Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(117)ECC11; 2007LC11(SC); 2007(210)ELT648(SC); JT2007(5)SC418; 2007(5)SCALE153; 2007AIRSCW7313
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. This statutory appeal is filed by the assessee-Zuari Industries Ltd. under Section 130E of the Customs Act, 1962 directed against Order dated 15.11.2001 passed by Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal ('CEGAT') in appeal No. C/277/01-Bom denying the assessee the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 11/1997 dated 1.3.1997. The appeal involves the issue as to the rate of duty applicable to the imports made for expansion of a Fertiliser Project.2. Assessee is the manufacturer of fertilizers at their facility at Goa. It obtained registration of all their imports required for expansion of their fertilizer project under the provisions of the Project Import Regulations, 1986 (for short 'the PIR'). In respect of the said expansion, the goods imported were entitled to the benefit of Project Import Assessment under Heading 98.01 of the Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and correspondingly the company was entitled to the benefit of customs exemption ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 139(2007)DLT354; JT2007(5)SC128; 2007(5)SCALE173; (2007)10SCC246; 2008(1)SLJ229(SC); 2007(1)LC627(SC); 2008(1)LHSC515; 2007AIRSCW2788
H.K. Sema, J.1. These two appeals raise a common question of facts and law and they are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of brevity, we are taking facts from Civil Appeal No. 5504 of 2003.2. The undisputed facts are that the appellants are direct recruits to the post of Section Officer (Commercial Audit) in the Audit and Accounts department. Their services are governed by the recruitment Rules known as Indian Audit and Accounts Department Section Officer (Commercial Audit) Recruitment Rules, 1988 framed by the President of India under Article 148(5) of the Constitution of India. The Rule inter alia provides the method of recruitment is by promotion failing which by transfer/transfer on deputation and failing both, by direct recruitment. The Rule also provides that the period of probation is two years. Note to Rule 11 provides that during the period of probation they should qualify in the Section Officer's Grade Examination (SOGE) for appointment as regular Sectio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(2)BLJR1101; JT2007(5)SC276; (2007)2MLJ1211(SC); 2007(5)SCALE179; (2007)4SCC361
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. In this I.A. prayer has been made to grant interim protection pending final disposal of the writ petitions.2. In the writ petitions the policy of 27% reservation for the Other Backward Classes (in short the 'OBCs') contained in the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 (in short the 'Act') is the subject matter of challenge. The primary ground of challenge is that the Union of India has failed in performing the constitutional and legal duties toward the citizenry and its resultant effect. Consequentially the Act shall have the effect and wide ramifications and ultimately it shall have the result in dividing the country on caste basis. It would lead to chaos, confusion, and anarchy which would have destructive impact on the peaceful atmosphere in the educational and other institutions and would seriously affect social and communal harmony. The constitutional guarantee of equality and equal opportunity shall be seriously prejudiced. It...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(117)ECC5; 2007LC5(SC); 2007(210)ELT644(SC); JT2007(5)SC414; 2007(5)SCALE221; (2007)4SCC761
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. In these civil appeals the controversy lies on the interpretation of the interim order dated 9.9.1991 passed by this Court in a stay application in Civil Appeal Nos. 3152-53 of 1991 filed by the Department.2. Essar Steel Limited ('the importer' for short) submitted the Bills of Entry on which provisional assessment was made under Project Imports Regulations 1986. The declared value was DM 46.75 million on which the importer paid Rs. 7.93 crores as duty. This was not accepted by the Department. They issued a show cause notice dated 24.10.1988. They made provisional assessment based on total transaction value of DM 84.15 million. Thus, the Department increased the transaction value from DM 46.75 million to DM 84.15 million, i.e., addition of DM 37.40 million. This increase was made by the Department by loading the assessable value on account of certain technical fees/ charges. Under the provisional assessment, the Department accordingly called upon the importer to pay ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2007(5)SC407; 2007(5)SCALE210; (2007)9SCC55; (2007)6VST755(SC); 2007AIRSCW2400
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. A short question which arises for determination in this civil appeal filed by the State (appellants) is: whether pledging of ornaments with the Bank against a loan and sale of such goods if the loan is not discharged, would be 'business' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(e) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 read with Explanation IV thereto.2. On 3.4.89 the Commercial Tax Officer, Warangal, issued demand notice on respondent-Bank for payment of tax on turnover of auction sale of jewellery held on 19.8.87 under Section 5 read with Explanation IV of Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 ('the 1957 Act', for short). In this connection reliance was placed on Section 2(1)(e) read with Explanation IV of the 1957 Act. Aggrieved by the demand notice, the respondent-Bank filed writ petition before the High Court challenging the legality of the notice. In the writ petition the respondent-Bank contended that the provisions of the 1957 Act are not applicable...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(2)CTC655; (2007)6MLJ1802(SC)
ORDERK.G. Balakrishnan, C.J.1. The petitioner herein has filed an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner, a company incorporated under the laws of Singapore is carrying on business at No. 745, Toa Payoh Lorong 5, Singapore, 1231, now known as SHC CAPITAL LIMITED, 302 Orchard Road, # 10-01 Singapore 238862. The respondent company, Scantrans India Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered Office at 425, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai- 600008. The petitioner alleges that petitioner and respondent entered into a joint venture agreement on 15-12-1993 for setting up a manufacturing unit in Chennai and to carry on the business of printing and colour separation. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) granted permission to the joint venture company and the joint venture agreement was executed on 15-12-1993. The Sale Deed was executed on 26-4-1995. A dispute arose between the parties under Clause 8 of the Sale Dee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(2)AWC1914(SC); JT2007(10)SC99; RLW2007(3)SC2454; 2007(5)SCALE135; (2007)4SCC465; 2007AIRSCW2306; 2007LawHerald(SC)1322
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant. Challenge in the writ petition was to the order passed by the Prescribed Authority as affirmed by the Appellate Authority allowing the release application of the respondent No. 1-landlady.3. Sans unnecessary details factual position is as follows:Late Ram Govil was tenant of a shop situated at Ansari Road, Bulandshahr since 1941. Smt. Maqsoodan purchased the aforesaid shop on 11.12.1979 from Sri Ganesh Datt, the erstwhile landlord. She moved release application No. R.C. 31 of 1984 under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short the 'Act') for the need of her son-Shamshad Ahmad. In the release application, the respondent No. 1-landlady prayed that the shop was urgently required as her husband intended to start business of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(2)AWC1912(SC); [2007(113)FLR880]; (2007)IILLJ811SC; 2007(5)SCALE140; (2007)10SCC240; AIR2007SC1491; 2007-II-LLJ-811(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:A reference, under Section 4K of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'U.P. Act'), was made to the Labour court, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'Labour Court'). The following disputes was referred for adjudication 'whether termination of services of Sri Jawahar Lal S/o Sri Bapai, Survey Boy on 15.2.1981 by the employer was just and/or legal?4. According to applicant-Jawahar Lal, he was employed by the present appellant with effect from 3.10.1977 as a Survey Boy and remained in continuance of service till the termination of service. He demanded for permanency stating that he is entitled to be declared permanent as per the existing rule. He claimed that his services were terminated without a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. In the present matter, the High Court has failed to carry out its statutory duty of framing substantial questions of law as required under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. The High Court has interfered with the concurrent findings given by the Commissioner of Income-tax and the Tribunal without giving any reasons. On that ground alone, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remit the matter to the High Court. We express no opinion on the merits of the case. High Court is requested to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible.3. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(4)ALD11(SC); 2007(3)ALT62(SC); 2007(2)BLJR1047; 2007(6)BomCR834; 2007(3)CTC464; I(2007)DMC597SC; JT2007(5)SC569; (2007)2MLJ1185(SC); (2007)146PLR618; 2007(5)SCALE1; (2007)4SCC511
Dalveer Bhandari, J.1. This is yet another unfortunate matrimonial dispute which has shattered the twenty two year old matrimonial bond between the parties. The appellant and the respondent are senior officials of the Indian Administrative Service, for short 'IAS'. The appellant and the respondent were married on 13.12.1984 at Calcutta under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The respondent was a divorcee and had a female child from her first marriage. The custody of the said child was given to her by the District Court of Patna where the respondent had obtained a decree of divorce against her first husband, Debashish Gupta, who was also an I.A.S. officer. The appellant and the respondent knew each other since 1983. The respondent, when she was serving as the Deputy Secretary in the Department of Finance, Government of West Bengal, used to meet the appellant between November 1983 and June 1984. They cultivated close friendship which later developed into courtship.2. The respondent's first...
Tag this Judgment!