Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(202)ELT41(SC); JT2006(8)SC608; 2006(9)SCALE67; (2006)10SCC129; 2006(2)LC1139(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted. 2. The respondent, which is a Company incorporated and registered under the Indian Companies Act, manufactures 'Hose Pipe'. It supplies goods manufactured by it to the Indian Railways. The goods are manufactured in terms of the specifications of the railway administration. Supplies are, however, made against specific contracts. The respondents used to pay 30% basic excise duty and 15% special duty. The goods came to be classified under Sub-Heading 4009.92. The said classification was in dispute. The contention of the manufacturers was that it is classifiable under Sub-Heading 4009.99. The lis ended in favour of the respondent. It, however, obtained clearance of the goods on payment of duties under protest as the products had been classified under classification 4009.92. The respondent filed two applications for refund of Rs.6.30 lakhs, which had already been paid by way of excise duty. The said applications were rejected by the authorities under the Act ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(4)AWC3923(SC); 2006(9)SCALE78; (2006)7SCC654; (2007)7MLJ687
1. Heard counsel for the parties.2. Leave granted.3. The High Court by its impugned judgment and order issued a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated January 17, 2003 whereby the contract of the respondent herein had been cancelled, and the order dated March 30, 2003 by which the District Magistrate, Kapurthala was directed to recover the amount of Rs.3,43,138/- from the account of the respondent herein at Kapurthala. The High Court also issued a writ of mandamus directing the appellant herein to permit the petitioner / respondent to continue to work in pursuance of the contract awarded to the respondent on October 5, 2002. The contract was for a term of two years which has expired on October 4, 2004.4. The grievance of the appellant is that the High Court ought not to have gone into seriously disputed questions of fact in its writ jurisdiction. The writ petitioner (respondent herein) challenged the action of the appellant contending that he was prevented by the appellant from wo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(1)ALLMR(SC)461; JT2006(8)SC504; (2006)IIILLJ1026SC; 2006(9)SCALE101; (2006)7SCC684
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. Leave granted.2. Regularization in public employment is the main issue which falls for adjudication in this appeal.This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.10.2003 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 6475 of 1992 by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, UP.3. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of the appeal are recapitulated as under:The appellant was appointed by Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, U.P., vide order dated 17.7.1989, for a period of three months on contractual basis on a remuneration of Rs. 1,500/- for conducting a survey in the deficiency of procurement of the agricultural produce of Meerut Division, namely, Potato etc. Since the nature of employment has been disputed by the appellant, therefore, we deem it appropriate to set out the relevant portion of the order dated 17.7.1989 as under:Shri Surinder Prasad Tiwari, 17, Rana Partap Marg, Lucknow, is hereby appointed for a period of three months onl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2006(8)SC579; 2006(9)SCALE114; (2006)7SCC745; 2007(3)ShimLC307
Altamas Kabir, J.1. Special leave granted in all the special leave petitions. All the special leave petitions have been taken up together since they involve a common question of law arising out of similar facts. SLP Nos. 3549/05, 3554/05, 24019/04 and 20410/05 have been filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the Committee of Management of different Institutions having a primary section. SLP No. 9978/03 has been filed by the Principal Secretary, Basic Education of the U.P. Government and SLP 3551/05 has been filed by the District Basic Education Officer of the Uttar Pradesh administration.2. The common question arising in all these appeals is whether teachers of privately-managed primary schools and primary sections of privately-managed schools imparting education up to the High School level, are eligible to receive their salaries from the State Government. Schools in Uttar Pradesh are either under public management or under private management. Public institutions are managed eithe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC3282; 2007(1)ALT12(SC); 2006(4)AWC3865(SC); 2006(4)CTC773; JT2006(8)SC525; (2007)1MLJ25(SC); 2007(1)OLR(SC)18; 2006(9)SCALE83; (2006)8SCC75
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. One Ralla Singh held some property. It was self- acquired. Isher Kaur was his wife. They had no children. On 7.10.1968, Ralla Singh executed a will. Ralla Singh died on 19.3.1977. His widow Isher Kaur on 21.1.1980, purported to gift the property in favour of a Gurdwara. The appellant filed a suit challenging the deed of gift. He also prayed for recovery of possession after the death of Isher Kaur. The appellant claimed that under the will of Ralla Singh, Isher Kaur took only a life estate and the properties were to vest in the appellant and his brother. On the terms of the will under which she took the properties, Isher Kaur had no right to gift the property to the Gurdwara. She was bound by the terms of the bequest. Isher Kaur and the Gurdwara, contended that the property received by Isher Kaur on the death of her husband was as his heir and it was taken by her absolutely and she was competent to deal with the property. It was pleaded that in any event, Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC3290; [2006(111)FLR339]; (2006)IIILLJ964SC; 2006(9)SCALE121; (2006)7SCC410
H.K. Sema, J.1. Heard the parties.2. This appeal is preferred by the General Manager, Appellate Authority, Bank of India. The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 14.8.2003 passed by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court affirming the order of the Single Judge passed on 2.5.2003.3. Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are as follows.The respondent joined the appellant-Bank as a Probationary Officer in 1972. He was thereafter promoted as Middle Management Officer-Grade II in 1981. The respondent unauthorisedly absented himself from duty with effect from 1.2.1994 onwards. By a letter dated 7.2.1994, he was asked to report for duty immediately. On 7.2.1994 the respondent applied for extraordinary leave from Ist February, 1994 to 31st March, 1994. He did not report for duty on 1.4.1994. On 10.5.1994 the Bank requested the respondent to immediately report for duty. On 19.5.1994 the respondent instead of reporting for duty or replying t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2006(111)FLR336]; 2006(9)SCALE79; 2007(2)SLJ207(SC)
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Leave granted.2. Heard Dr. R.G. Padia, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Subhrajoyti Borthakur, learned Counsel for the respondents.3. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 26.7.2005 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.51499 of 2005. The appellant filed the writ petition before the High Court with the following prayer: i. a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 13.8.2004 passed by respondent no.3 (Annexure 4) so far it relates to the petitioner only; ii a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in service till 31.7.2007 the due date of superannuation age; iii Any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant on the g...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2006(8)SC486; 2006(9)SCALE55; (2006)7SCC664; 2007(3)SLJ347(SC)
ORDERSub: Grant of Voluntary Retirement under V.R. Scheme to the employees- M.O.S.T. Letter No. LB- 16016/7/94-L-II, dt.29.08.1991-Reg. During the daily HODs Meeting held on 23.08.2000, keeping in view the concern expressed by the Secretary (Dept. of Shipping), M.O.S.T, Govt of India, a review has been made by the Chairman on the implementation of voluntary retirement under the scheme to the employees of V.P.T. and it has been decided that the Voluntary Retirement Scheme should be considered in the case of those employees who are below the age of 58 years.All the HODs are, therefore, requested to forward the V.R.S. cases of only those employees who have not attained the age of 58 years.This issues with the approval of the Chairman.SECRETARYVISHAKHAPATNAM PORT TRUST6. On 29.08.2000, respondent No. 1 made a representation to the Chairman of the VPT to consider his application dated 27.04.2000 which he had made before being promoted as Assistant Engineer. However, his case could not be co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2006SC3293; 2006(4)AWC3838(SC); [2006(111)FLR358]; JT2006(8)SC600; (2006)IIILLJ1064SC; 2006(9)SCALE48; (2006)10SCC410
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. Leave granted.2. The short controversy involved in this appeal pertains to holding of the next elections of a Trade Union called the Uttariya Railway Mazdoor Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (hereinafter mentioned as 'the Union'). Its members are drawn from the Northern Railways and it is managed by a Central Executive Committee under a duly registered Constitution. The General Body is the supreme body of the Union. According to clause 1 of the Constitution Rules and Byelaws of the Union, 'General Body' consists of office-bearers of the Union and members of the Central Executive Committee and delegates elected in the prescribed manner as defined hereinafter. Clause 6 deals with the aims and objects of the Union. It reads as follows:III. Aims and Objects.6. The aims and objects of the Union shall be:a) To establish an independent and free Union based on the principles of Trade Unionism which shall be free from the influences of the Government, the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2006(6)ALD3(SC); 2006(4)AWC3924(SC); 2006(5)CTC183; JT2006(8)SC483; 2006(9)SCALE43; (2006)10SCC148
Arijit Pasayat, J.1 In these appeals challenge is to the judgment rendered by a learned Singh Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowing the Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the 'CPC'). The Second appeal was partially allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree of the First appellate Court in the plaintiff's suit for possession to the extent of land measuring 36 kanals comprised in Khasra Nos. 646,647 and 648.Though many points were urged basically it was urged that the Second appeal was allowed without formulating any question of law for adjudication. This according to appellants rendered the judgment vulnerable. Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that though specific question of law was not formulated, the High Court analysed the evidence and kept to the correct conclusion.2. Section 100 of the Code deals with 'second appeal'. The provision reads as follows:100(1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in the ...
Tag this Judgment!