Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(2)ALD(Cri)89
ORDER1. This is an application filed on behalf of Padma Charan Patra for relaxation of the conditions of bail enforced by our order dated 12.5.2006 while granting bail to the petitioner. The said conditions are as follows:1. That the appellant shall report to the named Police Station once every fortnight.2. The appellant shall not leave the State of Orissa without informing the Investigating Officer.3. The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten any witness or try to influence any person concerned with the investigation of the case.2. It has been brought to our notice that some of the co-accused approached the High Court and obtained bail on the same terms and conditions as was granted by this Court and subsequently they have also obtained relaxation of the first two conditions from the High Court.It has also been brought to our notice by the learned Counsel appearing for the State that similar applications appeared to have been filed by other co-accused in this Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.It has been stated that during the pendency of this petition, M.C. Case No. 1072 of 2008, titled as Nirmal Chandra Nayak v. Julita Nirmal Chandra Nayak, has been filed before the Family Court, Bangalore, within the State of Karnataka, for granting a decree for divorce. In the present transfer petition, a petition has been filed in which it has been stated that all the disputes between the parties have been settled; as such, a mutual consent divorce decree be granted in the aforesaid suit and criminal prosecution be quashed, apart from releasing the jewellery. In view of this, M.C. Case No. 1072 of 2008, titled as Nirmal Chandra Nayak v. Julita Nirmal Chandra Nayak, pending before the Family Court, Bangalore, within the State of Karnataka, is transferred to this Court and the same is, accordingly, disposed of in terms of the compromise, which shall form part of order of this Court. 2. It is directed that criminal prosecution of the responden...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC2160; 2008(3)AWC2926(SC); 2008(1)CTLJ347(SC); JT2008(5)SC481; 2008(7)SCALE211; 2008AIRSCW3373
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.1. These appeals by special leave filed by Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Limited, Sitarganj, Gadarpur and Nadehi [Civil Appeal No. 5543/2004], State of Uttaranchal [Civil Appeal No. 5544/2004], and Doiwala Sugar Company Limited and Kichha Sugar Company Limited [Civil Appeal No. 5545/2004] are directed against the final judgment and order dated 28-7-2004 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Uttaranchal in Writ Petition No. 318/2004 filed by Vardan Linkers, a proprietary concern of B.B. Singh, first respondent in these appeals. By the impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the said writ petition and quashed the order dated 24.4.2004 of the Secretary, Cane Development and Sugar Industries, whereby the order dated 26.03.2004 of the Assistant Cane Commissioner, Udham Singh Nagar, granting permission to the first respondent to lift 85,000 quintals of molasses from the five sugar mills at a price of Rs. 127/- per quintal was cancelled. Factual Background:2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDERLeave granted. 1. This is defendant's appeal.2. By the impugned order, the High Court declined to allow the defendant, the appellant herein, to file written statement as according to the High Court, despite of notice the defendant did not file written statement for three years. Therefore, it was negligent. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that if the appellant is allowed to file written statement the case can be decided on its own merit after contesting the suit. Accordingly, the order of the High Court is set aside. The appellant is allowed to file written statement within two weeks from today. The same shall be taken on record and the suit may be disposed of on its own merit expeditiously.4. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC2116; 2008(3)ALD81(SC); 2008(3)ALLMR(SC)472; (2008)2GLR1453(SC); JT2008(4)SC317; 2008(II)OLR(SC)60; 2008(4)SCALE848; (2008)5SCC511; 2008AIRSCW3164; AIR2008SC2116; 2008(5)SCC511; 2008(2)Supreme865; JT2008(4)SC317; 2008(2)LH(SC)1463
Markandey Katju, J.1. This writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution furnishes a typical illustration of how public interest litigation which was conceived and created as a judicial tool by the courts in this country for helping the poor, weaker and oppressed sections of society, who could not approach the court due to their poverty, has over the years grown and grown, and now it seems to have gone totally out of control, and has become something so strange and bizarre that those who had created it probably would be shocked to know what it has become.2. The petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act which claims to be engaged in espousing problems of general public importance.3. In the present case, the petitioner has referred to the rising number of road accidents in the country which are taking place in cities, towns and on national highways causing deaths, injuries etc. The petitioner has referred to the defects in the licensing procedure, the t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2008)216CTR(SC)1; [2008]300ITR231(SC); 2008(2)JKJ39[SC]; JT2008(5)SC614; 2008(6)SCALE675; 2008AIRSCW3398
Ashok Bhan, J.1. Assessee is the appellant herein.2. In this appeal the assessee has challenged the final judgment and order dated 3rd May, 2002 passed by the High Court of Gujarat in ITR No. 7 of 1988. The High Court has disposed of the Reference upholding the view taken by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench-A (for short 'the Tribunal') that the status of the assessee for the assessment year 1982-83 was not that of 'not ordinarily resident'. The High Court also recorded that the Tribunal has not committed any error in interpreting the provisions of Section 6(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short '1961 Act').3. Brief facts of the case culminating into filing of the present appeal, are as under:4. The assessee was appointed as Marine Engineer by Wallem Shipping Management Ltd., Hong Kong on 5th October, 1976 and, during the course of his employment, he was posted to work on high seas and paid abroad for many years. The assessee while filing his return for the assessm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(128)ECC213; 2008(154)LC213(SC); 2008(227)ELT24(SC); JT2008(5)SC256; 2008(6)SCALE128; (2008)11SCC439
Ashok Bhan, J.1. These appeals are being disposed of by this common Judgment as the facts and questions of law involved in these appeals are the same. For the sake of convenience, the facts are taken from Civil Appeal No. 6148 of 2002.2. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 05.06.2002 rendered in the Appellant's Writ Petition No. 1336 of 2002. By the impugned Judgment, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that the questions in issue were covered by a previous Division Bench Judgment of the same High Court in Writ Petition No. 1818 of 2002 [Pride Foramer v. Union of India].3. The principal issue that falls for consideration in this case is:Whether oil rigs engaged in operations in the exclusive economic zone/ continental shelf of India, falling outside the territorial waters of India, are 'foreign going vessels' as defined by Section 2(21) of the Customs Act, 1962, and are entitled to consume imported stores thereon without paym...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2008)216CTR(SC)303; 2008(226)ELT22(SC); [2008]300ITR403(SC); JT2008(6)SC83; 2008(6)SCALE733; 2008AIRSCW3665
D.K. Jain, J.1. Leave granted.2. These matters have been placed before the three-Judge Bench in view of a common order dated 14th December, 2006, passed by a two-Judge Bench of this Court. The Order reads as follows:When the matter was taken up, learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Rajesh Kr. and Ors. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, before any direction can be issued under Section 142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') for special audit of the accounts of the assessee, there has to be a pre-decisional hearing and an opportunity has to be granted to the assessee for the purpose. A close reading of the decision shows that the observations in this regard appear to have been made in the context of the assessments in terms of Section 158BC (Block Assessment) of the Act. Such assessments are relatable to a case when raid has been conducted at the premises of an assess...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2008)216CTR(SC)12; [2008]300ITR205(SC); 2008(2)JKJ26[SC]; JT2008(6)SC144; 2008(7)SCALE56; 2008(4)KCCR2829; 2008AIRSCW3706; 2008(2)Supreme884; 2008(4)AIRKarR337
Ashok Bhan, J.1. These appeals have been filed by the assessee against the final judgment and order dated 6th October 2001 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in ITRC Nos. 684/98, 685/98, 686/98 and 687/98 by which the High Court while setting aside the order of assessment passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal') and that of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), held that the facts and circumstances of the case warranted levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act').2. The assessment years involved in the present Appeals are 1984-85, 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88.Facts:3. A search was conducted on the premises of the assesses on 14th and 15th of October, 1987 and incriminating documents evidencing concealment of income by the assessee were unearthed apart from cash and jewellery found at the time of search. It was found that the appellant was maintaining double set of books and was accounting f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008LC(SC)263; JT2008(6)SC137; 2008(7)SCALE195; (2008)11SCC526; 2008AIRSCW3862
Altamas Kabir, J.1. This appeal, by way of special leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated 29th December, 2000, passed by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 78 of 1988, which was preferred against the order passed by the learned single Judge in A.S. No. 610 of 1979 on 24th June, 1987.2. As it appears from the materials on record, the appellant herein, Guntur Power and Light Limited, hereinafter referred as 'GPL', was incorporated for the purpose of running an Electrical Undertaking to supply electricity to the Guntur area of Andhra Pradesh. It was granted a licence for the aforesaid purpose under the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and acquired various properties for the Undertaking.3. In 1938, GPL ceased to generate electricity and it confined itself only to distribution of power. Receiving and distributing stations were located in places belonging to the GPL, outside the properties forming the subject matter...
Tag this Judgment!