Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC2083; 2007(3)ALT86(SC); 2007(2)AWC1608(SC); I(2007)DMC351SC; [2007(3)JCR134(SC)]; JT2007(3)SC389; (2007)3MLJ370(SC); 2007(3)SCALE150; (2007)2SCC564; AIRSCW3201; 2007(2)CivilLJ844; 2007LawHerald(SC)801; 2007(4)KCCRSN285; 2007(4)AIRKarR320(SC)
C.K. Thakker, J.1. Leave granted.2. The present appeal by special leave has been filed by the appellant-husband against the interim order dated May 04, 2006 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in F.A.O. No. 13-M of 2005 issuing non-bailable warrant against him.3. Brief facts of the case are that marriage of the appellant and respondent was solemnized on July 6, 1993 at Barnala, District Sangrur, Punjab and from the said wedlock, a son was born to them on April 9, 1994, but he died in September, 1995. It is the case of the husband that after marriage, he went to Brunei, Darusslame in January, 1994. Respondent-wife also joined him after some days. There she appeared in an interview for a job of Pharmacist. But she was not selected for the said job and returned to the matrimonial home on February 15, 1994 and then came back to India and lived with her parents. In the meantime, relations between them became strained and on December 23, 2002, respondent-wife filed a p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007CriLJ1806; JT2007(3)SC332; 2007(3)SCALE157; (2007)4SCC713; 2007AIRSCW1808; (2007)2SCC(Cri)686; (2007)2Crimes24(SC); 2007LawHerald(SC)900.
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court accepting the reference made under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Cr.P.C.') and confirming death sentence awarded to the appellants in respect of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') and sentence of 10 years and fine of Rs. 25,000/- with default stipulation for the offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 34 IPC awarded by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagara.3. Background facts which led to the trial of the accused persons are essentially as follows:Jayamma, (PW.1) is the resident of Badrenahalli village in Kollegal Taluk. She resided with her husband, and children Raju (PW.2), Nagarajamma (PW.10) and Shivamma (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased'). Both the accused are residents of the same village. The a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007CriLJ1678; JT2007(3)SC466; 2007(3)SCALE49; (2007)4SCC171
Altamas Kabir, J.1. Five Special Leave Petitions, of which three have been filed by the State of Maharashtra, one by Lalit Somdatta Nagpal and one by Kapil Nagpal, have been taken up for hearing together as they involve common questions of law relating to the application of the provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 in respect of offences alleged to have been committed under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. In order to answer the above question, it is necessary to briefly set out the facts involved in these Special Leave Petitions. 2. On 6th June, 2004 the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Enforcement), Crime Branch, Mumbai alongwith other officers, including the District Supply Officer, Kolhapur, Nayab Tehsildar, Taluka Karveer, Distt. Kolhapur, raided Vijayanand Petrol Pump, Kolhapur and seized two iron tanks of 12,000 and 6,000 litres capacity, greenish lubricating oil in 200 litres barrel, 45 kilos of white chemical powder in 5 gunny...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(4)BomCR365; 2007(116)ECC84; 2007LC84(SC); 2007(209)ELT331(SC); JT2007(3)SC380; 2007(3)SCALE19; (2007)9SCC168
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. Final order of Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal' for short) allowing the appeal filed by M/s.Vishal Exports Overseas Limited (hereinafter called 'the assessee' for short) is in challenge at the instance of Commissioner of Customs (hereinafter called 'the Revenue' for short).2. The assessee exported 4.8 lakh pieces of coffee mugs between February and November, 2001. The export price (FOB) was US $3.40 per piece. The exported goods were eligible for Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) Benefit/Scheme. Accordingly, the same was claimed as per Rules at the rate of 11% or 10%. The assessee had declared a market value of Rs. 52.50 per piece which was worked out at 150% of the assessee's purchase price which was Rs. 35/- per piece. These purchases were made from the manufacturers in Rajasthan and as per the clearance documents of Central Excise (AR-4), Rs. 35/- was the price per piece.3. The Assistant Commissioner of Custo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007CriLJ1461; I(2007)DMC413SC; JT2007(3)SC266; 2007(3)SCALE15; (2007)9SCC196; 2007(1)LC0304(SC)
Markandey Katju, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Madras High Court dated 1.8.2003 in Cr.O.P. No.24782 of 2003.3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. The special leave petition was filed 978 days after the delivery of the impugned judgment i.e. after a delay of 888 days. We are not satisfied about the explanation given in the delay condonation application and hence in our opinion the appeal is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Apart from that, we may note that this appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Madras High Court dated 1.8.2003 by which it quashed the criminal case instituted by the appellant against her husband who is respondent in this case being Crime No.35 of 2000 under Sections 498A and 406 IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Admittedly the appellant has also filed a maintenance case against the respondent. The appellant and respondent were marrie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(3)ALLMR(SC)357; JT2007(8)SC373; 2007(3)SCALE24
H.K. Sema, J.1. The Hawkers' problems in the city of Bombay was first dealt with by this Court in the case of Bombay Hawkers' Union v. Bombay Municipal Corporation : AIR1985SC1206 . The argument that the hawkers have a fundamental right to carry on their trade or business and that the respondents are unlawfully interfering with that right by arbitrarily refusing to grant or renew their licenses for hawking and that the writ petitions for a declaration that the provisions of Sections 313, 313-A, 314(3) and 497 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1988 are void since they confer upon the respondents an arbitrary and unguided power to refuse to grant or renew licenses for hawking and to remove the goods without affording to the hawkers an opportunity to be heard, was repelled by this Court. This Court held that the right to carry on trade or business conferred by Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution is subject to the provisions of Clause (6) of Article 19 which provided that nothing i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC1199; 138(2007)DLT237(SC); 2007(209)ELT334(SC); JT2007(3)SC361; (2007)3MLJ107(SC); RLW2007(4)SC2798; 2007(3)SCALE5; 2007AIRSCW1235; 2007(1)KLJ1235.
AR. Lakshmanan, J.1. Leave granted.2. The Union of India through Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi is the first appellant in this appeal. The second appellant is the Department of Personnel and Training through its Secretary, Ministry of Personnel & Pension, New Delhi. The first respondent is the contesting respondent. Respondent Nos. 2-5 and the first respondent joined the Indian Customs and Central Excise Service as a Grade A Officer on probation and was promoted as Assistant Collector of Central Excise after selection by the UPSC. Respondent No.1 and other respondents were confirmed in Group A service. In the order, the proforma respondents were placed higher in order of seniority. Thereupon respondent No.1 was promoted as Deputy Collector of Central Excise on an ad hoc basis in the year 1983 and the said appointment was regularized as Deputy Collector of Customs and Central Excise, vide order dated 16.7.1985. The Government of India, Ministry of Finan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(2)SCALE583; (2007)10SCC198
Markandey Katju, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) dated 7.12.2005 in Writ Petition No.3281 (MB) of 2004. Heard learned Counsels for the parties and perused the record.3. The facts of the case are that to promote film production in the State of U.P. the State Government constituted a Society named Film Bandhu in the year 2001 which was registered under the Societies' Registration Act. Various Government orders were issued to give facilities for film production in U.P. and a film policy was made. Various incentives were also declared to be given to the films made in regional languages in U.P. such as Avadhi, Bhojpuri and Braj etc. These various incentives are mentioned in the booklet entitled 'Uttar Pradesh Film Policy 2001', copy of which has been supplied to us. These include trade tax exemptions, tax incentives, subsidy, two weeks' compulsory exhibitions of regional films, etc.4. The respondents ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC1133; 2007CriLJ1455; JT2007(3)SC279; 2007(2)SCALE585; (2007)4SCC113
D.K. Jain, J.1. Leave granted.2. The challenge in these two appeals is to a common Order dated 3rd March, 2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, rejecting the bail applications preferred by the appellants.3. The appellants having been arrested in connection with the same case (C.R. No. 131 of 2001), registered at Thane Nagar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 192, 217, 218, 263(a) of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4) and Section 34 of the Maharastra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'MCOCA'), common questions arise for consideration and therefore, both the appeals are being disposed by this judgment. At the relevant time both the appellants were police officers, in- charge of investigations in the aforementioned case. Both of them were arrested on 8th October, 2004.4. The case of the prosecution against the appellants, in brief, is as under:5. On 16th May, 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2007(113)FLR216]; JT2007(4)SC245; (2007)IILLJ1SC; 2007(3)SCALE141; (2007)2SCC428; 2007(3)SLJ115(SC); 2007AIRSCW1354; 2007LawHerald(SC)816
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in these appeals is to the consolidated orders passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the four writ petitions filed by the appellant No.1-Punjab State Electricity Board (in short the 'Board'). The respondent in each case was engaged as Meter Reader on contract basis by the appellant-Board. After disengagement he made a claim stating that he had worked for a considerably long continuous period, his services have been terminated by the Board without following any procedure and without payment of retrenchment compensation. Claim for reinstatement with back wages was made. On failure of the conciliation proceedings, matter was referred by the concerned State Government to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as the 'Labour Court') under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act'). Stand of the appellant before the Labour Court was that the applica...
Tag this Judgment!