Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2009)19VST32(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court summarily dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the `Constitution'). Challenge was to the order dated 24.7.1997 passed by the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal (in short `the Tribunal') in R.N-204 of 1996.3. Respondent had filed application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987 (in short `the Act') in the nature of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. The question raised was certain amount collected from the respondents in view of assessment or otherwise as entry tax should be refunded along with interest, and the documents seized on 26.5.1992 should be released and compensation is to be paid by the officials for loss of reputation.4. Stand of the appellant was that the petitioner before the Tribunal in collusion with others imported consign...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2009(1)SC309; (2009)19VST1(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the Revision Petitions and special appeals filed by several assessees under Section 22(1) (so far as the revisions are concerned) and Section 23(1) (so far as the appeals are concerned) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax, 1957 (in short the `Act'). The basic issues involved are the same. For different assessment years, orders were passed by exercising revisional power by the Commissioner of Sales Tax. In some cases Deputy Commissioner exercised revisional power. The issue involved was whether the value representing the credit notes issued by the manufacturers to the distributors were to be included in the taxable turnover. All the assessees involved were carrying business in liquor as distributors of the brand manufactured by M/s. Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. And M/s. Vinadale Distilleries (P) Ltd., Hyderabad. For the relevant assessment ye...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009AIRSCW462
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. By the instant appeal, appellant Radhey Shyam, S/o Ganga Prasad, original accused No. 2 challenges his conviction for offence under Section 326, Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called `IPC' for short) and the consequent sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 4 years. Initially, the charge against the appellant was under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC. His father Ganga Prasad, first accused, was tried along with him. Eventually, the father Ganga Prasad was acquitted, while the appellant was convicted, but the Trial Court converted the offence to that under Section 326 IPC and awarded the sentence. The verdict of the Sessions Court was challenged before the High Court, where the verdict of conviction and sentence was confirmed. Initially, when the matter came up before this Court, this Court issued a notice, limited to the question of sentence. The accused was also ordered to be released on bail. This notice was issued on 5.6.2006.3. Today, when the matter ha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC747; (2009)1SCC386:2008AIRSCW7971
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the common judgment and order dated 15.09.2006 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Gauhati, dismissing Writ Appeal Nos. 471/2003 and 08/2005 filed by the appellants herein against the common judgment and order dated 14.08.2003 of the learned Single Judge in WP (C) No. 2026/2001, WP (C) No. 2036/2001 and WP (C) No. 4932/2001 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the said writ petitions.3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows:The Assam Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'APSC') had issued an advertisement dated 19.08.1997 for filling up 27 posts of Child Development Project Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'CDPOs'), pursuant whereupon a selection process was held. Finally, a select list dated 17.07.2000 containing the names of 64 candidates far in excess of the notified vacancies was prepared and published by the APSC. The names of the appellants who are ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(57)BLJR529; 2008(6)LHSC4434
G.S. Singhvi, J.1. These appeals by Mohmed Faruk @ Frauk Baba Alla Rakha Shaikh, Mohmed Umar Majid Ahmed Pathan @ Mohmed Fighter @ Mohmed Pahelwan @ Mohmedkhan, Sajidali @ Denny Mohmed Ali Saiyed, Mohmed Amin @ Amin Choteli Rahim Miyan Shaikh, Iqbal Hussain @ Laliyo Dhobi Kasambhai Shaikh, Salimkhan Sikandarkhan Pathan @ Azamkhan Pathan and Gulam Mohmed @ Gulal Kadarbhai Shaikh (hereinafter described as appellant Nos. A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-8, A-10 and A-11 respectively) are directed against judgment dated 6.2.2007 of the Designated Judge (TADA), Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as `trial Court') whereby they were acquitted of charges under Section 3 and 5 of The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (for short `the Act') but were held guilty of different offences under the Indian Penal Code (for short `IPC') and sentenced to life imprisonment. Appellant Nos.A-5 and A-8 were also convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced to three years rigorou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2009(1)JCR163(SC)]; (2009)1SCC507; 2008(1)LC94(SC); 2009(1)LHSC312
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. In these appeals, challenge is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur. Though the appellants were acquitted by the trial Court, the High Court in appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan directed their conviction for offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') and each was sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine with default stipulation. In all there were 8 accused persons. Three of them who were convicted by the trial Court namely, Dhruvendra Singh, Shivmuni @ Babua and Sushil Kumar did not prefer any appeal before the High Court questioning their conviction. However, the Trial Court acquitted the present appellants and in appeal filed by the State their acquittal was set aside.2. Background facts, as projected by the prosecution, in a nutshell, are as follows:On 6.10.1997 at about 4.10 p.m. the prosecutrix (PW-6) daughter of Nemchand (PW-4) lodged a rep...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. This appeal is by a complainant before the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, aggrieved by non-grant of interim- relief. The appellant is a Radio Broadcaster. It wanted its advertisement to be published in the respondent's newspaper. The respondent refused to publish appellant's advertisement. The appellant therefore approached the Commission alleging that respondent's refusal amounted to a restrictive trade practice which resulted in loss to the appellant. The appellant also sought an interim direction to the respondent under Section 12A of Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (`Act' for short) to publish its advertisements.2. The Commission considered the interim prayer and rejected the same by the impugned order dated 25.4.2008. On the facts and circumstances, it was not inclined to grant the interim order sought.3. We find that this is not a fit case for interference with the discretion exercised by the Commission in refusing interim direction...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. The purported substantial question of law which has arisen for consideration in this special leave petition is as to whether a payment of water charges would amount to revenue expenditure or not.2. The High Court dismissed the appeal summarily. The special leave petition, however, is barred by 481 days. The special leave petition although contains only six grounds, the application for condonation of delay runs into thirty pages. Large number of decisions have been cited to suggest as to what judiciary is required to do in such matters. In a case of this nature, we wish to observe that it is high time that the petitioner, viz., the Commissioner of Income-tax should try to set its own house in order. We fail to understand why apart from the fact that the special leave petitions are filed contrary to the circular letters issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and in respect of assessment years which are more than twenty years old. It is beyond any comprehension as to why acti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC967; (2009)2SCC349
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. Leave granted in S.L.P. (C) No. 18371 of 2006.2. In this batch of civil appeals we are concerned with two types of matters - one concerning perpetual sub-lease and the other concerning lease.3. The lead matter is Civil Appeal Nos. 6802-6806 of 2003 Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Shashnak Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. which concerns Perpetual Sub-lease dated 20.2.81. Similarly the lead matter for the other set of civil appeals is Civil Appeal No. 1011 of 2005 Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Gauri Constructions Co.CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 6802-6806 OF 20034. A Perpetual Sub-lease dated 20.2.1981 stood executed between the President of India (as the lessor), Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate Ltd. (as the lessee) and M/s. Shashnak Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. (as the sub-lessee) of an industrial plot.5. We quote hereinbelow some of the relevant recitals and the terms and conditions of the said Deed dated 20.2.1981:RECITALS This indenture made this Twentieth (20th) of Februar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Heard both sides.2. Petitioner is the wife. The respondent-husband had filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, which is pending in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Palghar, District Thane (Maharashtra). The petitioner is now staying with her parents and she seeks transfer of the case. The respondent was served with the notice and is represented by counsel. He has raised certain objections for the transfer of the case.3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Petition No. 79/2006 entitled Praveen Pratap Tiwari v. Mrs.Ratna Praveen Tiwari, pending before the Civil Judge (S.D.), Palghar, District Thane (Maharashtra) is directed to be transferred to the Family Court at Lucknow.4. All the records be transmitted to the transferred court.5. The transfer petition is allowed accordingly....
Tag this Judgment!