Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(127)ECC211; 2008(153)LC211(SC); 2008(224)ELT512(SC); JT2008(4)SC516; 2008(4)SCALE740; 2008AIRSCW3296
Ashok Bhan, J.1. Revenue has filed this appeal under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short 'the Act') against the judgment and final order dated 9th April, 2002 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal') in Final Order No. 140/2002-B in Appeal No. E/2199/2001/B wherein and whereby The Tribunal relying upon a judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in the case of Supreme Motors v. State of Karnataka has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee-respondent.Facts:2. Assessee-respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') was holding Central Excise Registration No. 19 MOR-13 MOD-III 92 and engaged in the manufacture of Rail Assembly front Seat (Omni), Adjuster Assembly slider seat, YF-2, Rear Back Lock Assembly and 1000 CC Rear Back Lock Assembly. It submitted its classification list in the year 1986 under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (for short 'the tariff Act') classifying its products under chapter...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2008(4)SC632; 2008(4)SCALE737; 2008AIRSCW2865
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. In all these cases certain provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (in short the `Act') call for determination. Basically the scope and ambit of Section 127 of the Act is the pivotal provision. Three writ petitions were disposed of by the common judgment. Writ petition No. 7846 of 2004 was filed by M/s C.V. Shah and A.V. Bhat. Writ petition No. 9644 of 2004 was filed by Tajuddin Mohhammadbhai while writ petition No. 5077 of 2004 was filed by Poona Timber Merchants and Saw Mill Owners Association. By the common judgment the High Court partly allowed the writ petition nos. 7846 and 9644 of 2004 while writ petition No. 5077 of 2004 was dismissed. The High Court while granting partly relief in the writ petitions held as follows:(i) Writ Petition Nos. 7846 of 2004 and 9644 of 2004 are partly allowed.(ii) The designation of the subject land being survey No. 577, Hissa No. 1, Survey No. 577, Hissa No. 2, Survey No. 577, Hissa No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. The petitioner (Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority 'PUPDA' for short) allotted Site No. SCF 83 in Mohali in favour of the respondents, on acceptance of their bid of Rs. 15,10,000/- for the said site at an auction held on 10th August, 1994. The letter of allotment dated 29.5.1995 took note of payment of Rs. 3,77,500/- (payment of 25% of the price) and permitted the respondents to pay the balance of Rs. 1132500/- towards price and Rs. 283125/- towards interest upto 10.8.1998 at 10% per annum, in four equated instalments on 10.8.1995, 10.8.1996, 10.8.1997 and 10.8.1998. The letter of allotment required PUPDA to deliver the possession of the site to the allottee within three months. 2. The Estate Officer of PUPDA made an order dated 21.7.1997 resuming the site on the ground that the respondents had failed to pay the instalments. The respondents challenged the order of resumption before the Appellate Authority contending that they could not pay the instalments, as PUPDA had no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008ACJ1338; AIR2008SC2014; 2008(2)AWC2037(SC); JT2008(4)SC452; (2008)7MLJ269(SC); (2008)151PLR426; 2008(4)SCALE158; (2008)4SCC717; 2008AIRSCW2654; AIR2008SC2014; 2008(4)SCC717; (2008)2SCC(Cri)488; 2008ACJ1338; 2008(2)LH(SC)1512; 2008(2)KCCRSN115;
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. Leave granted.2. The first appellant met with a motor accident and as a result thereof he was paralysed due to head injury. It was found by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal that he was having 100% disability and that he was an agriculturist having five acres of land. The Tribunal on assessment of the evidence led by the parties fixed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as yearly income from agriculture and taking into consideration the age of the appellant, multiplier of 13 was applied and was awarded an amount of Rs. 1,30,000/- towards loss of earning capacity; Rs. 20,000/- towards the pain and suffering suffered by him; Rs. 3,000/- towards the cost of hospitalization; and Rs. 50,000/- towards continued loss of amenities, totalling to a compensation of Rs. 2,03,000/-. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant approached the High Court of Kerala. The High Court partly allowed the appeal and modified the award. The High Court was of the view...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC1973; 2008(1)ALD(Cri)875; 2008CriLJ2247; [2008(3)JCR11(SC)]; 2008(4)SCALE153
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'). Learned Additional Sessions, Judge-I, Kangra had convicted the appellant and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation. 3. Background facts which led to the trial of the accused are essentially as follows:Brij Lal (PW-1) is a resident of village Nadd, Tehsil Baroh, District Kangra. Sarwan Kumar (PW-3) also belongs to the same village. On 27.02.2001 marriage of Sanjay Kumar son of PW-3 was solemnized. At about 6.30 p.m. baraat of Sanjay Kumar started on foot from village Nadd to Danoa. PW- 1 and his son Sanjeev Kumar (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') also participated in the said marriage party. At about 7.30 p.m. the marriage party reached at a place known as '...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC2012; 2008BusLR428(SC); 2008CriLJ2617; JT2008(4)SC291; 2008(2)KLT180(SC); 2008(4)SCALE150; (2008)4SCC584; 2008(1)LC522(SC); 2008AIRSCW2652; AIR2008SC2012; 2008(4)SCC584; (2008)2SCC(Cri)467; 2008CriLJ2617; 2008(2)AICLR545; 2008(2)LH(SC)1609
P.P. Naolekar, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal arises from the judgment and order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court whereby the High Court has held that from the evidence on record the article of food in question, is soyabean oil. The label contains pictures of vegetables like cabbage, carrot, brinjal, capsicum, cauliflower, tomato and onions which are in no way connected with soyabean oil. Although the prosecution of the appellant is quashed, a clear case of misbranding is made out. 3. The relevant facts of the case are that the appellant M/s Parakh Foods Ltd. (now Cargill Foods India Limited) is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The appellant is engaged in manufacture and sale of 'Shaktimaan Refined Soyabean Oil', a food product covered under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and it sells and markets the said product throughout the country. On 23.12.2003, respondent No. 2, the Food Inspector, District Mahboob Nagar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. Leave granted. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The following three litigations are pending before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench:(1) Testamentary Case No. 3 of 2003 for grant of probate, filed by Dato Mohan Swami claiming to be the Executor under the alleged Will dated 9.4.1996 of Swami Rama. (2) Testamentary Case No. 1 of 2004 for grant of letters of administration in regard to estate of Swami Rama who died on 13.11.1996, filed by his son Mohit Kumar. (3) Original Suit No. 865 of 1997 filed by Mohit Kumar, Lilu Kumar and Lt. General M.L. Dar (Retd.) and Himalayan Institute Hospital Trust represented by a Presidential Body consisting of the said three persons for a permanent injunction restraining defendants therein from interfering with the functioning of Himalayan Institute Hospital Trust and its said Presidential Body, and seeking a declaration that nomination letter dated 5.11.1996 in favour of Dato Mohan Swami and three others is null and void. 3. Him...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC2507; 2008(2)AWC1754(SC); (SCSuppl)2008(3)CHN31; JT2008(4)SC430; (2008)4MLJ803(SC); 2008(4)SCALE825; 2008AIRSCW3469; 2008(4)LH(SC)2343; 2008(2)KCCRSN125
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court in two second appeals. The appeals were preferred by the appellant questioning correctness of the conclusions arrived at by the Courts below. 2. Factual position which is almost undisputed in both the cases needs to be noted in brief and is as follows:3. For the sake of convenience the facts situation in Civil Appeal No. 2546 of 2004 (Municipal Council, Udaipur v. Mahendra Kumar) is reflected.4. The respondent as plaintiff filed a suit against the appellant seeking following reliefs:a) That a decree for permanent injunction be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant to the effect that the defendant should recover rent at the rate of Rs. 175/- (rupees one hundred seventy five) per month from the plaintiff fixed before coming into being of the relationship of lessee and lessor between the plaintiff and the defendant and apart from this not ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(56)BLJR1267
ORDERC.A. No. 1336/2006; C.A. No. 1362/2006H.K. Sema and Markandey Katju, JJ.1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 24/1/2006 passed by the Division Bench of Orissa High Court. By the impugned order, the High Court has interfered with the Catering Policy of 2005 in respect of reservations. By now it is a well settled principle of law that policy decisions of the Government should not be interfered in a routine manner unless the policy is contrary to the provisions of statutory rules or of the Constitution. Nothing has been brought to our notice that the Policy is contrary to the provisions of the statutory rules or the Constitution.2. For this simple reason, we set aside the order of the High Court impugned herein. The appeals are allowed.C.A. No. 1813/20063. In view of the order passed in C.A.NO.1336/2006 and C.A. No. 1362/2006, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(129)ECC66; 2008(155)LC66(SC)
ORDERCIVIL APPEAL NO. 5793 OF 20021. This is a statutory appeal filed by the assessee under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, 'the Act') against the final order No.698/2002 dated 31st May 2002 in Appeal No.E/906/99 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at Bangalore (for short 'the Tribunal'). By this order the Tribunal has rejected the appeal filed by the appellant and has held that Benzyl Methyl Salicylate (for short 'BMS') is marketable and therefore liable to excise duty.2. The appellant-company is engaged in the manufacture of patent and proprietary medicines and organic chemicals (bulk drugs and intermediate) falling under Chapters 29 & 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (for short 'Tariff Act') in their factory at Virgonagar, Old Madras Road, Bangalore. Appellant filed classification lists with effect from 5.6.1986 and 1.3.1987 in which they declared that one of the items, viz., BMS prepared in their...
Tag this Judgment!