Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC351; I(2008)BC220; [2008]146CompCas344(SC); 2007(12)SCALE706; [2007]80SCL241(SC)
Ashok Bhan, J.1. This judgment shall dispose off Civil Appeal No. 2565 of 2005 directed against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 1414 of 2004 dated 29.06.2006 and Civil Appeal No. 7574 of 2005 directed against the judgment of the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 606(M/B) of 2002 dated 17.10.2003. The point involved being the same, the appeals are disposed off by a common order. 2. By the impugned judgments, the High Court of Bombay and Uttaranchal have upheld the vires and constitutionality of SEBI (Stock Brokers and Sub Brokers) Rules and Regulations, 1992 (for short the Rules & Regulations of 1992). The facts are taken from Civil Appeal No. 2565 of 2005. Although in the writ petition several other points were also taken but at the time of argument before the High Court, the learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioners confined his submissions to the question of vires of the rules and regulations only. 3. Princip...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC493; (SCSuppl)2008(1)CHN158; 2008(1)KarLJ711; (2008)1MLJ253(SC); 2007(12)SCALE750; 2007AIRSCW7356; 2008(2)CivilLJ499; 2008(1)ICC427; 2008(4)KCCR2669; ILR2008(2)Kar1810
P. Sathasivam, J.1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment dated 13.07.2006 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in R.F.A. Nos. 827 and 718 of 2000 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeals preferred by the appellants.BRIEF FACTS:3. The appellants filed the above appeal seeking declaration of ownership over the suit property with recovery of possession and mesne profits. The suit property in question is in respect of two different portions of premises bearing No. 26, Nissan Huts, Austin Town, Bangalore which originally belonged to Muniyappa, respondent No.3 herein (since deceased). On 23.12.1982, a registered sale deed was executed by respondent No.3 herein in favour of respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 issued a notice to respondent No.3 and the other occupants of the suit property for handing over possession of the suit property. A reply was sent by counsel on behalf of Defendant No.1 in each suit claiming that the sale deed pleaded by res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Heard Mr. T.S. Doabia, learned senior counsel for the Union of India, and Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned Counsel appearing for the Union Territory of Chandigarh. None appears on behalf of the principal respondents-Dr. Jai Dev Wig and Dr. M.S. Sekhon.2. The challenge in these appeals is to the orders dated 7.8.1998 in CWP No. 12360-C/1998 and 8.7.1999 in CWP 6169-C/1998 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.Despite receipt of notice, principal respondents-Dr. Jai Dev Wig and Dr. M.S. Sekhon are not represented either by themselves or by a counsel. It was contended that by this time they might have retired from service.3. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:The respondent-Dr. Jai Dev Wig was working as Additional Professor, Department of Surgery, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh. The Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Personnel & A.R., issued an Office Memorandum dated 9.4.1981 on the subject o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(123)ECC97; 2007(149)LC97(SC); JT2007(12)SC377; 2007(12)SCALE701; 2007AIRSCW7401
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted in SLP (C) Nos. 9698/2005 and 8595- 8596/2005.2. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (in short 'CEGAT') disposing of appeals filed by the appellant-company. Challenge before the CEGAT was to the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). CEGAT granted stay of the recovery of duty, and took up the appeals for disposal of merits. The appellant-company had challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Jaipur. 3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:Appellant-company is 100% export oriented undertaking (in short 'EOU') who claimed partial exemption from duty in terms of Notification NO.8/97-CE dated 1.3.1997 in respect of goods sold in Domestic Tariff Area (in short 'DTA'), which stipulated conditions that the goods have been manufactured wholly from the raw materials produced or manufactured in India. According to the company it procu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. The main point in this appeal is as to whether the amendment to Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, brought about by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1991, with effect from 1-4-1992, is prospective in nature or is retrospective.2. This Court in the case of P. R. Prabhakar v. CIT : [2006]284ITR548(SC) , relying upon Circular No. 621 19-12-1991, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), has held that the amendment in question is prospective in nature and the same is binding on the revenue.3. In view of Circular No. 621 19-12-1991 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and the aforesaid judgment of this Court, these appeals are accepted and the orders passed by the High Court of Bombay are set aside leaving the parties to bear their own costs.4. The appeals stand allowed in the above terms....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(6)ALT39; 2008(1)AWC318(SC); 2007(5)CTC460; II(2007)DMC755SC; JT2007(12)SC424; (2008)1SCC180
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Pursuant to the order dated 23.7.2006, the matter was placed for our consideration. By judgment dated 14.2.2006 reported as Smt. Seema v. Ashwani Kumar : AIR2006SC1158 , it was directed that all marriages shall be compulsorily registered. In the said order, it was inter alia noticed as follows:It has been pointed out that compulsory registration of marriage would be a step in the right direction for the prevention of child marriage still prevalent in many parts of the country. In the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution') List II (the Concurrent List) of the Seventh Schedule provides in Entries 5 and 30 as follows:5. Marriage and divorce; infants and minors; adoption; wills; intestacy and succession; joint family and partition; all matters in respect of which parties in judicial proceedings were immediately before the commencement of this Constitution subject to their personal law.30. Vital statistics including registration of births and deaths.'...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(122)ECC401; 2007(148)LC401(SC); JT2007(12)SC458; (2007)10SCC3; 2007AIRSCW6819
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. Delay condoned.2. These cross appeals are filed by M/s Modipon Fibre Company and the Department under Section 35L of Central Excise Act, 1944 against order dated 3.7.2001 passed by the Customs Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal ('CEGAT') holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction in respect of turnover tax ('TOT') only at 0.5% and not at 2% as claimed.Civil Appeal Nos. 8529-8531 of 20013. The appellant-assessee is engaged in the manufacture of Nylon and Polyester Yarn which is manufactured in its factory in U.P. and cleared to its various Depots situated all over India including Surat from where the Yarn is sold to dealers. The assessee used to pay duty during the relevant period, at the time of removal of yarn, on the basis of the depot sale price, after claiming permissible deductions under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ('1944 Act'). One such deduction was TOT in respect of yarn cleared and despatched to Surat depot from the factory of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2007(115)FLR1003]; 2008(3)JKJ99[SC]; (2008)IILLJ1SC; 2007(12)SCALE602; 2008(1)SLJ304(SC)
ORDER1. Heard learned for the parties.2. These appeals by special leave are directed against the common judgment and order dated 24.5.2000 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Regular Second Appeal Nos. 42/2000 and 43/2000 whereby the High Court has upheld the order of the Trial Court. The Trial Court had directed that the respondents herein who were working as Tractor Drivers on daily wage basis should be granted the same pay scale as those who had been regularly appointed, on the principle of equal pay for equal work. However, the other relief regarding regularization of their services was declined by the Trial Court and the same was affirmed by the High Court.Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the State of Punjab is in appeal before us.3. Special leave was granted by this Court on 17.8.2001 and the execution of the order passed by the High Court was stayed. Today the appeals are before us for final hearing.We have heard learned Counsel for th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(12)SCALE605; 2007AIRSCW6626.
B. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court confirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and the sentence of imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further 3 months rigorous imprisonment. He was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 month. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently.3. The conviction of the appellant is based on circumstantial evidence.4. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant is a permanent resident of village Kojra, District Sirohi, Rajasthan. The appellant was, however, living with his sister in Mumbai. The deceased-Uma was working in a beauty parlor. She ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(12)SCALE592; 2007AIRSCW6914.
Altamas Kabir, J.1. Special Leave Petition No. 16505 of 2004 was filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh and its officers in the Excise Department on 23rd June, 2004 against the Judgment and Order passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court on 12th February 2004 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1027 of 1999, which had been filed by Shri R.P. Sharma in his capacity as the sole proprietor of M/s Bimal Paints and Chemical Industries situated at Aligarh in Uttar Pradesh.2. The writ petitioner in the said writ petition is the holder of a licence in Form FL No. 41 granted under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Excise Act, 1910 and the rules framed thereunder. The petitioner was aggrieved by the levy of licence fee on the sale of specially denatured spirit to licencees holding licence in Form FL 41 @ 15% ad valorem on the sale made by a distillery/wholesale vendor to FL 41 licencees purportedly under the provisions of the U.P. Licences for the Possession of Denatured Spirit and Sp...
Tag this Judgment!