Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC2533; (2008)2CompLJ445(SC); 2008(6)SCALE503; (2008)10SCC535; 2008(2)LC701(SC); 2008AIRSCW3526
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. This civil appeal is filed under Section 18 of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 ('1997 Act') by M/s Reliance Infocomm Ltd. against judgment and order delivered by Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal ('TDSAT') dated 17.1.2006 dismissing petition No. 108 of 2005 challenging the directive dated 4.3.2005 by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India ('TRAI'), circulars dated 23.3.2005 and 26.8.2005 issued by DoT and demands raised by BSNL for ADC for the period 14.11.2004 to 26.8.2005.2. The short question which arises for determination in this civil appeal is whether 'Unlimited Cordless' service' ('the impugned service' for short) of the appellant is covered under the definition of WLL(M) service as defined in Regulation 2(xxviii) of the Telecommunication Interconnection Usage Charges Regulation, 2003 which defines WLL(M) as limited mobility service using WLL technology within Short Distance Charging Area ('SDCA'). According to TRAI and DoT,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(129)ECC198; 2008(155)LC198(SC)
ORDERAshok Bhan and Dalveer Bhandari, JJ.1. The Assessee herein is engaged in the manufacture of detergent powder and scouring powder allegedly falling under Chapter Heading 3402.90 and 3405.40 respectively of the schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. The said activity was carried out by the Assessee on job work basis for its principal, viz., Hindustan Lever Ltd. (HLL). The Assessee filed declaration in Annexure II under Rule 173C of Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short, 'the Act').2. The Assessee was clearing the goods manufactured by it on stock transfer basis to the depots of their above-named principal in various parts of the country. However, it allegedly did not supply depot sale prices to find out the assessable value for charging Excise Duty. On checking of RT-12 returns it was found that the Assessee had declared the value of the detergent less than the price at which it was being sold. And in respect of scouring powder the Assessee had failed to supply the depot sale p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. At the time of hearing of this appeal we are informed that the entire amount has been paid by the appellant in execution of the order. Such being the position, this appeal has become infructuous and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs, excepting that the question raised in the appeal shall be kept open for decision in an appropriate case. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008BusLR482(SC); (2008)2CompLJ405(SC); JT2008(5)SC657; 2008(6)SCALE523; (2008)10SCC556
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. The controversy in these civil appeals is: whether appellant is liable to pay Access Deficit Charges ('ADC') to BSNL for the period commencing from 14.11.2004 to 26.8.2005 in respect of its service provided under its brand name 'WALKY'.Introduction:2. ADC is a levy imposed by TRAI (Regulator) on the operators (service providers) to support roll out of telephones in rural areas. Since BSNL owns 99% of the rural phones, ADC constitutes a levy for the appellant and a subsidy for BSNL. The said ADC has two parts: (i) the component of the payment to be made by the domestic service provider, and (ii) the component of the payment to be made by international long-distance service providers. The ADC regime was introduced in 2004.3. In March, 1997, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India ('TRAI') Act stood enacted. The Government introduced New Telecommunication Policy ('NTP') in 1999 and proceeded to implement the said policy. By TRAI (Amendment) Act, 2000 a key change came to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC3182; 2008(5)CTC554; [2008(118)FLR438]; (2008)IIILLJ584SC; (2008)7MLJ490(SC); 2008(7)SCALE726; 2009(1)SLJ129(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted in both the matters.2. These two appeals arise out of a judgment and order dated 20th May, 2005 rendered by the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court at Cuttack in WP No. 2333 of 1991.3. Writ Petitioner (Respondent in appeal arising out of SLP ) No. 18997 of 2005 and Appellant in the connected appeal) was appointed as a Management Trainee in the Punjab National Bank (Bank). She was duly selected by the Banking Service Recruitment Board, Delhi. An offer of appointment was made to her favour on or about 28th July, 1986 inter alia on the following terms and conditions:2. TRAINING/PROBATION/CONFIRMATIONYou will be on training/probation for a period of 2 years from the date of your joining the Bank and you will be considered for confirmation in the service, subject to your satisfactory report on your training, passing Bank's confirmation test and receipt of satisfactory report from the Police authorities about your character and antecedents. You may also be ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(2)KLT673(SC); 2008(7)SCALE691; (2008)11SCC482; (2008)14VST519(SC); 2008AIRSCW3810
S.H. Kapadia, J.1. Leave granted.2. This civil appeal filed by the assessee raises the question relating to liability to pay 'purchase tax' under Section 5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 ('1963 Act', for short).3. Appellant-assessee purchases 'red oil' from unregistered dealers and converts such red oil into 'sandalwood oil' by removing water content and other impurities. As regards the processing, there is no dispute between the parties. The case of the Department, in short, is that the assessee is not selling red oil as such; that the commodity purchased (i.e. red oil) by the assessee has undergone manufacture when it is heated to a specified degree and the same is filtered by which impurities are removed and, therefore, according to the Department, conversion of red oil into sandalwood oil attracts levy under Section 5A of the 1963 Act.4. For the sake of convenience we quote Section 5A of the 1963 Act which reads as follows:5A. Levy of purchase tax. - (1) Every dealer wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(3)AWC2649(SC); 2008(7)SCALE484
S.B. Sinha, J.1. These three contempt petitions at the instance of the parties hereto have been filed for alleged violation of this Court's judgment and order dated 19.9.2005 passed in Civil Appeal No. 5807 of 2005. 2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. The parties are related. Sushila Raje Holkar, the applicant in Contempt Petition Nos. 6 of 2006 and 36 of 2006 allegedly executed an agreement of lease in favour of Col. Anil Kak (Retired), the alleged contemnor and applicant in Contempt Petition No. 27 of 2007 on or about 11.8.1998 in respect of 4.8 acres of land appertaining to Khasra No. 60. A registered deed of lease was executed by her in favour of the respondent for 16,000 square feet out of the aforementioned 4.8 acres of land. 3. Disputes and differences arose between the parties. No registered deed of lease was executed for the remaining land admeasuring 1,21,721.6 square feet which is in possession of the respondent. Inter alia, for enforcing the said purported ag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC2360; 2008(3)AWC2645(SC); JT2008(7)SC136; (2008)151PLR689; 2008(6)SCALE498; 2008AIRSCW3891; 2008(4)LH(SC)2377
ORDER1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted. 3. Rejoinder Affidavit filed by the appellant be taken on record. 4. This appeal is directed against an order passed by a learned Single Judge of the High court of Delhi at New Delhi in CM(M) No. 41 of 2007 by which an order dated 05.10.2006 passed by the Appellate Court rejecting the petition filed by the appellant in the pending appeal for acceptance of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure was affirmed. 5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and after considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that in order to decide the pending appeal in which the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed ought to have been taken by the appellate Court along with the application for acceptance of additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In that view of the matter and without going into the merits as to whether...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC2291; 2008(3)AWC2711(SC); (SCSuppl)2008(4)CHN164; 2008(4)CTC360; 2008(5)KarLJ613; (2008)7MLJ1331(SC); 2008(8)SCALE277; (2008)11SCC1; 2008AIRSCW3817
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Appellants herein are aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 6.3.2007 passed by the High Court of Karnataka whereby and whereunder the private respondents herein were allowed to make constructions on the lands in suit, subject to the final decision therein. It was furthermore directed that any alienation or creation of an interest by the defendants would be subject to the decision of the suit.3. With a view to appreciate the fact involved in the matter, we may notice the genealogical table of the parties. Mandi MadalappaMandi Mandalappa|__________________________________________________________| | |Chikkaranganna T.M. Thimmaiah Muniswamappa| | |_Puttathyamma |_M. RamachandraR. Ranganna |_____________ (Def. 1) | Padma W/o| | (Def. 2)| || _________________________| | || | Shekhar Harish Rekha | (Def. 3) (Def.4) (Def.5)_________________________________________________| | | |Mandali Ranganna Munianna R. Thimmaiah Puttanna Mandal(Plf....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC2485; 2008(3)AWC2825; (SCSuppl)2008(4)CHN140; (2008)7MLJ263(SC); 2008(7)SCALE743; 2008(4)CivilLJ; 755; 2008(3)Supreme314; 2008(4)LH(SC)2513; 2008(3)ICC607; 2008(3)KCCRSN192
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Interpretation of Section 69 of the Evidence Act, 1872 is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 11.11.2005 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana.3. One Ram Bux executed a Will dated 25.9.1981 in favour of the respondent herein bequeathing his right, title and interest in the property in question. Appellants claimed themselves to be the owner and in possession of the suit property which is a shop, as a co-sharer to the extent of 6 marlas out of the land measuring 3 kanal and one marla appertaining to Khasra No. 53 situated in the area of Chhoti Haveli, Tehsil and District Ropar.4. Learned Trial Court, inter alia, raised the following issues:1. Whether the plaintiff is owner of the suit property? OPP2. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to the possession of the shop in question? OPPXXX XXX XXX6. Whether the defendants are entitled to the counter claim to the effect that they are owner of the shop in question an...
Tag this Judgment!