Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC1160; 2007(2)AWC1936(SC); (SCSuppl)2007(2)CHN1; 2007(2)CTC335; (2007)5MLJ401(SC); RLW2007(4)SC2807; 2007(2)SCALE287; (2007)10SCC185
S.B. Sinha, J.1. The defendant No. 4 in the original suit is the appellant before us. The plaintiff is the first respondent herein. The suit of the original plaintiff was dismissed. The defendant No. 4 did not prefer any appeal thereagainst.2. Appellant claimed title over the land by adverse possession. The said claim was negatived by the learned Trial Judge. The First Appellate Court, however, opined that both the plaintiff (respondent No. 1 herein) and defendant No. 4 (appellant herein) had not acquired any title to the property. Aggrieved by certain findings arrived at by the First Appellate Court, the appellant preferred a second appeal before the High Court of Madras which was dismissed summarily. The High Court opined that as defendant No. 4 did not file any suit nor the Trial Court having given any relief in that behalf, the appeal was not maintainable. The appellant is before us aggrieved by the said order of the High Court.3. There cannot be any doubt that the second appeal fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007AIRSCW5508
ORDER1. Heard Mr. A.K. Ganguly, learned senior Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Subba Rao, learned Counsel for the respondent. We have perused the order passed by the Assessing Officer and also the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai.2. The learned senior Counsel for the appellant at the time of hearing relied upon the Judgment in Craft Interiors Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore and Anr. reported in : 2006ECR616(SC) and in particular paragraph 17 of the said Judgment. In view of the above Judgment, the order passed by the Assessing Officer and as affirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai requires re-consideration. We, therefore, remit the matter to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-III for a fresh disposal in accordance with law. The appeals stands allowed accordingly.3. Both parties are at liberty to place additional documents before the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-III....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007CriLJ1448; [2007(2)JCR211(SC)]; JT2007(3)SC234; 2007(2)SCALE60; (2007)2SCC464
G.P. Mathur, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking the following reliefs:(a) direct the respondent No. 2 to properly investigate the subject matter of the present writ petition, regarding the abduction, harassment, illegal detention and other serious criminal offences committed by the high officials as stated in the writ petition and to punish the wrongdoers in accordance with the various provisions of the Indian Penal Code;(b) direct the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to adequately compensate the applicant for the illegal confinement, illegal detention, harassment and humiliation caused to the applicant because by their action applicant's fundamental rights under Articles 14, 21 etc. have been grossly impaired;(c) direct the respondent No. 4 and 5 to take necessary disciplinary action against erring officials of the Local Administration of District Gwalior, for insubordination, misconduct and criminal misuse of power; and(d) pass such other or f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(115)ECC207; 2007LC207(SC); 2007(208)ELT321(SC); 2007(2)SCALE234; [2007]8STJ401(SC); 2007(1)LC0188(SC); (2009)20VST726(SC); 2007AIRSCW6244; 2007(2)KCCRSN59
ORDER1. This appeal is directed against the final order No. 204/05- NB-A dated 14th January, 2005 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No. E/3422/93-NB-A.2. We have heard Mr. A.R. Madhav Rao, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. K. Radhakrishna, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent. We have perused the orders passed by the lower Authorities and also of the Tribunal. The point raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant is covered by the recent judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 4488 of 2005, Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Mysore Electricals Industries Ltd. reported in : 2006(204)ELT517(SC) . In the said Judgment, this Court held that a beneficial circular has to be applied retrospectively while oppressive circular has to be applied prospectively. Thus, when the circular is against the assessee, they have right to claim enforcement of the same prospectively.3. In view of the submission made by the learn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007AIRSCW956; 2007-II-LLJ-239(SC);
ORDERWhereas 'The Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd.' {The Ghaziabad District Cooperative Bank Ltd.) which is called hereinafter as Bank, is a Cooperative Society registered under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act and rules.Whereas it has been decided, by the Board of Directors of the Bank, vide Resolution No. 14 dated 13.1.2001 and in this continuation vide Resolution No. 1 dated 3.2.2001, on the demand of the Bank employees Organisation (Union), to make the payment of the ex-gratia amount in accordance with the prescribed norms like the previous year, whereon the Secretary, District Cooperative Bank Ltd., Ghaziabad has vide his letter No. 18980 dated 17.2.2001, recommended to annul both the aforesaid Resolutions under Section 128 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1985.Whereas in the aforesaid context, a divisional meeting was held, vide Registrar's circular letter No. C-74 dated 29.10.1997 and dated 22.1.2001, in district Ghaziabad under the Chairmanship of the Hon'ble Minister o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2007(112)FLR1043]; 2007(2)SCALE403; 2007AIRSCW1085; 2007LawHerald(SC)607
S.B. Sinha, J.1. The Respondents herein were appointed, by the appellant-Corporation as Security Guards. Different regions have been created by the Corporation for managing its affairs. The divisions of Karimnagar, Nizamabad, Warangal and Khammam formed part of one region known as 'Karimnagar Region of Kakatiya' in the appellant-Corporation. The Warangal region, however, was curved out therefrom known as 'Warangal Region'. The respondents herein had been working at Warangal. When an option was called for in regard to their posting in the Warangal region and Karimnagar region, they opted for the former region. They were, therefore, absorbed in the Warangal region of appellant-Corporation.It is stated that subsequently some posts were created in the Karimnagar region. One Mr. T.J. Reddy, who was junior to the respondents in the combined seniority list was promoted to the post of Security Head Guard as he became the senior most in the Karimnagar region.2. A writ petition was filed by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(2)SCALE220; (2007)2SCC214
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Heard Mr. S.S. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Gopal Subramanium, learned Additional Solicitor General for the respondents.The above writ petition was filed by way of Public Interest Litigation by one Raj Kumar Gupta. The petitioner of this writ petition wants to raise the issue of leakage of question papers of various exams. and that the frequent leakage of question papers has shaken the confidence of honest students and their parents on the system and has caused great harassment and depression on them.2. This Court upon hearing the counsel issued notice to the Union of India and others. The Union of India has also filed their counter affidavit through its Secretary, Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi. Respondent No. 2 has also filed its counter affidavit, through its Under Secretary, Department of Secondary and Higher Education, Ministry of Human Development, New Delhi.When the matter was listed on 20.11.2006, we directed the Union...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(2)SCALE247; (2007)9SCC303
G.P. Mathur, J.1. Delay condoned. 2. The special leave petition has been filed against the order dated May 31, 2006 of High Court of Punjab and Haryana, by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner herein has been admitted. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no order on the stay application filed by the petitioner has been passed by the High Court. No material has been filed along with the special leave petition to show that the stay application filed by the petitioner has been rejected. In these circumstances, we do not consider it a fit case for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. 3. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. It is, however, made clear that it will be open to the petitioner to make a prayer before the High Court seeking stay of the award passed by the Labour Court....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(3)ALLMR(SC)369; (2007)IILLJ228SC; 2007(2)SCALE252; (2007)2SCC332; 2007AIRSCW1642; 2007LawHerald(SC)629
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Appellant No. 1 - Indian Council of Medical Research ('ICMR') is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. It is engaged in research activities in the field of medicine. It carries out various research activities through various schemes/projects. One of such projects is called 'National Nutrition Monitoring Bureau'. The said project was carried out in the States of Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, West Bengal and U.P. For the aforementioned purpose, the Central Government admittedly grants grant-in-aid on year to year basis.2. Respondent herein was appointed by reason of an offer of appointment dated 1.4.1975. The terms of appointment demonstrates that the same was also on year to year basis. The post was also on year to year basis as the grant-in-aid of the Central Government in relation to the said project was on that basis. However, the project continued for a long time for one reason or the other. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2007(113)FLR313]; 2007(2)SCALE358; (2007)3SCC153; 2007AIRSCW1087; 2007LawHerald(SC)605
S.B. Sinha, J.1. The State of Punjab is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 10.7.2000 in LPA No. 800/2000 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing the LPA arising from the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the said Court in writ petitions filed by the respondents herein, opining that their cases should be considered for promotion to the post of Principal, Grade II.2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. Respondents were appointed as Masters in the Education Department of the State of Punjab. As they possessed Master degree, they were promoted to the post of Lecturer. In or about 1974, they were temporarily posted as Headmasters. A sample copy of the order of such posting is in the following terms:The following Masters /Lecturers are hereby provisionally posted at their own pay and grade on the post of Headmasters. (P.E.S.III) Non Gazetted Men Branch. These postings are purely temporary a...
Tag this Judgment!