Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC1139; JT2007(3)SC42; 2007(2)SCALE366; 2007(1)LC0282(SC); 2007AIRSCW1133
Markandey Katju, J.1. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 6.9.1999 in L.P.A. No. 375 of 1999 by which the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court dated 26.5.1999 dismissing the writ petition was upheld.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.The appellant is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act and is engaged in the manufacture of fertilizers and chemicals. One of the products it produces is Single Super Phosphate (SSP). Till 1976, the manufacture and sale of SSP was not controlled by the Government. However, from 1976 to 1982, the manufacture of SSP was subjected to a system of uniform subsidy whereby each manufacturer was given a uniform rate of subsidy. In the year 1982, the Government of India brought SSP under a formal price control known as the Retention Price and Subsidy Scheme (hereinafter referred to as RPS) for regulating the price and sale of SSP. The scheme had been intr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2007(3)SC229; RLW2007(4)SC2796; 2007(2)SCALE370; 2007AIRSCW1077; 2007(1)Supreme827; 200(1)LawHerald(SC)565
Markandey Katju, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Jharkhand High Court dated 6/5.5.2006 passed in Writ Petition (Cr) No. 234 of 2005.3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.It appears that one Suresh Chandra Sinha, respondent No. 2 in this appeal, filed Criminal Complaint being Complaint Case No. 946/2001 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, which was sent by the CJM under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the Police directing it to register a case and investigate it. Accordingly, the Police instituted an FIR being Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 311/2001 under Sections 302, 201, 328 and 120B IPC against the appellants. The allegation in the FIR in short was that the son of the informant Rajnish Kumar was married to accused Monika Mani (appellant No. 2 herein), and she had developed illicit relationship with the accused named in the FIR namely, Prabhat Kumar Srivastava. The accused Monika, daughter-in-law of the in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(1)AWC494(SC); 2007CriLJ1442; JT2007(3)SC247; 2007(2)SCALE373; 2007AIRSCW937; (2007)1Crimes289(SC); 2007LawHerald(SC)557
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court confirming the conviction of the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and affirming the sentence of imprisonment of life as imposed. It is to be noted that the appellant was tried with one another whose conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial Court for offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 511 IPC was set aside. Similar was the case for the appellant.3. Background facts as projected by the prosecution in a nutshell are as follows:Rathinavelu (PW-1) is the son, Saradha (PW-2) is the wife, Kanakraj (PW-3) is the younger brother and Selvi (PW-4) is the second wife of Periasamy (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased'). Appellant-Sellappan is the father and acquitted accused Selvaraj is the brother of Selvi (PW-4). All of them were residing ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2007(3)SC232; 2007(2)SCALE360; 2007AIRSCW1075
ORDER1. These appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment dated 23.12.2003 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 16719 and 18490 of 2003.2. The respondents in this appeal had filed O. As before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal seeking a direction to the State Government to extend the benefits of G.O. Ms. No. 87, Finance & Planning (FW.Pen.1) Department, dated 25.5.1998 to all the pensioners irrespective of their date of retirement and also to compensate the loss sustained by the applicants. It was contended therein that the pension was calculated on the basis of ten months average pay and the petitioners have been getting the said pension ever since the date of their retirement. However, the Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 87 dated 25.5.1998 revising the fixation of pension on the basis of the last drawn pay treating it as emoluments for the purpose of pension. Hence, it was contended that their pensions had to be re-fixed in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 87...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2007(2)SC638; 2007(2)SCALE362; (2007)2SCC705; 2007AIRSCW1072
Markandey Katju, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 10.12.2004 by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Trade Tax Revision Nos. 2407-2410/2004.3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.The appellant was doing the business of manufacture of metallised plastic films. The appellant's unit was holding an eligibility certificate under Section 4-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act for the period from 20.02.1995 to 19.02.2003 upto monetary limit of Rs. 66,56,239/-. The Assessing authority rejected the appellant's books of account and enhanced the turn over. The first and second appeals filed by the appellant were rejected. The appellant then filed Revisions before the High Court which were also dismissed and hence this appeal.4. The Tribunal has rejected the books of account of the assessee appellant on the ground that during the assessment year 2000-01 as against the electricity consumption of 513596 units, production...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(116)ECC88; 2007LC88(SC); 2007(208)ELT481(SC); 2007(2)SCALE283; (2007)3SCC68; [2007]7STT367; 2007(1)LC0275(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment rendered by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, (for short 'CEGAT'). By the impugned judgment the CEGAT held that the bar of unjust enrichment does not apply to claim for refund in cases where original payments of duty were made under protest. Accordingly, the orders passed by the Central Excise Authorities were set aside.2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:Respondent No. 1 was formerly known as M/s. Birla Jute & Industries Ltd. - unit Chittor Cement Works. It was engaged in the manufacture of Cement which is classifiable under Chapter 25 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (in short Tariff Act'). It claimed the benefit of rebate of central excise duty under Notification No. 36/87-CE dated 1.3.1987 which was denied by the Department. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 paid duty at the applicable rates under protest during the period between March 1987 to March ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2007(112)FLR1028]; 2007(3)SCALE1
S.B. Sinha. J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order, dated 28.2.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court j of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, in Writ Petition No. 9412/1998 questioning the correctness of the judgment and order dated 17.4.2003 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No. 4866/2001 and C.A. No. 758/2001.3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.Respondent herein was working as a Principal in various colleges, situated in the State of Andhra Pradesh. On or about 18.7.1990, several charges of misconduct were framed against him. A departmental proceedings was initiated. In the said departmental proceedings, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 8.1.1992. However, before any action could be taken pursuant to and in furtherance of the said report, the respondent retired on 30.6.1992.4. A proceeding was initiated against the respondent upon service of a notice to show cause as to why 50% of the provision...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC1145; 2007(3)ALT50(SC); JT2007(2)SC629; 2007(2)SCALE274; 2007AIRSCW1150
Kapadia, J.1. Nawaz Jung Bahadur was a pattedar of the lands inter alia in Survey Nos. 63, 68, 69 and 70 admeasuring 69 acres 10 guntas in village Madhapur of Serlingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy in Andhra Pradesh. On the demise of Nawaz Jung Bahadur, one of his sons Mohd. Ali Khan filed a suit for partition of the properties of late Nawaz Jung Bahadur. This was in 1935. The scheduled property was Item 6 of Schedule B in Suit No. 42/62 filed in the City Civil Court, Hyderabad. In the plaint it was stated that Item 6 was in possession of the tenants. One such tenant, Boddam Bala Mallaiah (hereinafter referred to as 'Bala') was the cultivating tenant in respect of Survey Nos. 63, 68, 69 and 70 of village Madhapur admeasuring 69 acres 10 guntas as indicated by Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55. Bala was a lessee for three years. He was inducted in the aforesaid lands under a kaulanama dated 1.3.1953. This kaulanama was executed by one Hamid Ali Khan son of Md. Nawaz Jung. Initially it was ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC1324; 2007(2)AWC1937(SC); [2007(2)JCR44(SC)]; JT2007(2)SC523; 2007(2)SCALE288; (2007)10SCC571
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. The short question which arises for consideration in this civil appeal is : whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the lower appellate court was right in holding that the issue of legal necessity even if decided in favour of defendant nos.1 to 5 (appellants herein) was not a 'fact in issue' and was therefore not a relevant fact in a suit for possession. 2. The facts giving rise to this civil appeal are as follows.Land admeasuring 12 acres 16 gunthas in Survey No.218 situated within Chikhli Municipal Limits, District Buldhana, was owned by Nimbaji and his family members. It was an ancestral property. Nimbaji had five sons. One of his sons was Panditrao (defendant no.6). Nimbaji and his four sons excluding Panditrao agreed to sell 9 acres 16 gunthas out of the above ancestral lands to the plaintiffs (respondent nos.1 to 4 herein). The agreement was reduced to writing. It was registered on 18.3.75. It was followed by a conveyance dated 31.3.75. Panditrao was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2007(2)SC404; 2007(2)SCALE319; 2007AIRSCW4631; (2007)1Crimes303(SC); 2007LawHerald(SC)551; 2007(2)KCCR1148.
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Guwahati High Court upholding appellant's conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and sentence of imprisonment for life as awarded by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhemaji. 3. Accusations which led to the trial of the appellant are essentially as follows:One Premlal Verma lodged a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, East Siang, Arunachal Pradesh on 29.9.2000 alleging that on 26.9.2000 one Fekan Das (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') was driving a Truck No. AS-25/641. At about 11.00 p.m. when the truck reached Ruksing Gate, the police personnel of Jonai Police Station came there in a three wheeler and assaulted the deceased. The deceased became senseless and the police left him on the road and returned to the police station. It was further alleged that the deceased was brought to the Pasighat General Hospital for treatment. On 28.9.2000,...
Tag this Judgment!