Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC2706; (2007)3CompLJ403(SC); 2007(6)MhLj690; 2008MPLJ10(SC); (2007)7SCC120
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. M/s Aurohill Global Commodities Ltd. has filed an arbitration application herein under Section 11(9) read with Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the 'said Act') for the appointment of arbitrators to settle the dispute between the said company and M/s M.S.T.C. Ltd. (PSU). The facts giving rise to this petition briefly are as follows.2. Petitioner company is based in Cyprus having its offices in Russia and India. Petitioner has been exporting steel products for more than a decade.3. Vide letter dated 2.3.2005, M/s Sunvijay Rolling and Engineering Ltd., Nagpur placed an order on the petitioner for supply of 5000 MT of Billets. Accordingly, on 10.3.2005 petitioner forwarded proforma invoice to the said Sunvijay Rolling and Engineering Ltd. for the required quantity of Billets for a total consideration of US $ 22,25,000. Payment was to be made through irrevocable confirmed letter of credit ('LC') payable 100% at sight. Petitioner's banker was M/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2007]293ITR115(SC)
1. A short question which arises for determination in this batch of civil appeals is : whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that an amount representing rediscounting interest paid on promissory note/bill did not accrue or arise to the assessee-bank by reason of diversion of such discount through overriding title in favour of the Industrial Development bank of India (IDBI) and hence did not form part of chargeable interest under Section 2(7) of the Interest-tax Act, 1974 (for short, 'the 1974 Act').2. The facts giving rise to these civil appeals are as follows :3. The assessee-bank is a nationalized bank. In the assessment years 1979-80, 1980-81, 1981-82, 1982-83, 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86 the assessee did not include rediscounting charges received from the IDBI in its chargeable interest. According to the department, rediscounting charges represented the assessee's interest income and, therefore, rediscounting charges were taxable as 'chargeable interest' as defined under Sect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC2747; JT2007(9)SC519; 2007(9)SCALE479; (2007)10SCC684; 2008(1)SLJ456(SC); 2007AIRSCW4960; 2007IIILLJ791(SC)
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. This Judgment will dispose of Civil Appeal Nos. 1269, 1270, 1271 and 1272 of 2007. Civil Appeal No. 1269 of 2007 is preferred by Officers' Association of Indian Airlines; the representative body of the Indian Airlines employees. The Civil Appeal No. 1270 of 2007 is preferred by Indian Airlines Cabin Crew Association while Civil Appeal No. 1271 of 2007 is preferred by Vayudoot Karamchari Sangh and Civil Appeal No. 1272 of 2007 by Indian Airlines Officers' Welfare Forum respectively. All these appeals challenge a common judgment passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court whereby the Division Bench has set aside the common judgment passed by the Ld. Single Judge of that Court which had allowed the four Writ petitions filed by the Officers' Association of the Indian Airlines and the employees of the Vayudoot Limited. 2. The learned Single Judge in his judgment had dealt with four writ petitions filed and had granted the relief in the following terms:Rule is m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007AIRSCW4823; AIR2007SC2669; 2007(6)ALLMR(SC)418; (2007)3CALLT79(SC); (SCSuppl)2007(3)CHN4; JT2007(9)SC543; 2007(9)SCALE443; (2007)7SCC114; 2007-III-LLJ-359(SC); JT2007(9)SC543
Arijit Pasayat, J. 1. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant Bank and its functionaries. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:In the year 1986 a panel for appointment of Budlee Sepoys was prepared by the appellant-Bank for engagement on temporary basis (strictly on 'no work no pay') in the leave vacancies and to absorb them in the Bank as and when regular vacancies arise. The scheme for deployment/absorption was formulated on 24.2.1988 for Budlee sepoys who appear on center-wise approved panels and who had completed 240 Budlee working days of service as on 1.2.1988 in a block of 12 months or a calendar year. It was stipulated in the scheme that on absorption Budlee Sepoys would be continued on the approved panels and would be deployed on leave vacancy on need basis only and would be absorbed in permanent vacancies that may arise in future.3. The aforesaid scheme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2008)1GLR779(SC); JT2007(9)SC503; 2007(9)SCALE452
C.K. Thakker, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. A question of considerable public importance has been raised by the appellant in the present appeal which has been instituted against judgment and order passed by a Single Judge of the High Court of Gujarat in Gujarat Pradesh Panchayat Parishad and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. in Special Civil Application No. 1192 of 2002 and companion matters decided on 25th October, 2002 and reported in (2003) 1 Guj LR 633 and confirmed by a Division Bench of the High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1126 of 2002 decided on June 14, 2005. 3. To appreciate the controversy raised in the appeal, few relevant facts may be stated:4. The Gujarat Pradesh Panchayat Parishad, appellant No. 1 herein, is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. All District Panchayats, Taluka Panchayats and Gram Panchayats are members of the Parishad. Appellant No. 1 purports to protect the interest of the Panchayats in the State of Gujarat by ensuring that th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC2677; 2007CriLJ3745; JT2007(9)SC563; 2007(4)MPHT329(SC); 2007(9)SCALE448
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. It is a strange co-incidence that the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was enacted in the year of our country's independence. 2. Corruption is one of the most talked about subjects today in the country since it is believed to have penetrated into every sphere of activity. It is described as wholly widespread and spectacular. 3. Corruption as such has reached dangerous heights and dangerous potentialities. The word 'corruption' has wide connotation and embraces almost all the spheres of our day to day life the world over. In a limited sense it connotes allowing decisions and actions of a person to be influenced not by rights or wrongs of a cause, but by the prospects of monetary gains or other selfish considerations. Avarice is a common frailty of mankind, and while Robert Walpole's observation that every man has a price, may be a little generalized, yet it cannot be gainsaid that it is not far from truth. Burke cautioned 'Am...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC2683; 2007(2)BLJR2241; JT2007(9)SC488; 2007(9)SCALE380; (2007)7SCC250; 2008(2)SLJ130(SC)
P.K. Balasubramanyan, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant was appointed initially as a District Mining Officer in the State of Bihar on 21.6.1983. On 21.3.1993, he was promoted to the post of Deputy Director (Mines) in the State of Bihar. According to him, on 6.3.1997, he was appointed on officiating basis as Additional Director (Mines). It is the further case of the appellant that the Departmental Promotion Committee had met on 2.6.1998 and had recommended the case of the appellant for promotion to the post of Additional Director (Mines). The appellant filed C.W.J.C. No. 5871 of 1998 in the High Court of Patna praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent therein, the authority concerned, to take a final decision with regard to the promotion of the appellant. The High Court by order dated 28.4.1999 allowed the Writ Petition and issued a direction to the respondent therein to consider the case of the appellant for promotion within a period of three weeks from the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC3005; (2007)211CTR(SC)69; [2007]293ITR1(SC); JT2007(9)SC424; 2007(9)SCALE387; (2007)7SCC215
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Whether for the purpose of computing the period of limitation envisaged under Sub-section (2) of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), the date of order of assessment or that of the reassessment, is to be taken into consideration is the question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 18.01.2006 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras passed in Income Tax Appeal No. 1384 to 1386 of 2005.3. The said question arises on the following facts:Respondent is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. It filed its returns for assessment under the Act for the assessment years 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 on 23.11.1994, 27.11.1995 and 26.11.1997 respectively. Assessment for the year 1994-95 was completed on 27.02.1997 and those of the Assessment Years 1995-96 and 1996-97 were completed on 12.05.1997 and 30.03.1998 respectively. In the said orders of assessment, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2007SC2742; (SCSuppl)2007(3)CHN19; JT2007(9)SC496; 2007(9)SCALE415; (2007)7SCC309; 2007(2)LC980(SC); 2007AIRSCW4952
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. The meaning of the word 'made' occurring in Sub-section (4) of Section 126 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter called and referred to, for the sake of brevity, as 'the Act'), is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 25.08.2004 passed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in L.P.A. No. 162 of 2003, reversing the judgment and order dated 21.10.2002 passed by a learned Single Judge of the said court.3. Before adverting to the question involved in this appeal, we may notice the basic fact of the matter. 4. Respondents herein are the owners of a property bearing No.1/2 of 1 (1&3) Part, Ram Kishore Road, Civil Lines, Delhi, which was proposed to be assessed for property taxes by the competent authority of Municipal Corporation of Delhi, a notice wherefore was issued in March 1997 purported to be under Section 126 of the Act to fix the rateable value thereof at Rs. 50,00,000/- with effect from 01...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007CriLJ4688; [2007(4)JCR32(SC)]; 2007(9)SCALE429; (2007)9SCC352
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court dismissing the appeal filed under Section 34(1)(4) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2000 (in short the 'POTA'). There seems to be some confusion about the factual position and therefore the details are not necessary to be noted.3. Undisputedly, the challenge before the High Court was to the order dated 7.7.2004 passed by the Designated Judge, Special Court (POTA) Ahmedabad. There were two proceedings initiated against the appellant. The first was Pota Case No. 08 of 2003 arising out of complaints, namely, I.C.R. No. 184 of 2002 registered at Kagdapith Police Station, I.C.R. No. 116 of 2002 registered at Vejalpur Police Station and I.C.R. No. 244 of 2002 registered at Satellite Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 307, 337, 286 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') read with Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Explosive Subst...
Tag this Judgment!