Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008AIRSCW7294; 2008LC(SC)511; [2008(4)JCR10(SC)]; 2008(11)SCALE313; 2008(2)LC1095(SC)
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. These appeals involve an important question regarding jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (in short `Appellate Tribunal'), New Delhi. The first judgment of the Appellate Tribunal is assailed in the case of appellant-Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd.2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:Respondent No. 1-Gajendra Haldea a serving officer based in Delhi filed a petition before the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (in short the `CERC') purportedly under Section 52 read with Section 79(1)(g) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (in short the `Act') on 28.2.2006. The prayers inter- alia were under: (a) Direct GRIDCO to adhere to the maximum trading margin of 4 paise while entering into a contract for sale of power to any trading licensee in case such power is ultimately routed to a licensee outside the State of Orissa through an inter-state transmission system. (b) Direct GRIDCO to file appropriate returns in the prescribed Form-III of the Ce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(131)ECC101; 2008(157)LC101(SC); 2008(229)ELT641(SC); 2008(11)SCALE328
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted in SLP (C) Nos. 16719 of 2006 and 16947 of 2006.2. In all these appeals common questions are involved and are directed against the judgment and final order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short the `Tribunal). Since in appeals filed by the appellants common question of law is involved, there is no need to elaborately deal with the factual aspects. Question is the effect of a circular issued by Central Board of Excise and Custom (in short the `Board') i.e. Circular No. 42 of 1997 dated 19.9.1997. The CESTAT held that the Notification No. 2/95-CE dated 4.1.1995 as amended by Notifications Nos. 21/97-CE dated 11.4.1997, 100/95-CE dated 2.6.1995 and 7/96-CE dated 1.7.1996 shall have overriding effect over the Circular. It held that there is no manner of doubt that the appellant's claim of liability to pay 50% of the aggregated customs duty on the goods cleared to the Domestic Tariff Area (in short the `DTA') is not leg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 106(2008)CLT696(SC); 2009(2)MhLj20; 2009(4)MPHT248(SC); 2008(11)SCALE389; (2008)8SCC278; (2008)3SCC(Cri)481; 2008(11)SCALE389
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.7.2006 passed by the High court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Criminal Application No. 873 of 2006 whereby and whereunder the application filed by the respondents herein under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the Summary Criminal Case No. 72/2005 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Acjhalpur was allowed.3. The High Court in its judgment opined that in terms of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act only those partners of a Firm can be proceeded, who were in-charge of the affairs of the Company and responsible to it. No exception can be taken to the aforesaid proposition of law. No exception can also be taken to the observations of the High Court that every partner of the Firm cannot automatically be roped in.4. But then the High Court despite the aforesaid observations...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2008(118)FLR1112]; [2008(4)JCR20(SC)]; JT2008(9)SC205; (2009)ILLJ235SC; (2008)8MLJ530(SC); 2008(11)SCALE321; (2008)8SCC236; 2009(1)SLJ375(SC):2008AIRSCW7507
P. Sathasivam, J.1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.5.2006 of the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital in Writ Petition No. 606 of 2003 (SS) whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent herein was allowed quashing the orders dated 5.3.1986 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Haldwani Forest Division, Dist. Nainital and dated 27.4.1991 passed by the Conservator of Forest, Western Circle, Nainital dismissing the respondent from service.2. The brief facts are stated as under:The respondent herein was a temporary Forest Guard and was posted in Nandhaur Range of Haldwani Forest Division, Nainital. In 1984, when he was incharge of Asani Beat in Nandhor Range of Haldwani Forest Division, illegal felling of 11 Sal trees and 24 Kokat species took place in Asani Beat Nos. 1, 3 and 5 which were allotted to the U.P. Forest Corporation for felling of marked dead, dying and diseased trees. In the diary maintained by the Department, during the months of Marc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2008(118)FLR1079]; [2008(4)JCR1(SC)]; 2009(1)KLT101(SC); (2008)7MLJ1245(SC); RLW2008(4)SC3167; 2008(11)SCALE594; 2009(1)SLJ371(SC); 2008(8)SCC648
ORDERR.V. Raveendran, J.1. Leave granted. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The respondent while working in the Indian Army was invalidated out of Army service, in medical category, on 13.11.1983. He approached the High Court in 1999 seeking a direction to the appellants to pay him disability pension. A learned Single Judge by order dated 6.12.2000 allowed the writ petition and directed the appellants to grant him disability pension at the rates permissible. In so far as arrears, the relief was restricted to 38 months prior to the filing of the writ petition. The respondent was also directed to appear before the Re-survey Medical Board as and when called upon by the appellants. The appellants did not contest the said decision and granted disability pension to respondents and also released the arrears of disability pension for 38 months.3. The respondent however was not satisfied. According to him the disability pension ought to be paid from the date it fell due on 13.11.1983. He...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC3270; 2008CriLJ4313; JT2008(9)SC140; 2008(11)SCALE341
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. These three appeals have a common matrix and judgment of a Division Bench of the Patna High Court. By the impugned judgment, the State's appeal was dismissed while in the case of present appellants their conviction was altered from Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') to Section 395 IPC. The sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for life was altered to seven years rigorous imprisonment.2. Factual position in a nutshell is as follows:The case of the prosecution, briefly stated, as contained in the Fardbayan (Ext.2) of the informant Yusuf Ali Khan son of Khalil Bux Khan (P.W.4) is as follows: The Fardbayan was recorded at the P.O. Village Khaira, P.S. Auras, District Gaya at 8 p.m. relating to the alleged occurrence of 7 p.m. on the same day on 15.03.1983. The Fardbayan was recorded by Mohd. Asfaque Ali (P.W.5), the officer incharge of Bankey Bazar outpost. It is alleged that the informant was at his house at about 7 p.m. Suddenly 10 armed pers...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(2)ALD(Cri)740; 2008(5)ALLMR(SC)478; [2008]145CompCas61(SC); (2008)4CompLJ252(SC); 2008CriLJ4316; RLW2009(1)SC156; 2008(11)SCALE337; 2008AIRSCW5537; 2008CriLJ4316; 2008(3)Crimes279; 2008(11)SCALE337
Arijit Pasayat, J.SLP (Crl.) 6049/20051. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court accepting the prayer of respondent No. 1 for quashing the proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ludhiana. The proceedings related to the complaint filed by the appellant alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short the `Act'). In all, 8 petitions were filed which were disposed of by the common judgment.3. The present appeals relate to Criminal Miscellaneous No. 52153 of 2002 and connected cases. The High Court quashed the proceedings primarily on the ground that respondent No. 1-Virsa Singh Sidhu in the first case had resigned from the Directorship before the cheques were issued. The other petitions were allowed on the ground that there were some general allegations that all Directors were responsible.4. Learned Counsel for the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : IV(2008)BC280(SC); 2008BusLR832(SC); [2008]145CompCas179(SC); (2008)4CompLJ257(SC); 2008(4)CTC524; JT2008(9)SC198; 2008(11)SCALE330; [2008]86SCL127(SC); 2008(2)LC1215(SC); 2008AIRSCW6316; 2008(6)Supreme138
Aftab Alam, J.1. This appeal is directed against the orders passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court asking the appellant to deposit in court the sum of Rs. one crore that it had received in connection with the sale of the property of M/s. Pure Drinks (New Delhi) Ltd. (respondent No. 2), for the liquidation of which a proceeding remains pending in the High Court. The first order in this regard was passed by a learned Single Judge on 14 March, 2000 on an application made by Neel Kamal Plastics Ltd. (respondent No. 1), one of the several creditors of the second respondent, M/s. Pure Drinks (New Delhi) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as `the Debtor Company'). By this order the appellant was directed to deposit the aforesaid amount in twelve equal monthly installments of Rs. 8.5 lakhs beginning 15 April, 2000. Against the order passed by the learned Single, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the Court under Section 483 read with Section 466 of the Companies Act, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2008]16STT111
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. This Civil Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29th August, 2006 passed by the Kerala High Court in S.T.Rev. No. 104/2004. By the impugned order, the Revision filed by the appellant herein stood dismissed on the ground that the issue is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. B.M. Ashraf & Co. : (1997)8SCC468 .3. The appellant is a private limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, engaged in the business of export of cashew kernels. It has purchasing depots in the State of Kerala for the purchase of cashew kernels for exports.4. During the Assessment Year 1998-1999, the appellant claims to have purchased cashew kernels for the value of Rs. 1,92,67,236/- from the registered dealers within the State of Kerala for the purposes of export. According to the appellant, the said purchases were covered by declarations in Form 18A. The appellant claims that since the said purchases were covered by declara...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2008(118)FLR1038]; [2008(4)JCR115(SC)]; 2008(11)SCALE311; 2008AIRSCW6127
R.V. Raveendran, J.1. Leave granted. Heard the learned Counsel for both sides.2. The appellant's father who was working as a Senior Assistant in the Government of Andhra Pradesh, made an application on 3.2.2001 seeking permission to retire on medical invalidation as he was suffering from total blindness due to hypertension. On 22.3.2001, the Medical Board issued a certificate for medical invalidation. When the application was under process, the appellant, as dependant son, made an application-cum- representation to provide him appointment under the compassionate appointment on medical invalidation scheme (contained in GO dated 9.6.1998 read with earlier GOs of the state government). The said scheme provided for compassionate appointment to a dependant son, daughter, spouse of a government servant who retired on medical invalidation.3. On 30.6.2001, the Government of Andhra Pradesh accepted the application of appellant's father and permitted him to retire from service on medical invalid...
Tag this Judgment!