Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(3)SCALE544; (2008)1SCC339; 2007AIRSCW7409; 2008(1)LH(SC)644; 2008(1)KCCRSN21
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. His claim relates to the post of Senior Administrative Grade. He filed OA 245 of 2001 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench (for short the 'Tribunal'). Before that he had moved OA 8639 of 1997 making the grievance that he was not granted the post of Chief Commercial Manager, Senior Administrative Grade from 1995. His stand was that the Minister of Railways had approved his promotion in the said grade, but the same was not given effect to by the respondents. OA was decided on merits by order dated 15.1.1999. While dismissing the OA, Tribunal had observed that the applicant was not entitled for promotion to the post of Chief Commercial Manager in the grade w.e.f. 1.1.1995. The appellant had preferred Special Civil Application No.10899 of 2000 before the Gujarat High Court and while dismis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Tarun Chatterjee, J.1. This appeal by way of a special leave petition is directed against the final judgment and order dated 9th of February, 2000 in CWP No. 1719 of 2000 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. 2. One Munshi Singh, son of Dalip Singh, resident of Village Rampura, Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepur along with his wife Smt. Satwant Kaur owned land measuring 15.9542 Hectares on 24th of January, 1971, which was the appointed date under the Punjab Land Reforms Act 1972. A decree dated 6th of July, 1972 was passed in favour of Karnail Singh and others against Smt. Satwant Kaur and in pursuance to the said decree, the land was transferred and mutated in favour of Karnail Singh and others. Thereafter, Karnail Singh and others exchanged the land with Manjit Singh whose name had entered in the revenue records. On or about 14th of June, 1974, Manjit Singh sold land measuring about 12 Kanals 8 Marlas to M/s. Ahuja Oil and Chemicals, Fazilka, which is presently Respo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC942; 2008CriLJ1033; RLW2008(1)SC708; 2007(3)SCALE541; 2008AIRSCW429; (2008)SCC(Cri)305; 2008(1)Crimes54; 2007(8)Supreme427; 2008(1)KCCRSN15
ORDERHarjit Singh Bedi, J. 1. This application for bail has been filed directly in this Court on the following grounds:1. that the appellant has been in custody for more than seven years and that his conduct in jail has been exemplary;2. that on account of the death of his father, there is nobody available to him to pursue the present case,3. that no inculpatory evidence has come on record justifying his continued incarceration,4. despite the orders of this Court from time to time, the trial was no where near completion and, finally,5. that his medical condition required sophisticated life saving treatment which was only possible outside jail. 2. We are of the opinion that in the light of the facts that several bail applications filed by the appellant raising almost similar issues have been rejected no case for release on bail is made out. We are also of the opinion that the demise of the appellant's father also does not ipso facto mean that he should be released on bail more particula...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC632; 2008(2)ALT67; (2008)149PLR494; (2008)2SCC186; 2008(1)LC31(SC); 2007AIRSCW7702; AIR2008SC632; 2008(2)SCC186; 2008(1)KCCRSN28
K.G. Balakrishnan CJI.1. This statutory appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of People Act 1951, is filed by an Election Petitioner against the judgment dated 7.6.2005 of the Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissing his Election Petition No.1 of 2003 challenging the election of the respondent (Bodh Raj) as Member of Legislative Assembly from 35-Gangath (SC) Assembly Constituency. 2. The case of the appellant in brief is that 35-Gangath Assembly Constituency is reserved for scheduled castes, that he and the respondent, among others were candidates for election from the said constituency. In the said election held on 26.2.2003, the respondent secured the highest number of votes namely 24499 and was declared as elected. The respondent had in his nomination paper declared that he belongs to a scheduled caste (Lohar) and in support of his claim, had produced a caste certificate dated 16.12.1991 issued by the Executive Magistrate, Indora, District Kangra certifying that he belonged ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008ACJ627; AIR2008SC614; 2008(1)AWC260(SC); (2008)2CompLJ480(SC); [2008(1)JCR208(SC)]; 2008(1)MPHT437(SC); (2008)149PLR434; RLW2008(1)SC697; 2007(3)SCALE588; JT2007(13)SC246; 2008ACJ627; 2007(8)Supreme343; 2007AIRSCW7677; AIR2008SC614; 2008(1)SCC696; (2008)1SCC(Cri)308; 2008(2)CivilLJ521; 2
C.K. Thakker, J.1. Leave granted.2. In all these appeals, a common question of law has been raised by the parties. It is, therefore, appropriate if we deal with and decide all the appeals by a common judgment. In all the three appeals, the claim of the claimant has been upheld finally by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi ('National Commission' for short) which has been challenged by the Insurance Company in this Court.3. To appreciate the controversy, it would be appropriate if we narrate the facts in the first case i.e. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Prabhu Lal. 4. A complaint was filed by the complainant Prabhu Lal under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kota (Rajasthan) ('District Forum' for short) claiming compensation from the respondent Insurance Company as also from Tata Finance Limited, Jaipur. The case of the complainant was that he purchased a vehicle-Tata 709 with Registration ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(124)ECC4; 2008(150)LC4(SC); 2007(14)SCALE165
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, dismissing the revision petition filed by the appellant. 3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: On 26.04.1996, in the truck bearing registration No.MOU 9470, Anokhilal Porwal the driver of the appellant was transporting 294 boxes each containing 48 quarters xxx-Rum DryGin, Beer and foreign liquor in the night at about 1.00 A.M. The truck was passing through village Naganghat Meghnagar. The Station House Officer of P.S. Kakanwana received information from the informant about passing of the truck, upon which he stopped the truck at Naganghat Barrier and seized the truck with the stock of foreign liquor. Crime No.62/96 was registered at Kakanwana P.S. under Section 34 of the M.P. Excise Act 1915 (in short 'the Act') and after due investigation, filed the charge-sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class ag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC539; 2008(1)KLJ545; 2007AIRSCW7427; 2008(1)ICC785; 2008(1)KCCRSN10
Tarun Chatterjee, J.1. Leave granted.2. An eviction petition being HRC No. 233 of 2002 was filed before the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Bangalore for eviction of the appellant from the residential premises bearing No. 100, Surveyor Street, Bangalore -4 (in short 'the suit premises') under Section 27(2)(r) read with Section 31 of the Karnataka Rent Act (in short 'the Act') on the ground that since the suit premises is old and in a dilapidated condition, the same was required to be demolished in order to put up a new construction and that the respondent required the suit premises for use and occupation by herself and her children after demolition and reconstruction of the same as she and her children were staying in her father in law's house. It was also the case of the respondent that the appellant had been residing in the suit premises for more than 20 years and therefore, he should find his own suitable accommodation and accordingly, he was liable to be evicted.3. A written state...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(56)BLJR238; 2007(123)ECC274; 2007(149)LC274(SC); 2007(218)ELT644(SC); 2007(3)SCALE519; 2007AIRSCW7700
Ashok Bhan, J.1. The assessee-appellant is, inter alia, engaged in the manufacture of chassis for various models and parts thereof falling under Chapter 87 of the Central Excise and Tariff Act, 1985 (for short 'the Tariff Act') at its factory at Jamshedpur2. The appellant manufactures motor vehicles of various models. For each model the parts are according to its configuration and technical specifications and the price is also declared accordingly to the department. In other words, the value of the chassis depends upon its firments. All the chassis in question had been actually fitted with Engine No. 697 NA and Gear Box GBS 40. There is no dispute on this factual position between the parties.3. The appellant submitted the price list dated 1.11.1994 and 1.4.1995 wherein it was mentioned that the chassis of model No. 1612 is fitted with engine No. 692 DI engines and GBS 30 gear box whereas the chassis in question were fitted with engine No. 697 NA and gear box GBS 40. Relying on these pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(218)ELT641(SC)
ORDER1. This batch of civil appeals filed by the Department is directed against the judgment and order dated 4th April, 2001 passed by CEGAT, New Delhi in appeal No.E/489-498/2000-A.2. The main issue which arose for determination before the tribunal was whether Rajasthan Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. (RSWML) was the real manufacturer who carried out textile processing from its process house at Mordi and if so whether the Department was right in invoking best judgment assessment in terms of Rule 7 of Central Excise (Valuation) Rules, 1975 (1975 Rules for short).3. RSWML are the manufacturers of yarn and fabric. It had set up a process house at Mordi in 1994-95. The process house was set up for processing their fabric. The woven fabrics manufactured at their weaving unit was processed on job work basis by Mordi processing house. This was with effect from 29th March, 1995. On 16th June, 1995 the said process house was let out by RSWML to Bhilwara Spinners Limited (BSL). Later on the lea...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(3)JKJ54[SC]; (2008)ILLJ567SC; 2007(3)SCALE533
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. In the writ petition correctness of order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, (In short the 'Tribunal') was questioned. 3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:Respondent was appointed as Watchman at the Seed Stores, Pitchatoor, by proceedings dated 21.4.1980 on a temporary basis. Initially he was getting Rs.290/- p.m. Subsequently, the services of the respondent and eighteen others were converted into regular last grade service by ROC No.A3/3291/85 dated 1.3.1991. However, by subsequent proceeding in G. O. Ms. No.98 dated 1.4.1999, the service of the respondent was again regularized pursuant to the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms No.212 dated 22.4.1994. Consequently proceedings dated 8.4.1999 were issued considering him as a regular employee w.e.f. 1.4.199...
Tag this Judgment!