Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2008(1)SC55; 2007(14)SCALE495
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Harayan High Court dismissing the three writ petitions filed by the appellant while allowing the Civil Writ Petition No. 6395 of 1999 in view of the fact that Dalip Singh, who was respondent had made a categorical statement before the Assistant Collector First Grade on 6th December, 1967 to the effect that the appellant is a small landholder and he has no objection to his ejectment from the land and did not want any compensation. 2. The controversy arises in the background of Section 10- A(b) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (in short 'the Act'). Few dates need to be noted for resolving the controversy.3. On 26.7.1961, the Collector Surplus Area, Sirsa assessed the surplus area of Pat Ram under the Act. On 24.7.1962 an appeal was filed against the said order before the Commissioner, Ambala Division. But it was not pressed in view of the enactment of Punjab Security o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2008(1)SC1; 2008(1)KLJ590; 2007(14)SCALE428; 2008(1)Crimes31; 2007(8)Crimes375; 2008AIRSCW33; 2008CriLJ808; 2008(1)AICLR457; 2008(1)LH(SC)29; 2008(3)KCCRSN228.
Harjit Singh Bedi, J.1. Ujjagar Singh, the appellant herein, a resident of village Bangawali, Tehsil Malerkotla, was tried and convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur for the murder of his niece Mukhtiar Kaur and was awarded the death penalty. In addition, he was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to a fine of Rs.5, 000/- and in default of payment to undergo further R.I. for one year and under Section 309 of the IPC to a sentence of simple imprisonment for one year. The aforesaid convictions and sentences have been maintained by the High Court and the matter is before us in these proceedings by way of special leave. The facts of the case are as under:2. At about 2.00 p.m. on 10th November 2002 a boy whose identity is not forthcoming, informed Satnam Singh PW2 that an incident of firing had taken place in the house of Ujjagar Singh situated in the fields on the outskirts of the vill...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC1052; RLW2008(2)SC1583; 2007(14)SCALE372; (2008)2SCC383; 2008AIRSCW637; (2008)1SCC(Cri)427; 2008(3)AICLR485; 2008(1)LH(SC)510
S.B. Sinha, J.1. The State of Andhra Pradesh is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 3.10.2002 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Petition No. 3955 of 2000 allowing a criminal revision application filed by the respondent herein.2. Respondent (Accused No. 1) carries on business in Red Sanders hard wood and was having a godown at Renigunta in the District of Chittoor. A fire broke out in the said godown on 28/29.06.1996 resulting in destruction of red sanders hard wood, undressed wood as also nine cutting machines. The said godown was insured. The concerned Forest Officer gave an information to the police station that the respondent had made a false declaration regarding the stock shown in the godown and inflated the same in order to make unlawful gain, whereupon a First Information Report was lodged. Investigation was carried out upon obtaining permission of the concerned Magistrate. A chargesheet was filed upon comple...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC895; 2008CriLJ1405; 2007(14)SCALE413; 2008AIRSCW288; (2008)3SCC(Cri)309; 2008(1)LH(SC)650
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court by which the judgment of the learned Single judge was set aside and the writ appeal was allowed.2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:Respondent No. 4 in CMP No. 35930 of 1998 in O.P. No. 12701 of 1998 was the 4th respondent in writ petition also. According to the respondent No. 1 he was the tenant of a building called 'Jaya building' Main Road, Kollam. The tenancy was given by one Durairaja Reddiar by executing an agreement of lease dated 6.1.1994. This lease deed enabled him to make alterations in the building. Accordingly he effected some alterations in the building. When it was found that the alterations were effected he received from the Kollam Municipality an order directing him to demolish the structure which according to the Municipality was unauthorized. Against the order of the Municipality respondent No. 1 approached the Government. The Government issued a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(124)ECC7; 2008(150)LC7(SC); 2008(221)ELT161(SC)JT2008(1)SC64; 2007(14)SCALE639; 2008AIRSCW293.
ORDERS.H. Kapadia and B. Sudershan Reddy, JJ.1. None appears on behalf of the sole respondent.The issue involved in this case is whether accruing loading charges collected by the assessee were liable to be treated as cum-duty price and if so whether the Department was obliged to make the demand after allowing abatement for central excise duty payable on such loading charges (see para 2(ii) of the civil appeal paper book).2. M/s Supreme Fabrics Ltd., Ludhiana claimed deduction from assessable value on account of loading charges incurred while effecting clearances from the factory gate.3. The AO held that deduction was not admissible in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(ii) of Central Excise Act, 1944. The AO took the view that the amount of loading charges was includible in the assessable value. The AO took the view that the assessee had omitted to include such loading charges in the assessable value and, therefore, it was not entitled to deduction/abatement on account of the said charges.4. Agg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(14)SCALE174; 2008(1)Crimes88; 2008(1)LH(SC)280.
S.B. Sinha, J.1. The deceased Uttam Sonwale is the brother-in-law of the appellant. His sister Sarjabai was married to the appellant. He was a resident of village Deulgaon, Taluka Loha in the District of Nanded. Vimalbai is the wife of the deceased. The deceased had taken some loan from the appellant at the time of the marriage of one of his sisters, Savita. Allegedly the appellant was demanding back a sum of Rs.50,000/- to Rs,60,000/-, from him although the principal amount was only Rs.5,000/-. Allegedly he did not allow the deceased to sell even a portion of the family land for the purpose of returning the amount of loan on the ground that his wife Sarjabai had a share therein. The deceased had also borrowed a sum of Rs.1,000/- from PW-6 , Nandu Bhalke. 2. On 18th December, 1995 PW-6 came to the agricultural land of the deceased, where he and his wife had been working and demanded back the said amount of Rs.1,000/-. Appellant and another person Gautam (original accused No. 2) also ca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDERCivil appeal is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(56)BLJR544; (2007)213CTR(SC)612; [2008]297ITR17(SC); 2007(14)SCALE337; (2008)2SCC202
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. Leave granted in S.L.P. (C) No. 2275 of 2007.2. The intricate question which arises for determination in this batch of civil appeals is at what stage Section 80HHC Deduction is to be allowed i.e. before the 60 : 40 apportionment under Rule 8(1) or from 40% profits on sales taxable as Business Income.3. Rule 8(1) of the said Rule provides that 40% of the composite income from sale of tea, grown and manufactured, arrived at on making of the apportionment 'shall be deemed to be income liable to tax'.4. Assessees exported tea in the accounting year. They were entitled to deduction under Section 80HHC of Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, '1961 Act') in respect of the export. They were in the business of growing and manufacturing tea. Since they earned Composite Income, their case stood covered by Rule 8(1) of Income-tax Rules, 1962 ('1962 Rule' for short). 5. For the sake of convenience we state the facts occurring in Civil Appeal No. 3803-3808 of 2005- Commissioner of Inc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC809; 2008(2)ALD1(SC); 2008(56)BLJR181; (2008)1CALLT69(SC); (2008)1CompLJ1(SC); 2008(1)JKJ41[SC]; LC2008(1)56; (2008)1MLJ361(SC); 2008(36)PTC1(SC); 2007(14)SCALE1; 2008AIRSCW49; AIR2008SC809; 2008(1)SCC1; 2008(1)LH(SC)179; 2008(2)ICC206; 2008(4)KCCRSN237
1. These appeals by special leave have been preferred against the common judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi involving the analogous question and are, therefore, decided together by this judgment. 2. Appellant No. 1 Eastern Book Company is a registered partnership firm carrying on the business of publishing law books. Appellant No. 2 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. is a company incorporated and existing under the Companies Act, 1956. The said appellants are involved in the printing and publishing of various books relating to the field of law. One of the well-known publications of appellant No. 1 Eastern Book Company is the law report Supreme Court Cases (hereinafter called SCC ). The appellant publishes all reportable judgments along with non-reportable judgments of the Supreme Court of India. Yet another category included in SCC is short judgments, orders, practice directions and record of proceedings. The law report S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008ACJ581; AIR2008SC767; 2008(1)ALLMR(SC)968; 2008(1)ALT38(SC); 2008(1)KLT296(SC); (2008)2MLJ575(SC); (2008)149PLR775; RLW2008(2)SC1354; 2007(14)SCALE257; (2008)2SCC595; (2008)1SCC(Cri)517; 2008(1)LH(SC)64; 2008(4)LH(SC)2402; ILR2008(2)Kar1397; 2008(2)KCCR598; 2008(1)AIRKarR485
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.6.2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka in M.F.A No. 5751 of 2002, whereby and whereunder an appeal preferred by the respondent herein from the judgment and order dated 12.06.2002 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in M.C.A. No. 113 of 2001 was allowed. 3. Shantamma, daughter of the appellant herein was sleeping in her hut. A tempo bearing No. KA 37 - 2257 which was being rashly and negligently driven by Respondent No. 2 herein ran over her. She died on the spot. Household articles of the appellant also were damaged in the said accident.4. An application for grant of compensation was filed by the appellants herein under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') in the Court of C.J. (SD) & Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Gangavati in the district of Koppal on 12.06.2006. 5. The said vehicle was insured with the National In...
Tag this Judgment!