Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. This is an appeal against an order order dated 14th of February, 2002 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal No. 3821/1997, by which the High Court had dismissed the appeal and held that the appellant-Institution comes within the purview of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.2. After hearing the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the parties, the parties have come to a settlement that the appellant-Institution is covered under the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, but such coverage shall be taken with effect from 1st August, 2005. The order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Mangalore is accordingly modified to the extent mentioned above and the appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008CriLJ4687; JT2008(10)SC368; 2008(11)SCALE775; 2008AIRSCW6380
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. In the present appeals, challenge is to the order of detention passed under Section 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The said order was passed on the ground that gold was being smuggled from abroad by the Inderjeet Singh., the appellant No. 1. He and the other appellant - Varinder Singh were intercepted on 17.12.1999 in the Customs Arrival Hall at Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose International Airport,. Calcutta. They were found smuggling 77 pieces of gold bars of foreign origin weighing about 9.816 Kg. and valued at about Rs. 39 lacs. A representation was made to the detaining authorities to revoke the detention. Representation was also made to the Advisory Board and to the Central Government. The representations were considered and rejected. Writ petitions were filed before the Delhi High Court which were numbered as Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 477 of 2000 and 479 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. The fundamental issue which arises for determination in a pending statutory Appeal No. AA-174/CUIE/2006-07/CT before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Cuttack-I Range:Cuttack, Orissa, is whether sale of Superior Kerosene Oil by the appellant-Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOC) to another oil company via PDS route is exempted from sales tax in terms of notification dated 1st July, 2000 issued by the Finance Department, Government of Orissa.2. Before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Cuttack-I, an application for stay was moved. It was refused. Aggrieved by the decision refusing stay, the interim matter was carried to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Cuttack, Orissa. Stay was refused also by the Commissioner. Hence, a Writ Petition came to be filed by the appellant Company. By the impugned order, the High Court directed the appellant IOC to pay a sum of Rs. 75 lakhs pending hearing and final disposal of the appeal by the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax. Hence...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against an interlocutory order dated 21st of August, 2006 in RFA No. 1167 of 2005 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, whereby the High Court had vacated the stay initially granted in the appeal filed by the appellant and directed the appellant to deliver possession of the suit property to the respondent. The appeal now pending before the High Court has arisen out of a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale.3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned order and other materials on record, we are of the view that this appeal can be disposed of in the following manner:i) It is brought to our notice by the learned Counsel for the parties that the decree for specific performance has been executed through Court. But possession of the same has not been delivered to the respondents, that is to say, the appellant is still in possession of the suit property. ii) Such b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(3)ARBLR228(SC); JT2008(9)SC57; 2008(11)SCALE223; (2008)8SCC161; 2008AIRSCW5559
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court disposing of appeal (FAFO No. 1339-D of 2007) which was preferred by the appellant against the order dated 31.8.2007 passed by learned Judge of Small Causes Court/Civil Judge (Senior Division) Agra, in Suit No. 285 of 2007. By the said order the application for interim mandatory injunction was disposed of with certain directions.3. Background facts as projected by the appellant giving rise to the appeal in a nutshell are as follows:On 17.9.1996 an agreement was entered into between the appellant and the respondent for supply of gas. The agreement was valid upto 31.3.2002 and was further extended from time to time upto 31.3.2006. On 3.12.2004 officials of the appellant inspected the factory premises of the respondent and found that gas supply has been tampered with. Similar incidents were noticed on 15.1.2005 and 17.3.2005. Therefore on 28.5.2005 gas supply w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(4)AWC3695(SC); JT2008(9)SC8; (2009)2MLJ1091(SC); 2008(11)SCALE180; 2008AIRSCW5708
Altamas Kabir, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellants herein claim to be the owners of a plot of land measuring 0.81 acres comprised in Survey No. 188/4 in Thiruvanmiyur village falling under Chengalpattu District, now part of Mylapore Triplicane Taluk, Chennai District. The said land which was the subject matter of a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as 'the L.A.Act', issued pursuant to G.O.MS 36/Housing, published by the Tamil Nadu Government in the Official Gazette on 19.2.1975. It is the case of the appellants that on 28.3.1983 an Award was made in respect of the said lands which was registered in the name of the appellants.3. In 1991, the appellants filed Writ Petition No. 16207 of 1991 challenging the acquisition proceedings in respect of Survey No. 188/4 measuring 0.81 acres. According to the appellants, the said writ petition was allowed and the Notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act in respect of Survey No. 188/4 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(133)ECC183; 2008(159)LC183(SC); 2008(229)ELT487(SC)
Ashok Bhan, J.1. Respondent company is an undertaking wholly owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu. It is engaged in the manufacture of railway wagons and conveyor systems falling under Heading 8605.50 and 8428.00 respectively of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Upon verification of their accounts, it was noticed on 16th July 1998 that the respondent had entered into a contract, being Contract No. 94/RS/PF&EC;/954/3 dated 1.12.1994, with the Southern Railways for manufacture and supply of 106 wagons of BTPGLN wagons for an amount of Rs. 16,10,90,974/- which was inclusive of cost of steel at Rs. 6,65,833/- per wagon. The cost of each wagon worked out to Rs. 15,29,724/- (6,55,833 + 8,63,891). The Railways supplied free raw material worth Rs. 7 lac per wagon. The respondent paid central excise duty @ 15% ad valorem and cleared 21 wagons to their customer till 16th July 1998. It was also noticed that the respondent has adjusted the value mentioned in the invoices against 50...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2008(8)SC621; 2008(11)SCALE211; (2008)9SCC284; 2009(1)SLJ109(SC); 2008AIRSCW5817; 2008LabIC3608; 2008(6)Supreme56
Markandey Katju, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 21.9.2006 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No. 6642 of 2005.3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.4. The short question in this appeal is whether the appellant fulfills the requisite academic qualification for appointment to the post of Reader in Public Administration in Chaudhary Devi Lal University, Sirsa.5. The respondent-university issued an advertisement for direct recruitment for various posts, including the post of Reader in Public Administration. The appellant herein, claiming to be fully eligible and qualified for the post of Reader in Public Administration, applied for the aforementioned post on the prescribed format. A Selection Committee interviewed the appellant on 18.7.2004 as per the call letter dated 8.7.2004. The appellant was selected as Reader and he joined as such on 4.4.2005.6. Respondent No. 2 herein, Dr. Raj Kumar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : II(2008)DMC606SC; JT2008(9)SC134; 2008(11)SCALE148; 2008AIRSCW6526; 2008(3)Crimes245; 2008(5)LH(SC)3159
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur upholding the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 202 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC'). There were two appellants before the High Court which dismissed the appeal. Only present appellant has questioned the correctness of the judgment.2. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:The appellant (A-2) alongwith co-accused-Santosh Devidas Shukla (A-1) and two others were tried in Sessions Trial No. 81 of 1992 in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur for offences under Sections 302 and 202 read with Section 34 IPC and by the judgment and order dated 17.12.1993 of learned Additional, Sessions Judge, Achalpur, they were convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 202 read with Section 34 IPC and were sentenced to suffer RI for life and to pay a fine ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : IV(2008)BC542(SC); 2008(5)BomCR13; 2008(2)CTLJ351(SC); JT2008(9)SC1; (2008)8MLJ200(SC); 2008(11)SCALE142; (2008)8SCC172; 2008AIRSCW5503; 2008(8)SCC172; 2008(11)SCALE142.
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court allowing the Writ Petition filed by the respondents.3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:Writ Petition was filed by respondents 1 and 2 taking the stand that respondent No. 1 was awarded a contract for the work of improvement and widening of part of the Thermax- Telco-Bhosari road which was divided in three phases and contract for Phase-III (Approx. 3.7 Kms.) was given to the them, whereas the tender of Phase-II with its cost at Rs.8,61,63,048/- was awarded to another party (Approx. 3.3 Kms.) Though the tender amount was Rs.9 crores with a discount at 9.01%, the contract price was fixed at Rs.8,18,91,000/- and the letter by the Corporation to the respondents was given on 7/4/2005 and the work was to be completed within 12 months from that date. There is no dispute that the work was not completed and the corporation released an advertisement publishe...
Tag this Judgment!