Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008ACJ1149; 2008(2)AWC1114(SC); 2008(2)CTC785; JT2008(3)SC320; 2008(4)MPHT18(SC); (2008)5MysLJ(SC)710; 2008(3)SCALE393; (2008)5SCC403; 2008AIRSCW2023; 2008(5)SCC403; (2008)2SCC(Cri)627; 2008ACJ1149; 2008(2)Supreme205; 2008(4)LH(SC)2325
Arijit Pasayat, J1. Leave granted.Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:The accident in the instant case took place on 1.6.1996. The claimant was travelling in a goods carriage, as a gratuitous passenger. Undisputedly she was not traveling in the goods carriage in the capacity of owner of goods or representative of owner of goods being transported in the goods carriage. This aspect was also accepted by the claimant in the claim petition.Stand of the appellant was that the owner of the goods carriage had not taken any policy for such passenger and there was no requirement under law for obtaining a policy for passenger.3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the claimant could not claim indemnification by the appellant and the owners of the offending vehicles were to indemnify the award.Learned Counsel fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(3)ALT34(SC); 2008(2)AWC1291(SC); JT2008(3)SC196; RLW2009(1)SC745; 2008(3)SCALE262:2008AIRSCW7407:AIR2009SC365..
Arijit Pasayat, J1. Leave granted. Challenge in this appeal is to the order of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal under Order 41 Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'CPC') 2. Backgrounds facts in a nutshell are as follows:The appellants as plaintiffs filed a suit (suit No. 445 of 1999) for three reliefs:(i) The sale deed executed by defendant-respondent No. 1 on 22.2.1999 in favour of defendant- respondent No. 3 be declared as void. (ii) a permanent injunction be issued restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the property in dispute. (iii) Another permanent injunction restraining the defendants No. 1, 2 and 4 from letting, selling and disposing of the property.3. An application for injunction was also filed. On 4.5.1999 ex-parte order of injunction was granted. The prayer to modify the same was rejected. On 24.11.2001 a consent order was passed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench directed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC1612; 2008(3)ALLMR(SC)850; 2008(2)AWC1300(SC); 105(2008)CLT647(SC); JT2008(3)SC327; (2008)3MLJ959(SC); 2008(I)OLR(SC)612; 2008(3)SCALE313; (2008)4SCC445; 2008(2)SL
Markandey Katju, J1. Leave granted.2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench dated 31.1.2006 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3812 of 2002.Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. The facts of the case are that the respondent in this appeal was working as a Trained Graduate Teacher (hereinafter in short 'TGT Teacher') (Maths) in the service of the appellant which is the Kendriya Vidyalaya. On 23.2.1999 while functioning as a TGT teacher (Maths) in the Kendriya Vidyalaya No. 1, Air Force Suratgarh, he physically assaulted the Principal of the school in his office room which caused serious injury on the right eye of the Principal, Shri R.D. Shah. The next day he submitted a written apology. However, he was charge-sheeted and an inquiry was held against him and the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 24.2.2000, a copy of which is at Annexure P-4 to this appeal.The Inquiry Officer found the respondent gui...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009CriLJ1158; [2008(4)JCR50(SC)]; JT2008(3)SC262; 2008(3)SCALE284; (2008)11SCC163:2009AIRSCW698:2008(2)LHSC1130
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant. 2. Challenge before the High Court was to the judgment and order dated 5.11.1993 passed by learned Sub-Judge, Bhavnagar, in Special Case No. 9 of 1991 whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year in respect of offence under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and for offence punishable under Section 7(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act'), he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year in respect of each of the offence and fine with default stipulation.3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:On 12.12.1990, one Luxury Bus bearing No. GTS-9919 was hired by Ramnikdas Hargovindas from Bharat Travels Company for carrying a marriage party from Mahuva to Selana. According to the complai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2008(117)FLR354]; JT2008(3)SC493; (2008)IILLJ635SC; (2008)4MLJ383(SC); 2008(4)SCALE1; (2008)4SCC42; 2008AIRSCW2099; 2008LABIC1694; 2008(2)Supreme355
C.K. Thakker, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is filed against an award passed by the Presiding Officer of Labour Court, Jallandhur on January 31, 2006 in Reference No. 608 of 2000 and confirmed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on November 10, 2006 in Civil Writ Petition No. 11570 of 2006.3. Shortly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent-workman was serving as a Driver with the Pepsu Road Transport Corporation ('the Corporation' for short). On September 8, 1988, the respondent sent a leave application from his home-town seeking leave upto September 30, 1988 on medical ground. On expiry of the leave period, however, he did not join duties. A report was submitted by the Depot Manager to the Corporation and a notice was issued to the workman on December 5, 1988 seeking his explanation as to absence from duty. He was also asked to report within ten days. Though the said notice was duly served, the respondent failed to join duty. A charge sheet was, therefore, issued ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC1906; 2008(3)ALLMR(SC)843; (SCSuppl)2008(3)CHN145; 2008(2)CTC224; [2008(3)JCR26(SC)]; JT2008(4)SC37; 2008(4)KLT233(SC); 2008(4)MhLj1; (2008)4MLJ258(SC); 2008AIRSCW2265; 2008(4)SCC102; 2008(3)CivilLJ384; 2008; (3)ICC172; 2008(2)Supreme166; 2008(2)LH(SC)784
Tarun Chatterjee, J.1. Leave granted.This appeal relates to rejection of an application for amendment of plaint in a suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur by which the High Court, in the exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution, had reversed the order of the Second Additional District Judge, Bikaner allowing the application for amendment of the plaint. 2. On 18th of December, 1997, the plaintiff/appellant had filed a suit for specific performance of a contract to sell relating to 25 bighas of irrigated agricultural land in Chak No. 3 SLM, being Square No. 112/63, Colonization Tehsil Pungal, District Bikaner, Rajasthan (hereinafter called as 'the suit property') and for permanent injunction. 3. The case made out by the appellant in the plaint is to the following effect:The appellant had entered into an agreement for sale to purchase the suit property for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-. On 12th of April, 1991,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(126)ECC3; 2008(152)LC3(SC); 2008(224)ELT12(SC); JT2008(3)SC463; 2008(3)SCALE335; (2008)3SCC400; 2008AIRSCW2019
ORDERAshok Bhan, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, 'the Act') against the Final Order No. 90/2002-A dated 27th February 2002 in Appeal No. E/881/2001-A passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal wherein and whereunder the Tribunal has reversed the order-in- original of the Commissioner dated 02nd February 2001 and deciding the issue regarding determination of assessable value against the Revenue in respect of intermediate product, i.e., the textured yarn manufactured and consumed captively by the respondent in the manufacture of final product, i.e., dyed yarn which is sold in the market.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are:The respondent-assessee is engaged in the manufacture of textured yarn - grey yarn as well as dyed - falling under Chapter 54 of the first schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985.As per Notification No. 35/95-E dated 16.3.95, the product dyed yarn was c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2008(3)SC316; 2008(3)SCALE385; (2008)11SCC176; (2008)13VST456(SC); 2008AIRSCW1725; 2008(2)Supreme176; 2008(4)KCCRSN260
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. Leave granted.2. This civil appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.10.06 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in three Trade Tax Revision Nos.691, 692 and 693 of 2006 by which it has been held that the transaction of transfer of the right to use was a local sale under Section 3F of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 (for short, '1948 Act').3. Assessee is a company incorporated under Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Panjim, Goa. It is engaged in the business of leasing and financing plants and machinery.In this civil appeal we are concerned with the assessment years 1994-95, 1995-1996 and 1996-97.4. While examining the case for the assessment years in question pertaining to M/s. Kesar Enterprises Limited Baheri, U.P., the Department noticed that the assessee herein supplied plants and machinery to M/s. Kesar Enterprises Limited on lease and that the assessee was in receipt of lease rent for the mach...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2008(3)SC378; 2008(2)KLT594(SC); 2008(3)SCALE302; (2008)3SCC785; (2008)13VST313(SC); 2008AIRSCW1722; 2008(4)KCCRSN265
J.M. Panchal, J.1. These appeals are directed against Judgments rendered by High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Tax Revision Case No. 467 of 2000 and 10 of 2001 by which the view taken by the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) Sales- Tax Office Cochin and confirmed by Additional Deputy- Commissioner (Appeals) II, as well as The Kerala Sales-Tax Appellate Tribunal that the Copper Sheets and Brass Sheets in which the appellant deals fall within the ambit of Entries No. 116A and 116D which provide tax at the rate of 8% on the total turnover, of Copper and Brass respectively, is upheld.2. The appellant company is a dealer registered under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales-Tax Act, 1963 (the 'Act' for short). It inter-alia deals in Copper Sheets and Brass Sheets. While completing the assessment for assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86, the Assessing Officer assessed the turnover of Copper Sheets and Brass Sheets at the rate of 8% holding that the same are covered by Entries Nos. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC1613; 2008(3)ALLMR(SC)431; [2008]142CompCas438(SC); (2008)2CompLJ28(SC); JT2008(3)SC325; (2008)3MLJ941(SC); (2008)5MysLJ(SC)775; 2008(3)SCALE311; (2008)4SCC222; 2008AIRSCW1791; 2008(2)Supreme213; 2008(4)KCCRSN257
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court summarily dismissing the Company Appeal No. 4 of 2006 filed by the appellant under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 (in short 'the Act').3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:Company case No. 3 of 1984 was filed before the Patna High Court in respect of Rohtas Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'company') which purportedly had become sick. It is the case of the appellant that though efforts were made to revive, it could not materialized. Eventually the High Court started the process of disposal of the assets of the company. Appellant claiming to be representative of Bangar Group of Industries, Calcutta, filed an application in the said case. After giving particulars of the group which had annual turnover of about Rs. 5,000 crores, it was mentioned in the application that the appellant was interested in the revival of the company...
Tag this Judgment!