Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. It is contended by counsel for the appellant that the High Court has disposed of the appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in relation to the assessment year 1989-90 without either considering as to whether a substantial question of law was involved or framing the question(s) of law. The impugned order, according to him, is not sustainable.3. Counsel for the respondent has no objection to the setting aside of the a impugned order and remittance of the case to the High Court for a fresh decision in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.4. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2007(12)SC635; 2007(13)SCALE181; 2007AIRSCW7259
A.K. Mathur, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court dated 11.4.2006 whereby the High Court has reversed the finding of the Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal.3. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the assessment under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 for the years 1976-77, 1977-78 to 1983-84, 1989-90 and 1990-91 was made in respect of assessee, M/s. IDL Industries ( formerly IDL Chemicals Ltd.), a company under the Indian Companies Act having its registered office at Kukatpalli, Andhra Pradesh engaged in manufacturing explosive, detonators and accessories and holding licence under the Explosive Act, 1984. It has a manufacturing unit at Sonaparbet near Rourkela in Orissa which is also registered under both Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 with the Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela I Circle, Rourkela. M/s. IDL Chemicals Ltd is a regular supplier of its products to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC509; 2008(1)CHN132; 2008(1)CTC60; [2008(1)JCR126(SC)]; (2008)1MLJ1139(SC); RLW2007(4)SC3556; 2007(13)SCALE190; 2007AIRSCW7378; AIR2008SC509; 2008(1)ICC560; 2008(1)KCCRSN19
A.K. Mathur, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23.11.2005 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in SBCWP No. 133/1997 and DBCSA No. 427/2002 whereby the division bench has affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge. 3. Brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as under:The S.B. Civil writ petition No. 133/97 was filed by M/s Khandaka Jain Jewellers, petitioner (respondent herein) in the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur who prayed that a direction may be issued to the respondent Nos. 2&3 to register the sale deeds sent by the Court of additional district Judge No. 1, Jaipur city in execution application No. 15/94 and 16/94 and to send back the same to the Court immediately after registration. It was also prayed that the respondents may be directed to register the sale deeds on the stamps on which it is executed by the executing cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(1)ALLMR(SC)480; 2008(3)JKJ68[SC]; 2007(13)SCALE175; (2008)1SCC362; 2008(2)SLJ387(SC); 2008AIRSCW467
Markandey Katju, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal has been filed against the final judgment and order dated 19.9.2006 of the High Court of Madras in Writ Petition Nos. 9521 and 18563 of 2000 and Writ Petition No. 21870 of 2001.3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.4. The appellant (respondent No. 3 in the Writ Petition) applied for the post of Deputy Director (Agriculture) in the Agriculture Department, Government of Pondicherry. That post was to be filled up by direct recruitment in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the Union Public Service Commission (hereinafter in short 'UPSC') dated 23.5.1998 inviting applications from eligible candidates.5. The appellant states that he was fully qualified for the post, but he was not called for the interview although similarly placed candidates had been so called.6. In this connection it may be mentioned that in the advertisement for the post issued by the UPSC, essential qualifications mentioned therein were as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2009]148CompCas4(SC); JT2007(12)SC645; 2007(13)SCALE200; [2007]80SCL444(SC); 2007AIRSCW7256
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The appellant-a unit of National Textile Corporation U.P. Limited (in short 'NTC') had moved the High Court for quashing the recovery proceedings. Further prayer was for direction to the respondents not to demand and/or recover any amount from the appellant. 3. Background facts as projected by the appellant are as follows:The appellant unit was involved in the manufacture of Cotton yarn. The production in the unit stopped in the year 1992. Out of the 11 units which had become sick, nine could not be revived and only two could be revived. The appellant referred the matter of sickness of the mill to the BIFR under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (in short 'SICA'). The electricity connection of the mill was disconnected. A bill dated 15.11.2003 for a sum of Rs.33,52,251.18 towards principal and a sum of Rs.54,50,326.07 tow...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(13)SCALE118; (2008)1SCC275; 2007AIRSCW7267
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court disposing of two revision petitions, i.e. Trade Tax Revision No. 723 of 1996 and Trade Tax Revision No. 724 of 1996 preferred by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the Assessee') under Section 11 of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 (in short 'the Act'). The revision petitions related to the assessment year 1992-93 in respect of assessments framed under the Act and the Central Sales Tax, 1956 (in short 'the Central Act'). By the impugned order, the High Court held that the turnover of the base production in accordance with Clause (6) of the Notification No. 1093 dated 27.07.1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Notification') has to be taken up for the whole of the assessment year.3. Stand of the Assessee before the High Court was that such turnover has to be taken for the whole of the assessment year and if it is found that the Unit u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(123)ECC185; 2007(149)LC185(SC); 2007(218)ELT484(SC); (2008)1SCC434; 2008AIRSCW471
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Delay condoned.2. Interpretation of a Circular dated 24.09.1992, which was published on 15.10.1992 in the Trade Circular by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 9.8.2005 passed by the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. E/3137/99 (Mumbai) and E/CO/389/99 (Mumbai), whereby and whereunder an appeal preferred by the respondent herein from a judgment and order dated 30th June, 1999 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai, was allowed.3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The appellant herein manufacture HDPE bags. They used to classify the said bags for the purpose of payment of excise duty under Chapter 63 of the Central Excise Tariff Act (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'). The period for which the excise duty was payable is 1.4.1992 to 15.10.1992. Excise duty was paid accordingly. It is also not in dispute that different High C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC515; 2008(1)ALD(Cri)122; 2008CriLJ698; 2007(13)SCALE155; 2007AIRSCW7385; 2008(1)AICLR355
B. Sudershan Reddy, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave preferred by the appellants - Mahmood and Khaliq. The appellant -Mahmood has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life. He has been also convicted under Section 148 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. The second appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. He has been further convicted under Section 147 of IPC and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and further convicted under Section 379 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.2. Put briefly the prosecution case is as follows:On 19th February, 1977 at about 4.45 p.m. the accused Ram Samujh and Mahmood - appellant No. 1 both armed with guns, Khalid - appellant No. 2, Bajrang and one unidentified person armed with l...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC456; 2007(4)ARBLR179(SC); 2008(1)BomCR410; (2008)1CompLJ471(SC); 2007(13)SCALE148; 2007AIRSCW72742008(1)ICC391
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dealing with an appeal questioning the correctness of the order passed by a learned Single Judge who dismissed the appellant's appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the 'Act') questioning the Arbitrator's award.3. The controversy lies within a very narrow compass.4. The factual background is almost undisputed and is essentially as follows:The appellant required off shore vessels (in short 'OSVs') inter-alia, for supplying material from its onshore bases to its offshore installations. After initially meeting its requirements by chartering foreign OSVs, the appellant decided to develop a fleet of Indian Flag vessels. Various Indian companies including the respondent and the Shipping Corporation of India (in short 'SCI') acquired OSVs, with a view to chartering them to the appellant. The respondent acquired five v...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008ACJ254; AIR2008SC460; 2008(1)AWC104(SC); 2008(1)BomCR420; JT2008(1)SC82; (2008)2MLJ855(SC); 2007(13)SCALE80; (2008)7SCC425; 2007AIRSCW7280; AIR2008SC460; 2008(7)SCC425; 2008(2)CivilLJ360; 2007(8)Crimes25; 2008ACJ254; 2007(13)SCALE80; JT2008(1)SC82
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2 Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellant (described hereinafter as 'the Insurance Company'). The controversy lies within a very narrow compass.3. The respondents were travelling in the Trolly attached to a Tractor as labourers. They claimed to have suffered injuries because the Tractor with the Trolly in each case met with an accident. Petitions claiming compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act') were filed along with application under Section 140 of the Act. Order was passed by the learned Additional District Judge and Ex-officio Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Latur (in short 'the MACT') on the principle of no fault liability. The Insurance Company took the stand that it had no liability in respect of the persons travelling in the Trolly and the owner of the Tractor is liable to pay co...
Tag this Judgment!