Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2007(3)SC578; 2007(3)SCALE439; (2007)3SCC465
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court holding that Clauses 9 and 10 of the Notification No.4784- F.S./FS/Sectt/Food/148-1/97, dated 19.12.1997 issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (in short the 'Act') read with Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation (Department of Food) Order No. G.S.R. 800 dated 8th June, 1978 was contrary to the policy declared under the Foreign Trade Development and Regulation Act, 1992 (in short 'Foreign Trade Act'). Accordingly, it was held as follows:In view of our findings aforementioned it must be held that the order does not conform to the policy laid down by the Central Government in exercise of its power conferred upon it under Section 5 of the 1992 Act inasmuch as in terms thereof, the Central Government could not even itself interfere with the proclaimed policy relating to import and export adopte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(3)SCALE383; (2007)4SCC136; 2007[6]STR167; 2007AIRSCW2615
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Whether a 'crushed bone' can be treated to be 'fertilizer' is the question involved in this appeal arising out of a judgment and order dated 20.10.2003 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in Sales Tax Revision No. 1570 of 1990 whereby and whereunder the revision petition filed by the appellant herein was dismissed. Respondent herein is engaged in manufacture of crushed bone. It runs a bone mill for the above-mentioned purpose.3. The question as to whether crushed bone-meal would come within the definition of the term 'fertilizer' must be considered having regard to some notifications issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh from time to time. By a notification dated 16.07.1956, 'Fertilizers' other than 'Chemical Fertilizers' were exempted from payment of sales tax by the State in exercise of its powers conferred upon it under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. However, by reason of a notification dated 10.3.1970, 'Chemical Fertilizers' ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : II(2007)BC521(SC); (2007)1CompLJ369(SC); 146(2008)DLT239(SC); (2007)3GLR2322(SC); 2007(2)JKJ1[SC]; JT2007(4)SC230; 2007(3)KLT672(SC); 2007(4)MhLj452; 2007MPLJ275(SC); 2007(4)SCC70; (2007)2SCC(Cri)192; (2007)2Crimes183(SC); 2007(1)LawHerald(SC)909
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Appellant herein is a company registered and incorporated under the Companies Act. Respondent No. 1 was a Director of a company known as M/s. Direct Finance and Investment Ltd., New Delhi. She allegedly submitted her resignation on 15.04.1994.2. Against the said company, the Managing Director thereof, Respondent No. 1 herein as also another director, a complaint petition was filed by the appellant alleging that the Company represented by its Managing Director had called for inter-corporate deposit for a short period of 15 days to the extent of rupees two crores and to such a proposal it agreed. The rate of interest for such deposit was stipulated at 25% per annum therefore payable within 15 days. A promissory note was executed by the accused No. 2 on behalf of the Company. The date of maturity of the said deposit was fixed on 15.03.1995. Upon expiry of the period of deposit, the accused Company represented by its Managing Director allegedly issued a cheque for a sum of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(5)ALT65(SC); 2007(2)AWC1619(SC); JT2007(3)SC543; (2007)3MLJ123(SC); 2007(3)SCALE313; (2007)4SCC163
S.B. Sinha, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and decree dated 31.07.1998 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Second Appeal No. 1899 of 1985 whereby and whereunder an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure preferred by the respondents herein from a judgment and decree dated 11.09.1985 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Ami, North Arcot District in Appeal Suit No. 68 of 1984 was allowed, in turn, allowing an appeal from a judgment and decree dated 27.07.1984 passed by the Court of the Principal District Munsif, Arni in Original Suit No. 1301 of 1979.2. Plaintiffs in the suit are the respondents before us. The said suit was filed for declaration and injunction against the appellant herein. Kesava Gounder and Respondent No. 1 were brothers. They admittedly were members of a joint family. Kesava Gounder was suffering from small pox. He died in 1943. Immediately prior to his death, he allegedly expressed his intention to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(3)ALD69(SC); 2007(2)AWC1624(SC); JT2007(4)SC32; 2008(2)MhLj486; 2007(3)SCALE492; (2008)1SCC173
B.P. Singh, J.1. In these appeals by special leave the appellant has impugned the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated July 27, 2004 in Writ Petition No. 4261 of 1991. The High Court by its impugned judgment and order allowed the writ petition filed by the tenant-respondent herein and dismissed the application for eviction filed by the appellant to evict the respondent from the suit premises which is a flat located at Bandra in the city of Mumbai. While doing so, the High Court set aside the appellate order of a bench of the Court of Small Causes, Mumbai which had held that the landlady-appellant herein had established her case of bonafide personal need of the suit premises. Having regard to the finding recorded by the High Court it is not necessary to reproduce the facts of the case in detail but to appreciate the findings of the High Court it is necessary to state the facts as briefly as possible.2. The appellant herein undoubtedly, is the owner of the s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(5)ALLMR(SC)403; 2007(2)AWC1319(SC); 2007(6)BomCR629; JT2007(4)SC312; 2007(3)SCALE331
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellants herein were owners of land bearing Survey No. 198/3/2 admeasuring 2 acres at Village Waghad. They, being in need of money, approached the respondents. On negotiations having been held in that behalf by and between the parties, a deed of sale was executed by the appellants in favour of the respondents on 29.11.1966 for a sum of Rs. 6,000/-. However, the said deed was registered on 17.12.1966. On the same day an agreement of reconveyance was also executed in terms whereof the respondents agreed to convey the property back to the appellants herein after five years on receipt of the amount of consideration specified therein. As the respondents failed and/or neglected to act in terms of the said agreement of reconveyance, a suit for specific performance was filed by the appellants herein against the respondents.3. The said suit was decreed. However, on an appeal preferred there against by the respondents, the First Appellate Court, inter alia, he...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(6)ALLMR(SC)439; [2007(114)FLR912]; JT2007(3)SC606; (2007)3MLJ934(SC); 2007(3)SCALE319; (2007)5SCC65
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. The State of Manipur is in appeal before us questioning the judgment and order dated 29.07.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court in WA Nos. 61, 78, 79, 95 and 100 of 1999 upholding a judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the said Court dated 19.02.1999 in C.R. Nos. 324, 1012, 568, 1022 and 1023 of 1998.3. One Shri A.J. Tayeng was the Revenue Commissioner of Government of Manipur. The State of Manipur had not framed any recruitment rules for appointment inter alia in the Revenue Department and in particular the field staff thereof. The Commissioner of Revenue Department was conferred with a power of being the cadre controlling authority for non-ministerial post of the Revenue Department. He was also to be the Chairman of the Departmental Promotion Committee for non-ministerial post of the Revenue Department.4. The Commissioner allegedly made certain appointments in the posts of Mandols, Process-Servers and Zilladars which ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC1256; 2007(2)AWC1614(SC); (2007)2CALLT54(SC); 2007(2)CTC357; JT2007(4)SC223; (2007)4MLJ193(SC); 2007(3)SCALE409; (2007)10SCC231
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Defendant No. 1 in the suit is Appellant before us. He was admittedly owner of a residential house admeasuring 40 ft. x 30 ft bearing No. 148 (New Plot No. 78), 8th Cross, N.R. Colony, Bangalore. Respondent No. 1 has been in possession of the suit property as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 115/-. The appellant admittedly had taken loan from Respondent No. 1 herein from time to time, the details whereof are as under: 23.4.79 Rs. 8000 27.4.79 Rs. 4000 10.5.79 Rs. 2900 11.5.79 Rs. 1002. ittedly, the parties entered into an agreement for sale on 11.05.1979. The aforementioned sum of Rs. 15,000/- received by the appellant was treated to be the amount of advance paid out of the amount of consideration fixed in the said agreement of sale i.e Rs. 45,000/-. The relevant terms of the said agreement are as under:Whereas the first party is the absolute owner of house bearing No. 148, 8th cross N.R. colony, Bangalore-19 more fully described in the schedule hereunder, having acqu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(4)ALD6(SC); 2007(2)AWC1483(SC); 2007(2)CTC838; JT2007(5)SC299; (2007)3MLJ803(SC); 2007(3)SCALE371; (2007)9SCC641
S.B Sinha, J.1. The defendants are the appellants. The parties were co-owners. The suit properties are situate in two villages; 232 bighas and 10 biswas in village Samleu and 76 bighas in village Punjoh.2. It is not in dispute that whereas the plaintiffs - respondents had ail along been in possession of the property situate in village Samleu, the appellants are in possession of village Punjoh. Allegedly, in the revenue settlement record of rights prepared in the year 1953, joint ownership of lands situate in village Samleu was recorded. However, it was observed therein that if the predecessors of the appellants 'do not give share' to the plaintiff - respondent in the land in village Punjoh, the plaintiff-respondent may ask for the review of the order. On the plea that the land situate in village Punjoh was jointly recorded, it was urged that the entry in the said record of rights attained finality. Indisputably, however, the appellants had filed two suits; one in the year 1968 and anot...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(2)ALLMR(SC)933; [2007(2)JCR181(SC)]; JT2007(3)SC523; RLW2007(2)SC1465; 2007(3)SCALE272; (2007)9SCC201; 2008(3)SLJ97(SC)
Altamas Kabir, J.1. Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.2. The private respondents in all these special leave petitions had filed several writ petitions in the Bombay High Court questioning the decision of the authorities to treat them as Untrained Teachers although they were all graduate teachers having B.Ed. qualification and approval having been granted for their appointment as trained teachers. According to the said respondents, they had all been appointed as Assistant Teachers in Primary Schools which conducted classes up to the 7th standard, from about the year 1988 onwards. It is only after a decision was taken to treat them as untrained teachers, despite being fully trained and qualified, that they were compelled to move the several writ petitions which were all allowed by a common judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 6th May, 2004.3. The case of the writ petitioners before the Bombay High Court was that they were all graduate teachers having B.Ed. qualification...
Tag this Judgment!