Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC2274; 2008(2)GLT(SC)17; JT2007(9)SC331; 2007(8)SCALE413; 2007(2)LC785(SC; 2007AIRSCW3959; 2007LawHerald(SC)2091; 2007(3)KCCRSN176.
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants. The appeal was directed against the judgment dated 31.8.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge convicting the appellants for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and sentencing each to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- with default stipulation.2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:On 27th December, 2000, at about 11.00 a.m., one Probin Das, brother of Anil Das (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') made a complaint to the officer in charge of the Teak Police Station that at about 6 a.m. on the same day Shri Manik Das s/o Late Duti Das, Shri Bimal Das S/o Sh. Manik Das and Shri Dipak Das s/o Shri Manik Das along with two others assaulted his brother Shri Anil Das with spears thereby severely injuring him ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC2725; 2007CriLJ3753; JT2007(9)SC92; 2007(9)SCALE44; (2007)14SCC126
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. The Appellant was the Sub-Divisional Officer (Police), Dabra, Gwalior District, during 1998-1999. He has filed this appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act'), being aggrieved by the order dated 2.3.2001 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Contempt Petition (Criminal) No. 5 of 2000, punishing him with simple imprisonment for seven days and fine of Rs. 2,000/-.Factual Background2. Shri Pradeep Mittal, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dabra, sent a Report dated 1.11.1999 to the Inspector General of Police, Gwalior Circle, alleging that one Chander Bhan Singh Raghuvanshi, Station Officer, Picchhor came inside his court Hall and threatened him by stating 'you have not done good by initiating contempt proceedings against me before High Court. I am back in Picchhor Police Station and I will see you'; and 'I have set many Magistrates right and I will see you also'. The learned Magistrate complained that it was unbecoming of a polic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2007(9)SC288; 2007(8)SCALE431; (2007)6SCC176; (2007)7VST769(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the Revision Petition filed by the appellant under Section 22(1) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (in short the 'Act'). Before the High Court challenge was to the order passed by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh (in short the 'Tribunal'). 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:M/s. Shakthi Seeds (P) Ltd., the appellant herein, is a private limited company and they are dealers in agricultural seeds, chillies, paddy, sun-flower and other crops. It is an assessee and a registered dealer under the Act. The Commercial Tax Officer, Hyderguda Circle, Hyderabad, framed final assessment orders in respect of the turnovers for the assessment year 1992-93 granting benefit of G.O.Ms. No. 604, Rev (S), dated 9.4.1981 and G.O.Ms. No. 129 Rev(CT II), dated 14.2.1989. However, the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Abides Division, Hyderabad,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 105(2008)CLT227(SC); JT2007(9)SC102; RLW2007(4)SC3100; 2007(9)SCALE56; (2007)7SCC71
ORDER1. The issue involved in this appeal has been considered by us in Crl. Appeal No. 38/2001. The Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gundal, following the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Special Crl. Appeal No. 803/1998 (which is the subject matter of Crl. A. No. 38/2001 decided today), has directed the complainant (Food Inspector/State) by order dated 30.12.1997 to pay the fee for second analysis of the sample under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 ('Act' for short). The said order was confirmed by the High Court by order dated 9.5.2000 in Crl. Revision No. 21/2000.2. Following the decision rendered by us today in Crl. Appeal No. 38/2001, this appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court and the learned Magistrate directing the complainant to pay the fee are set aside, and it is declared that the accused-respondent is liable to pay the fee for the second analysis under section 13(2) of the Act....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(3)BomCR498; [2007(114)FLR1120]; JT2007(8)SC611; 2007(8)SCALE416; (2007)10SCC662; 2007AIRSCW4716
ORDER OF DISMISSAL IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF MUMBAI, PANAJI BENCH - AMENDMENT TO CDA RULES.37. CMD apprised the Board in the matter and drew the attention of the Board to Rule 41 of Goa Shipyard Officers' Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules, 1979, which provides and empowers the Board to amend, modify or add to the said 1979 Rules, from time to time and further provides that all such amendments, modifications or additions shall take effect from the date stated therein. The CMD further pointed out that no date had been specified as required under Rule 41 in the amendments carried out to the said Rules vide Circular Board Resolution No. 13 of 1995 dated 15.12.1995.38. The Board noted that the Circular Board Resolution No. 13 of 1995 was circulated under Section 289 of the Companies Act, 1956, in view of urgency to amend the 1979 Rules due to I) changes in grades taken place since then, ii) on account of administrative difficulties faced in implementation of the existing Rules, an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(119)ECC83; 2007LC83(SC); 2007(213)ELT321(SC); JT2007(9)SC115; 2007(8)SCALE481; [2007]9STT9
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, West Block, New Delhi (in short 'CEGAT') allowing the appeal of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'assessee'). By the impugned order, the CEGAT also held that the removal of goods and payment of duty took place between July 1995 to March 1996. The assessee had paid differential duty as worked out by them also in November 1996. In these circumstances, there is no factual basis to the allegation that the assessee suppressed any material facts. Show-cause notice dated 1.6.2000 was issued almost four years after the payment of the differential duty by the assessee, well beyond the normal period allowed for duty demands under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short 'the Act'). Demand of duty for longer period upto 5 years is permissible only if the short levy of duty is on account of suppression, mis-declaration of facts, fraud etc. as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2007(114)FLR400]; JT2007(8)SC465; (2007)IIILLJ169SC; 2007(8)SCALE391; (2007)9SCC526; 2007AIRSCW4064
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant-Punjab State Electricity Board (for short 'the Board'). 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:3. Respondent made a complaint that though he continued to work as a Carpenter, his services were illegally dispensed with from 30.4.1997 onwards. On the failure of conciliation proceedings, the dispute raised by the respondent was referred for adjudication to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as the 'Labour Court'). By award dated 22.2.2005, the Labour Court held that the termination of the services of the respondent was illegal and he was entitled to be re-instated with continuity of service and also was entitled to receive 50% of the back wages. It was further directed that if the amount is not paid to the respondent-workman, he was entitled to interest on the said amou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC1904; 2007CriLJ3204; RLW2007(4)SC3071; 2007(8)SCALE95; 2007(2)LC739(SC); 2007AIRSCW3414; JT2007(8)SC177; 2007(4)KCCRSN298;
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court holding the appellant guilty of offences punishable under Section 302 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). Before the High Court challenge was to the judgment of the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru whereunder appellant and his mother were found guilty of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 201 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Each was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation for the first offence and 5 years imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation for the latter offence.2. Background facts in a nutshell are as under:Koduri Kasiviswanadham (PW-2) is having some agricultural lands at Mallavaram. There is a farmhouse containing one room in his fields. Byvarapu Raju (A-1) was working as a farm servant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(4)ALD77(SC); [2007(4)JCR1(SC)]; JT2007(8)SC602; 2007(5)KarLJ243; (2007)6MLJ329(SC); 2007(8)SCALE520; (2007)5SCC745; 2007(2)LC823(SC); 2007AIRSCW4080; 2007CrLJ3741; 2007(3)KCCR1783
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and decree dated 10.7.2001 in RFA No. 181/1996 passed by the High Court of Karnataka reversing the judgment and decree dated 8.12.1995 passed by the III Addl. City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore in his suit OS. No. 10653/1987. For convenience, the appellant will also be referred to as 'plaintiff' and respondents as 'defendants'. 2. Appellant filed the said suit alleging that suit land measuring 2550 sq. yds. had been leased in perpetuity by the military authorities (General Officer Commanding, Madras District, Bangalore) to M/s S. Giridharilal & Son, a proprietary concern under a registered lease deed dated 30.9.1921; that the lessee put up several structures thereon and was in possession and enjoyment thereof as absolute owners; that G. Anraj Sankla, proprietor of Giridharilal & Son was declared as insolvent in Insolvency Case No. 7 and 12 of 1940 on the file of the District Judge, Civil & Military Statio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(6)ALLMR(SC)422; [2007(114)FLR585]; JT2007(8)SC480; 2007(6)MhLj73; 2007(8)SCALE467; (2007)7SCC171
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissing the writ appeals filed by the appellant. Both the appeals were filed to set aside the common judgment and order passed in Writ Petition Nos. 462/95 and 695/96 by a learned Single Judge on 13.4.1999.2. The background facts in a nutshell are as follows:3. On 4.8.1976 Glaxo Laboratories (India) Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Company') which has now been taken over by the present respondent No. 1 (Glaxo-SmithKline Pharmaceuticals Ltd.) indicated their intention to advertise the post of 'Industrial Relations Executive'. Since members of the staff who fell in the category of 'Management Staff Grade-III' were also entitled to apply for the vacant post which fell in 'Management Staff Grade-II', an advance staff notice was also taken out by the Company. The same incorporated the text of the advertisement which was to follow. The relevant part fr...
Tag this Judgment!