8)SCALE556; 2007(1)SLJ302(SC)
C.K. Thakker, J.1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. This appeal is filed against an order dated April 22, 2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Writ Petition No. 8268 of 1993.4. The facts in nutshell may now be stated.Pursuant to common selection held by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission ('U.P.P.S.C.' for short) in 1970, several persons were selected for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer in various departments. The respondent herein opted for Irrigation Department whereas some selectees preferred to go to other departments including Public Works Department (PWD). The respondent joined the Irrigation Department on September 30, 1970. He initially worked at Lucknow and thereafter at Jaunpur. He continuously remained in Irrigation Department upto 1977. On November 4, 1977, with the approval of U.P.P.S.C., he was relieved from the Irrigation Department and joined Public Works Department without any break in service. It was the ca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(4)AWC3596(SC); 2006(6)BomCR858; 2006(4)KLT1(SC); 2006(8)SCALE528; (2006)7SCC452
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. While in one of the appeals challenge is to the legality of the judgment dated 5.2.2004 passed in CRP No. 1260 of 2003 by a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court, in the other appeal challenge is to the judgment passed on 20.8.2004 in WP(C) No. 14961 of 2004 by another learned Single Judge of the said High Court.3. Essentially the factual position is as follows:Respondents as plaintiffs filed OP No. 238 of 2000 before the District Court, Ernakulam under Section 34 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882 (in short the 'Trust Act') in respect of Vidyodaya Trust and applied to the Court for direction for management and administration of the said trust and the school run by the trust. But the said Court by order dated 31.1.2000 held that the OP was not maintainable and dismissed the petition. Thereafter the suit No. 20 of 2000 was filed by the respondents as plaintiffs claiming several reliefs. The respondents filed an application (IA 349 of 2000) seekin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(1)CTC444; JT2006(8)SC205; (2007)1MLJ816(SC); 2006(8)SCALE537
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 15503 of 2004 was filed by the petitioner therein challenging the order of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana dated 8.9.2003, dismissing the Writ Petition filed by it on the ground that the order impugned therein was legal, proper and just and the claim for regularization made by the petitioner could not be granted over-riding the stipulated land use of the area in question. When the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal came up, though at the initial stage, it was stated on behalf of the petitioner that the issue arising for the decision was not identical with the issue arising for decision in C.A. No. 2671 of 2004, on the subsequent day when it came up for admission, the same was got tagged with C.A. No. 2671 of 2004 and connected matters after persuading this Court to issue notice on it. It is apparent from the order dated 29.7.2004 that at that stage, this Court was told that the question that arose for decision was the s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(201)ELT321(SC); 2006(8)SCALE551; (2006)7SCC403
S.B. Sinha, J. 1. The Appellant before us is an undertaking wholly owned and controlled by the Central Government. It obtained the services of M/s. SEDCO Forex Int. Drilling Inc. for exploitation of oil and gas on shore and off shore. A contract was awarded by it to a company known as M/s. SEDCO Forex Int. Drilling Inc specializing in finding out the possibility of oil or gas by carrying out seismic surveys. The information gathered by reason of such survey was recorded in 3-D Seismic Tapes. 2. A question arose as to whether the same would attract the exemptions from payment of custom duty in terms of the entries contained in Sl. Nos. 182, 184 and 231 of the notification dated 28.2.1999. For the aforementioned purpose, indisputably, an essentiality certificate was required to be issued by the Directorate General of Hydrocarbons. Pre-requisites for grant of such certificate also was a valid Petroleum Exploration licence. 3. The licence granted by the Central Government in favour of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(202)ELT578(SC); 2006(8)SCALE546; (2006)7SCC431
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Whether extended period of limitation envisaged under the proviso appended to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short 'the Act') would apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case is the question involved in this appeal.3. Before adverting to the said question, however, we may notice the basic fact of the matter which is not in dispute.The Respondent herein manufactures paper based decorative laminated sheets. The goods manufactured by the Respondent were classified under Chapter 39 of the Custom Excise Tariff Act whereas according to the Appellant it should have been classified as sub-heading No. 4823.90. The classification for the year 1993 was approved by the Revenue. By a letter dated 6.12.1994, it requested Respondent to intimate the manufacturing process of the product, to which a reply was sent by it in terms of its letter dated 7.12.1994 disclosing the manufacturing process stating:Brief Manufacturing Process of Paper...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(4)AWC4033(SC); [2006]133CompCas288(SC); 2006(8)SCALE458; [2007]80SCL151(SC)
ORDER1. In this special leave petition the Petitioner has impugned the judgment and order of the High Court of Bombay at Goa dated February 22, 2006 in Civil Writ Petition No.19 of 2006, whereby it dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner praying that its proposal contained in letter dated January 18, 2006 be considered and that Respondent No. 1, herein, be restrained from selling the assets in question to Respondent No. 3.2. We have heard counsel for the parties at length. We have carefully perused the material placed before us. We are satisfied that this is not a fit case for interference by this Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.It is not disputed that the Petitioner had committed defaults in payment of dues to Respondent No. 1. Action was taken under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act by the aforesaid respondent. The property in question was attached and possession was also taken by Responden...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(4)AWC3636(SC); IV(2006)BC132; [2006]133CompCas338(SC); [2006(4)JCR126(SC)]; 2006(8)SCALE525; (2006)7SCC293
S.B. Sinha, J.1. The 1st respondent herein had set up a small scale industrial unit. The appellant herein is an establishment constituted under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. An application for sanction of loan in the Corporation was submitted by the respondent-Company. It was approved. The necessary agreements for loan were executed in terms whereof the properties of the 1st respondent were mortgaged. 2. It was decided to expand the existing unit and procure some machinery therefore. The Respondent also placed orders for other and further equipments/machinery necessary for expansion of the said scheme. Allegedly, the Managing director of the Corporation visited the 1st respondent's factory on 29.1.1988 and having satisfied himself that there existed justification for expansion of the capacity utilization had agreed to sanction an additional term loan to the tune of Rs. 15 lakhs on terms and conditions mentioned therein, some of which are as under:Clause 7 : The concern wil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC3359; 2007(1)ALD20(SC); 2006(4)AWC3644(SC); 2006(4)CTC766; [2007(1)JCR87(SC)]; JT2006(8)SC158; 2007(1)MhLj893; 2007(I)OLR(SC)196; 2006(8)SCALE515; (2006)8SCC322
S.B. Sinha, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Whether the deed dated 30.12.1968 constitutes a sale with condition of purchase or mortgage by way of conditional sale is the question which falls for consideration in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 27.7.2004 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand in F.A. No. 23 of 1991 (R) . 3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The property in question is a house property. It belonged to one Jawala Prasad Sah, defendant No. 3 in the suit. On 30.12.1968, he transferred the northern part of the house property to one Balmukund Chaudhary by way of mortgage for a consideration of Rs. 4,300/- repayable by 30.1.1971. He sold the entire property to the plaintiffs for a valuable consideration of Rs. 14,000/-. It included the right to redeem the mortgage. The transaction in question was also carried out on the same date, i.e. 30.12.1968. The husband of the Appellant No. 1 herein Banshidhar Singhania was a tenant in the said premises. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : IV(2006)BC527(SC); [2006]134CompCas113(SC); JT2006(8)SC200; 2006MPLJ339(SC); 2006(8)SCALE521
S.B. Sinha, J.1. The District Land Development Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank') situated at Tikamgarh in the State of Madhya Pradesh is a Co-operative Society registered under the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 ('the 1960 Act', for short). Its functions are regulated by M.P. Sahkari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Adhiniyam, 1966 ('the 1966 Act', for short). The appellant herein was an agriculturist. He obtained a sum of Rs. 6,473.69p. by way of loan from the said Co-operative Society on three different occasions. The break-up of the amount of loan taken by him for three different purposes is as under:(i) A sum of Rs. 1,300/- was taken on 5.5.71; and (ii) Rs. 1,200/- was taken on 5.5.71 for the purpose of purchase of a pumping set; and (iii) A sum of Rs. 3,973.69p. was taken on 25.8.71 for the purpose of construction of well. 2. By way of security of loan so taken, he had mortgaged with the Bank his agricultural holdings comprising in Khasra Nos. 430, 431, 432, 435, 437,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006CriLJ4598; JT2006(8)SC177; 2006(8)SCALE451; (2006)7SCC172
S.B. Sinha, J.1. The State in appeal before us impugning the judgment and order dated 31st October, 2003 passed in favour of the respondent herein by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad whereby and whereunder a judgment of conviction and sentence passed as against the respondent under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('The Act', for short) and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 4 lakhs and in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one year, was set aside.2. The respondent was an Assistant Station Master. He was working in the South Eastern Railway, Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh from 16.12.1961 to February, 1984. He was promoted to the post of Commercial Inspector and was working in that capacity from February, 1984 to July, 1986 and as Senior Commercial Inspector from July, 1986 to December, 1993. He was later promoted as Chief Commercial Inspector and was working in the said capacity fro...
Tag this Judgment!