Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008ACJ614; AIR2008SC845; I(2008)CPJ24(SC); 2008(1)KLT62(SC); 2008MhLJ550; (2008)2MLJ495(SC); (2008)149PLR786; RLW2007(4)SC214; 2007(14)SCALE461; (2008)2SCC763
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Connotation of the term 'income' for the purpose of determination of 'just compensation' envisaged under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) calls for question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 6.4.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench at Lucknow in FAFO No.171 of 2001. Respondent's husband R.K. Srivastava was employed in a company named Gabriel India Ltd. While he was travelling in an auto rickshaw from Charbagh Railway Station, Lucknow to his residence situated at Ashok Marg, the same met with an accident with a 'Mahindra Commander Jeep' driven rashly and negligently. He sustained injuries and ultimately succumbed thereto. Respondents herein filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. A salary certificate was produced in the said proceedings which is in the following terms :Earnings Amount Deductions AmountBasic 3420.00 CPF(S) 488.00Special Pay 70.00 CPF (Add) FDA...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(14)SCALE296; (2008)2SCC108; 2008AIRSCW172; AIR2008SC856; 2008LABIC458; 2007(8)Crimes437; 2008-I-LLJ-867; 2008(1)LH(SC)262
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.Interpretation of some of the provisions of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual (hereinafter referred to as 'the Manual') is in question in these appeals which arise out of judgments of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench at Jaipur dated 25.4.2005 in DB Civil W.P. No. 5317 of 2004 and dated 25.4.2005 in D.B. Civil WP No. 5316 of 2004 affirming orders dated 12.4.2004 in O.A. No. 536/2003 and order dated 7.4.2003 in O.A. No. 233/2003 respectively.2. The fact of the matter is as under:Smt. Santosh, Respondent No. 1, in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 23737 of 2005, is widow of one Ram Niwas who was appointed as a project casual labour on 8.11.1979. The case of regularisation of the similarly situated employees came up for consideration before this Court in Inder Pal Yadav and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. : (1985)IILLJ406SC . During hearing of the said matter from time to time, the Court inter alia suggested for framing of a scheme of regula...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC798; (2008)214CTR(SC)87; 2007(14)SCALE311; 2008[9]STR3; (2008)12VST1(SC); 2008AIRSCW25; 2008(1)SCC780.
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.A limited notice was issued to the effect as to whether the appellant- Kerala State Electricity Board, the service recipient, within the meaning of provisions of Finance Act, 1994, levying service tax, is liable to pay any interest on the amount of tax due to the respondent. 2. The question involved in this appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 25.7.2006 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam whereby the appeal filed by the respondent herein from the judgment and order of the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Cochin in Final Order No. 477 of 2005, Appeal No. ST/36/2004 was allowed. 3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. Appellant herein entered into an agreement with M/s. SNC Levin Inc. Montreal, Canada (Foreign company) in relation to various projects for obtaining consultancy services from them. The relevant clauses of the said agreement are as under:16.1 - SNC Lava line ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2008(116)FLR368]; JT2008(1)SC122; 2008(1)KLT587(SC); 2007(14)SCALE410; (2008)2SCC244
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court dismissing the writ appeal filed by the appellants. Challenge in the writ appeal was to the order passed by a learned Single Judge in O.P. No. 4287 of 2000. The High Court relied on some earlier decisions to hold that a person resigning under Rule 19 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969 (in short `the Rules') is entitled to pension if he is eligible. The writ appeal was dismissed and the appellants were directed to dispose of the representation of the respondent in the light of the judgment referred to i.e. Jos. v. Border Security Force 1999 (3) KLT 904. Relying upon this judgment, the learned Single Judge had directed the respondents in the writ petition to consider the representation of the appellant within a stipulated time. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the respondent was not eligible for pension as she ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2009]313ITR26(SC)
1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. M/s Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. entered into a contract with M/s Sirmour Truck Operators Union, the respondent herein. Respondent assessee is a society. Its members consist of truck operators. The question which arose before the High Court in the income-tax appeals under Section 260A was whether assessee was liable or not liable to deduct TDS under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act.4. In our view, the aforestated question is a substantial question of law. The High Court ought to have decided the said question. It ought not to have dismissed the appeal summarily.5. For the aforestated reasons, we set aside the impugned order and remit the matters to the High Court for consideration in accordance with law.The appeals are disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(56)BLJR499; 146(2008)DLT197(SC); 2007(14)SCALE263; (2008)2SCC417; 2008(1)LC82(SC); 2008AIRSCW390; (2008)1SCC(Cri)449
S.B. Sinha, J1. Leave granted.Introduction2. The scope and ambit of the provisions of International Treaty vis-a-vis the Extradition Act, 1962 is involved in the present appeal.Background Facts3. Appellant herein is said to be an Indian citizen. He allegedly holds an Indian Passport. He, however, indisputably is a resident of United States of America. Allegedly he had been running an event management company and promoting clubs into organizing entertainment, cultural events and shows in various parts of the United States of America for a long time.4. The Government of the United States of America made a formal request to the Government of India for his extradition alleging that the appellant had conspired in aiding and abetting the sale and supply of MDMA, a controlled substance and other offensive substances. He is said to be one of the members of a criminal organization involved in drug trafficking and money laundering. His organization has been found to be responsible for distributi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC732; [2008(116)FLR501]; (2008)ILLJ913SC; 2009(1)SLJ175(SC); 2007AIRSCW7878; 2008-I-LLJ-913; 2008(2)LH(SC)869; 2008LabIC405
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the Judgment of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowing the writ appeal filed by the respondent.3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:The respondent, who, at the relevant point of time was Branch Manager of appellant No. l-Bank and was posted at Nellore in Andhra Pradesh was charged and tried along with one Shrinivasulu s/o Chenchuramaiah for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 471 and 477 of Indian Penal Code 1860 (in short the 'the IPC') and Section 5(2) read with Section 5 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (in short the 'Prevention of Corruption Act'). Both the accused persons were tried in the Court of Special Judge for CBI cases. They were acquitted by judgment dated 11.12.2002 giving them benefit of doubt. The respondent was placed under suspension from 15.06.1988 till he was reinstated on 04.05.1993. After his reinstatement, departmental proceedings were initiat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC804; 2008(1)AWC68(SC); 2008(1)BomCR535; (SCSuppl)2008(1)CHN180; 2007(14)SCALE287; (2008)2SCC507; 2008AIRSCW42; 2008(1)LH(SC)494; 2008(1)ICC385; 2008(4)KCCRSN238
ORDERNotice of motion stands dismissed. No order as to cost.The same may be registered for statistical purpose.By reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court has upheld the said order. 13. Mr. R.F. Nariman, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, inter alia, would submit that the appellants have never been heard on merit of the matter. The learned Counsel argued that keeping in view the nature and purport of the order of this Court dated 2.2.2007, the City Civil Court could not have relied upon its earlier order. Consequently, the High Court had also committed a manifest error in applying the principles of res judicata which have no application in the instant case. It was contended that the purported finding of the learned Judge, City Civil Court to the effect that the defendants had been found to be in actual physical possession of the suit property on the date of institution of the suit was clearly erroneous inasmuch as no such finding had been arrived at by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008CriLJ816; 2007(14)SCALE183; 2007(8)Crimes573; 2008AIRSCW120; 2008(1)LH(SC)17&2008(1)LH(SC)140; 2008(3)KCCRSN232
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Appellants were convicted for commission of offences under Sections 302/149, 323/149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code, inter alia, for committing murder of Jharmal and Juhru and also causing hurt to Mubin on 26th October, 1991 at about 1.00 a.m. 2. The First Information Report in relation to the said incident was lodged at about 7.00 a.m. on the same day by Kannu son of Chhote Khan (brother of the deceased Jharmal and Jharu). The distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is said to be about six kilometers. The first informant had to walk to the police station for the purpose of lodging the First Information Report. 3. In the said First Information Report, it was alleged that when at about 1.00 a.m. on the previous night the deceased and injured were thrashing bazra, they were attacked by 12 persons, namely, Mohd. Ishaq, Sahid, Abdul Salam, Umar Mohd., Narangi, Liyakat Ali, Gernal, Jamalu, Alladdin, Rustam, Jamil, Mewan and Bilag.It was furthermore...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC899; 2008CriLJ1386; 146(2008)DLT121(SC); 2008(1)KLT50(SC); 2008(1)MPHT374(SC); RLW2008(2)SC1793; 2007(14)SCALE179; 2008AIRSCW295; AIR2008SC899; 2008CriLJ1386; 2008(1)AICLR441; 2008(1)LH(SC)98; 2008(4)KCCRSN283; 2008(2)AIRKarR144;
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the application filed in terms of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Cr.P.C.'). Appellant had filed a petition for quashing the complaint filed by the respondent in terms of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short the 'Act') In the complaint it was averred that a cheque was issued by the appellant on 31.3.1998 which was dishonoured by the bank when , presented on 11.4.1998. Notice dated 27.4.1998 was duly served on the appellant. Since the accused appellant assured that the cheque will be honoured if it is presented again, the cheque was presented but was again dishonoured on 30.9.1998 for which notice dated 13.10.1998 was again served on the appellant. But no payment was made. Appellant filed an application in terms of Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in ...
Tag this Judgment!