Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(210)ELT334(SC); JT2007(8)SC278; 2007(11)OLR(SC)206; 2007(4)SCALE196; (2007)3SCC659; 2007(1)LC430(SC); 2007AIRSCW2812
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Respondent herein, a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, known as M/s. Crown Re-rolling (P) Ltd., is the owner of a Re-rolling mill. It is a re-rolling mill manufacturing M.S. rounds and flats, out of iron and steel scrap materials. Indisputably, the State of Orissa made an industrial policy where for a resolution was adopted on 13.5.1986, pursuant whereto and in furtherance whereof, exemption was granted from payment of sales tax on raw materials sold to or purchased by a registered dealer and certified by the General Manager, District Industrial Corporation to be a small scale industry set up on or after 1.4.1986 and commencing commercial production thereafter. It is furthermore not in dispute that by reason of a notification dated 22.12.1989, the State Government in exercise of its powers conferred upon it under Section 8 of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947, notified 'Iron and steel' to be taxable at the first point of sale, in a series...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(210)ELT321(SC); (2007)3GLR2672; 2007(4)SCALE132; (2007)4SCC118
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted in S.L.Ps.2. These appeals are directed against a judgment and order dated 30th January, 2006 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Tax Appeal Nos. 1923, 1924, 1925, 1930, 1928 and 1929 of 2005 respectively, whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the appellant herein was dismissed holding that no substantial question of law for its consideration had arisen therein. The factual matrix obtaining herein is not in dispute. Eight persons including the respondents herein were detained for carrying 551 gold biscuits of foreign origin, the details whereof are as under:Sr. No. Name Foreign Quantity Nature Mark of of possessiongold of gold bars 1. Sh. Shailesh Ratilal ARGOR 100 Kept in Patel, Proprietor of SUISSE 4 plasticM/s. S.K. Jewellers packetseach of 25 bars2. Sh. Vijaybhai CREDIT 90 A small Dashrathlal Patel, HERAEUS green bagProprietor of M/s. carried by Paras Bullion him(Respondent herein)3. Smt. Rasilaben Rathod ARGOR 95 Under herHER...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2007]136CompCas489(SC); (2007)2GLR1753; JT2007(4)SC258; 2007(4)SCALE282; (2007)4SCC83; 2007AIRSCW2104; 2007(4)CivilLJ240; 2007(2)KCCR1299(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. These appeals involving identical questions of law and fact and arising out of the same judgment, were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. Appellants herein are Directors of a Cooperative Bank known as the City Cooperative Bank Ltd. A loan was sanctioned by the said Cooperative Bank to Suryapur Cooperative Bank as also one Pragati Alco-Chem Pvt. Ltd. in the year 2002. The Registrar's Board of Nominees, Surat passed awards for recovery of the amount advanced to the loanees.3. The Bank, as also its Managing Directors, filed a writ petition wherein rule nisi was issued. An interim relief was also granted. One Suryapur Bank Agent Dainik Bachat Hitvardhak Samiti, respondent No. 1, without approaching the Registrar, for ventilating its grievances in regard to the purported mismanagement of the affairs of the said Bank, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. Admittedly, no prayer was m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2007(4)SC337; 2007(4)SCALE181
S.B. Sinha, J.1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 24.11.1999 passed by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 762 of 1988 whereby and whereunder a judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Taikamgarh, Madhya Pradesh dated 30.12.1987 in Sessions Trial No. 4 of 1987 acquitting the appellant from the charge of commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, was set aside.2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. One Devakinandan (PW-3) is the father of the appellant as also the deceased Rameshwar. Appellant herein is his son through his first wife. After the death of his first wife, Devakinandan married one Binna. The deceased and Ram Sahay (PW- 4) were his sons and Ramsri (PW-6) was his daughter through Binna, the second wife of Devakinandan. On 08.11.1986 at about 10 a.m. Paras Ram (PW-1) Devakinandan (PW- 3), Raj Kumar (PW-2) and the appellant were talking beneath a 'neem' tre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC1774; II(2007)BC389; (2007)2CALLT67(SC); 2007CriLJ2951; 2007(2)CTC670; JT2007(4)SC343; 2007(I)OLR(SC)602; (2007)146PLR559; RLW2007(3)SC2040; 2007(4)SCALE143; (2007
S.B. Sinha, J.1. The parties hereto were partners. The partnership business ran into rough weather. Appellant intended to initiate some criminal proceedings against the respondent. Allegedly, the bank account was to be operated jointly. Respondent alone as a partner, thus, could not have taken out any money from the bank. However, allegedly, he did so. According to the respondent, a compromise was entered into by and between the parties in a police station on the following terms:1) Both the firms accounts right from inception till date shall be finalized and the share of profits determined by an independent auditor, Mr. R. Kasi Viswanathan. His determination shall be final and binding on both the parties. 2) The above scrutiny and finalization shall be completed before 31.1.1996. Until such time, we shall not raise any dispute against each other.3) Till such finalization, Mr. Shankar shall handover a cheque (cheque No. 551661 dated 31.1.96) for Rs. 7 lakhs to Mr. Suresh Kumar as securi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC1370; JT2007(4)SC278; (2007)2LLJ393SC; 2007(4)SCALE237; (2007)4SCC94; 2007AIRSCW1712; 2007IILLJ393(SC)
Altamas Kabir, J. 1. Five different writ petitions were tiled by the different respondents in these special leave petitions before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad against the awards made by the Industrial Tribunal on 20th June, 1998. The said writ petitions having been allowed by a common judgment dated 15th April, 2005, the petitioner herein, which was the common respondent in all the writ petitions, has filed these special leave petitions questioning the judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court.2. The writ petitioners/respondents herein claimed to have been appointed by the petitioner between the years 1987-19.91 and it is their case that they worked continuously from the date of their appointment till they were retrenched in. the years 1994 and 1995 respectively. The specific case made out by the respondents is that although they have worked continuously from the date of their appointment for more than 240 days in a calendar year,' they have been illegally retrenched...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC1779; 2007(3)AWC2601(SC); [2008(1)JCR84(SC)]; JT2007(4)SC320; 2007(4)MhLj384; (2007)3MLJ863(SC); 2007MPLJ425(SC); 2007(4)SCALE233; (2007)5SCC97; 2007AIRSCW2967; 2007(3)CivilLJ722; 2007LawHerald(SC)1101; 2007(4)KCCRSN267; 2007(4)AIRKarR243(SC)
Altamas Kabir, J.1. Leave granted.2. The Respondent No. 1 in this appeal was appointed as Science Mistress in the Appellant School on 07.09.1988. At the time of joining her duties she was given an appointment letter on 05.7.1985 indicating that she was being appointed as Science Mistress in the school with effect from the date she joined her duties in the grade of Rs. 1400-2600/- plus usual allowances sanctioned by the Haryana Government from time to time.3. On 28.01.1994 the Respondent No. 1 filed a Civil Suit No. 49 of 1994 in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) Jhajjar, inter alia, for the following reliefs:It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass a decree of declaration, to the effect that the plaintiff is entitled to the regularization of her services w.e.f. 06.7.1988 with right of contribution to the contributory Provident Fund from the same date as also to receive her future salaries by crossed cheques and that she is entitled to all kinds of' leaves and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDERDelay condoned.In the present case we are concerned with the law as it stood prior to the amendment of Section 43-B. In the circumstances the assessee was entitled to claim the benefit in Section 43-B for that period particularly in view of the fact that he has contributed to provident fund before filing of the return.The special leave petition is dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2007(114)FLR987]; 2007(6)KarLJ547; (2007)2LLJ553SC; 2007(4)SCALE129; (2007)4SCC239
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the Writ appeal filed by the appellant. The learned Single Judge, whose order was under challenge before Division Bench had allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent holding that the order passed under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short the 'Act') was not sustainable.2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:Respondent claimed in-fancy protection under the provisions of the Act. It started production in 1984. The respondent was of the view that it was an extension on the branch of M/s Continental Exporters, a proprietorship concern of one Sampathraj Jain, who was also the Managing Director of the respondent-company. Appellants' view was that the respondent was nothing but a department of the aforesaid 'M/s. Continental Exporters'. Assailing the adjudication, respondent filed a writ pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC1546; 2007(6)ALD86(SC); 2007(3)AWC2538(SC); JT2007(4)SC186; (2007)3MLJ784(SC); 2007(4)SCALE88; (2007)4SCC221
C.K. Thakker, J.1. All these appeals have been preferred by the appellants against common judgment and order passed in WAMP No. 1879 of 2001 in W.A. No. 109 of 1997, WAMP No. 1880 of 2001 in W.A. No. 292 of 1998 and Contempt Case No. 1008 of 2001. By the said order, the High Court recalled common judgment and order passed on April 27, 2000 in Writ Appeal Nos. 109 of 1997 and 292 of 1998. A direction was also issued to the authorities under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Ceiling Act') to complete proceedings within the stipulated period.2. The case has a long and checkered history starting from early seventies of the last century. Appellants herein are the owners of land bearing Survey Nos. 3/1, 3/2 and 4 admeasuring 18 acres, 39 cents of Village Kancharapalem, District Visakhapatnam. It was their case that Visakhapatnam Port Trust ('Port Trust' for short) wanted to acquire land for public purpose, namely, for construction of quarters ...
Tag this Judgment!