Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2007(113)FLR882]; JT2007(5)SC177; 2007(5)SCALE216; 2008(1)SLJ240(SC); 2007AIRSCW672; AIR2007SC924; 2007IILLJ17(SC)
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 questioning correctness of the order passed by a Division Bench in the Special Appeal filed by the appellant against an interim order passed by a learned Single Judge permitting the respondent No.1 to continue in service of the appellant No.1 till attaining the age of 60 years. The case of the appellant before both learned Single Judge and the Division Bench was that the standard age of retirement of its employees is 58 years and the writ petitioner i.e. respondent No.1 was no exception. The Special Appeal was filed stating that the interim order was contrary to the view taken by a Division Bench in Harwindra Kumar v. Chief Engineer Karmik, UP Jal, Nigam, Lakhnow and Ors. : 2002(3)AWC2135 . The Division Bench dismissed the appeal.3. In support of the appeal learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the interim order was contrary to the view ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(5)SCALE203; (2007)9SCC37
ORDERK.G. Balakrishnan, C.J.1. The petitioner-in-person was an officer in the Air Force. He was discharged from service on 8.10.1965. He filed a Civil Writ Petition (No. 335/1970) before the High Court of Delhi challenging his discharge from service. The High Court disposed of the matter on 15.5.1995. Though the discharge was held not valid, there was no order of reinstatement or damages or any direction to pay arrears of salary or any such pecuniary benefits. The petitioner-in-person, it seems, filed a Review Application before the High Court and the same was dismissed on 14.10.1998. He challenged that order by filing S.L.P. (C) No. 8728/1999, which was dismissed by this Court on 9.8.1999. The petitioner-in-person moved the High Court by filing another Application i.e. Application No. 13115 of 2000 for execution of the decree dated 15.5.975, which was also dismissed by the High Court on 10.5.2001. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-in-person again filed S.L.P. (C) No. 1998 of 2002 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC1627; (2007)209CTR(SC)183; [2007]290ITR323(SC); JT2007(5)SC56; 2007(5)SCALE317; (2007)4SCC555
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. The controversy involved in these appeals revolves around a short but important question of law - whether the export house premium received by the assessee is includible in the 'profits of the business' of the assessee while computing the deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Since a common question of law arises for consideration in these appeals, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. However, for the sake of reference, the essential facts of Civil Appeal No. 6146 of 2005 are reproduced as under.2. The respondent-assessee, M/s Baby Marine Exports, Kollam is engaged in the business of selling marine products both in domestic market and also exporting it. The assessee is exporting directly to the buyers and also through export houses. The assessee in the instant case has entered into contracts with the export houses, whereby, as and when the assessee sells the goods or merchandise to an export house, as consideration f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2007(3)JCR36(SC)]; JT2007(5)SC164; (2007)4MLJ626(SC); 2007(5)SCALE205; 2008(1)SLJ235(SC); 2007(1)LC490(SC); 2007AIRSCW1957
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.1. The present appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 27.09.2000 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No. 13280- CAT/2000. By the said order, the High Court confirmed the order recorded by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short 'the CAT') in O.A. No. 171 HR/2000. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal are thus:The Government of India, Ministry of Communications, Department of Posts, respondent No. 1 herein, vide Circular dated 12.03.1993 revised the educational qualifications for recruitment to various posts including the post of Extra Departmental Delivery Agent (for short 'EDDA'). As per the said Circular, the minimum educational qualification for the post of EDDA, etc. should be 8th standard pass and preference has to be given to the candidates with Matriculation qualification. However, no preference should be given for any qualifi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC2334; 2007(3)CTC574; 139(2007)DLT506(SC); JT2007(6)SC25; 2007(5)MhLj545; (2007)4MLJ660(SC); 2007MPLJ205(SC); RLW2007(3)SC2325; 2007(5)SCALE236; (2007)5SCC231; 2007AIRSCW4040; 2007(3)KCCRSN181
B.P. Singh, J.1. Special leave granted.2. In the appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 6093 of 2003; 6095 of 2003 and 6384 of 2003 the appellants have impugned the common judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi dated February 13, 2003 disposing of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 2672 of 1996; 1851 of 1986 and 2003 of 1986. In the appeal arising out SLP ) No. 8574 of 2003, M/s. Punjab Potteries has assailed the judgment and order of the High Court of Delhi in C.W.P. No. 2168 of 2003 dated 26th March, 2003. The High Court dismissed all the writ petitions preferred by the appellants herein. 3. A few broad facts may be noticed at the threshold to appreciate the contentions urged on behalf of the parties in these appeals.A Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was issued by the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi on January 23, 1965 for acquisition of lands measuring 6241 bighas 12 biswas in village Mahipalpur which was required for a public p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : II(2007)ACC365; 2007ACJ1279; AIR2007SC1474; 2007(3)ALD55(SC); 2007(3)AWC2158(SC); [2007(3)JCR128(SC)]; JT2007(5)SC78; 2008(2)KLT873(SC); (2007)4MLJ906(SC); (2007)46PLR611;
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted. 2. An interesting question is involved in this appeal. By the impugned judgment the Calcutta High Court held that though the appellant, a married daughter of Bata Krishna Mondal (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') could maintain a claim petition in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act') she was not entitled to any compensation as she was not dependant upon the deceased. 3. Factual position is undisputed and needs a brief reference.On 11.5.1998 deceased lost his life in a vehicular accident and the offending vehicle, a Mini Truck registration No.WB-29/0185 belonged to respondent No.2. As the deceased had no other legal heir, a claim petition was lodged claiming compensation. Respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'insurer') with whom the offending vehicle was the subject- matter of insurance filed a written statement taking the stand that since the claimant was not dependant upon the deceased, there ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC1478; 2007(3)AWC2863(SC); 2007(2)BLJR1425; (2007)147PLR78; 2007(5)SCALE198
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. Leave granted.2. Judgment of the High Court passed under Section 115 CPC confirming the order passed by the Additional Munsiff is in challenge in this appeal. The High Court has approved of the amendments which were permitted to be made by the trial court.3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein assails both the judgments stating that the said amendment application was liable to be dismissed on the ground that it permitted the plaintiffs to include a time barred claim and secondly it was hopelessly belated and as such the plaintiffs lacked bona fides.4. Some facts would be necessary. Original suit was filed in the year 1986 bearing registration number Eviction Suit No. 11 of 1986 which was filed by Sita Ram Saraugi and some others impleading the present petitioner-defendant Shiv Gopal Sah @ Shiv Gopal Sahu. This was a suit for eviction on the ground of personal necessities of the plaintiffs. Original defendant Ram Charitra Sahu appeared and r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC1808; 2007(3)AWC2662(SC); [2007(3)JCR107(SC)]; JT2007(5)SC288; (2007)3MLJ834(SC); (2007)147PLR65; 2007(5)SCALE226; (2007)10SCC602
Harjit Singh Bedi, J.1. These appeals by special leave arise out of the following facts:The plaintiff-respondent Kulwant Singh and defendant-appellant Makhan Singh (now through his LRs.) herein were two of four brothers. As per the case set up, each brother owned share in land measuring 40.2/3 marlas and in a building housing an ice factory situated at Rayya alongwith 1/8 share in the machinery installed therein. On 3.5.1982, the defendant entered into two agreements with the plaintiff, - one for the sale of his share in the land measuring 40.2/3 marlas and the building on it for a consideration of Rs. 10,000/- with earnest money of Rs. 5,000/-, and a second pertaining to the sale of his share in the machinery installed in the ice factory for a consideration of Rs. 16,000/- out of which Rs. 5,000/- was paid as earnest money. These agreements are Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 on the record. As per the terms of the agreements, the sale deeds were to be executed on or before 10.8.1982. It was pleaded...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(121)ECC363; 2007LC363(SC); 2007(210)ELT497(SC); 2007(5)SCALE168; 2007AIRSCW7308
S.H. Kapadia, J.Civil Appeal No. 527 of 20021. This is a statutory appeal filed by the assessee against the final Order No. 185/2001-D dated 11.9.2001 passed by Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi ('CEGAT') in appeal No. E/ 1994-R/97 Mum. The matter pertains to the issue of classification of Glass Fibres impregnated with resins/ plastics.2. Assessee-company is the manufacturer of Glass Fibre Reinforced Plastics. They seek classification of the said item under Heading 70.14 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. According to the Revenue, the said item is classifiable under Heading 39.20 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.3. To resolve the above controversy, we quote hereinbelow the above two headings.HeadingNo. SubheadingNo. Descriptionof goodsRate ofduty39.20Otherplates, sheets, film, foil and strip, of plastics, non-cellular, whetherlacquered or moralized or laminated, supported or similarly combined withother materials or not-Ofpolymers o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(117)ECC1; 2007LC1(SC); 2007(210)ELT481(SC); 2007(5)SCALE164
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. This is a civil appeal under Section 130E of Customs Act, 1962 filed by the Department against the order dated November 27, 2000 in Appeal No. C 401/98-Bom passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT), Mumbai.2. Respondent No. 1 herein, during the assessment year 1977-78, imported raw material from M/s Sandoz Quinn (subsidiary of M/s Sandoz (India). This was under the Technical Collaboration Agreement dated April 2, 1990, between the said two companies. That Technical collaboration agreement provided for import of capital goods, raw materials, intermediates etc. along with transfer of technical know how and technical assistance for upgradation of the respondent's manufacturing plant in India. The respondent is a manufacturer of leather chemical products. Respondent entered into three agreements particulars of which are given at page 36 of the paper book. One of the agreement is called Technical Collaboration Agreement. The other two agree...
Tag this Judgment!