Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(12)SCALE638; (2008)9SCC77; 2009(1)SLJ311(SC); 2008AIRSCW6650
ORDERW.P.(C) No. 36/2008:1. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition. Permission sought for is granted. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners to seek other appropriate remedies with regard to their seniority.W.P. (C) Nos. 206/2007, 236/2007, 295/2007 & I.A. No. 1 in I.A. No. 204/2007:2. The petitioners in these writ petitions and Interim applications are members of the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service. Writ Petition No. 236/2007 and I.A. No. 1/07 in I.A. No. 204/2007 are filed by the U.P.Judicial Officers Association.3. In All India Judges' Association and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. : [2002]2SCR712 this Court has directed that promotion to the cadre of Higher Judicial Service should be streamlined based on the recommendations of Justice Shetty Commission. Prior to the directions given by this Court for filling up the vacancies in the cadre of Higher Judicial Service there were o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(132)ECC294; 2008(158)LC294(SC); 2008(230)ELT193(SC); JT2008(10)SC49; 2008(12)SCALE325; (2008)9SCC82; (2009)11VatReporter28'; 2008(6)Supreme273
Ashok Bhan, J.1. These three sets of appeals arise from a common judgment and order dated 30th April, 2002 passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Western Zonal Bench at Mumbai (for short 'the Tribunal').2. The first set of appeals being C.A. Nos. 4507- 4508 of 2002 has been filed by M/s. Camlin Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Assessee'), whereas the remaining two sets of appeals being C.A. Nos. 1692-1693 of 2003 & C.A. No. 978 of 2005 have been filed by the Revenue.3. The issues in these appeals are regarding the classification of the 'writing inks' being manufactured and captively consumed by the assessee and consequent demand of duty thereon. The inks with their constituents are:No. NAME OF THE INKS INGREDIENTS1. 99-MARKER INKS i) KETONIC SOLVENTii) SOLVENT DYESiii) BINDERS 2. 100-CAMEL FOUNT i) CARBON BLACK (PIGMENT)DRAWING INK ii) SHELLAC BINDERiii)WATER & PRESERVATIVES3. 07-CAMEL i) CARBON BLACK (PIGMENT)WATERPROOF DRAWING ii) SHELLAC BINDERINK...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. This is an appeal against the judgment and final order dated 27th June, 2006 passed by Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 75/1994.3. On 4th May, 2007, this Court while condoning the delay in filing the special leave petition had directed issuance of notice to the respondents limited to the question of payment of back wages. There is no dispute that the respondents have already been reinstated in service. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the materials on record, we are of the view that the respondents shall be entitled to back wages at a total sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) from the appellant, which shall be paid by the appellant to the respondents within three months from the date of supply of copy of this order.4. The impugned order of the High Court is modified to the extent mentioned above and the appeal is disposed of accordingly. Interim order, if any, shall stand vacated. There will be no order ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC1232; 2009(1)AWC95(SC); (2009)1MLJ182(SC); 2008(13)SCALE150; (2008)10SCC489; 2009AIRSCW511; 2009(1)LHSC351
ORDER1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted.3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31st of July, 2006 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in OSA No. 219 of 2006 by which the order of the grant of revocation of probate passed by the learned Single Judge of the original side of the High Court in Application No. 4122 of 2005 in T.O.S. No. 32 of 1999 was confirmed.4. We have heard Mr. Thiayagarajan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mrs. R. Rajani, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. We have also examined the judgment under appeal as well as the materials on record. The only question that was agitated before us by Mr. Thiayagarajan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant challenging the judgment of the High Court revoking the probate granted in respect of the Will executed by the testator, was that the respondents having no caveatable interest in the estate of the deceased, the application for revocat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC1182; 2008(12)SCALE188
Aftab Alam, J.1. These two analogous appeals arise from a land ceiling proceeding that was reopened under Section 45-B of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act').2. In the first round a proceeding was held against the land-holder Sarju Madhav Rastogi in Case No. 868 of 1973-74. In that proceeding he was shown entitled to only two ceiling units but having 205.83 acres of different classes of land in his possession. The land holder raised many objections against the draft statement. He disputed the classification of lands and claimed three more units for his three sons who, according to him, were already major on the appointed date, 9 September, 1970 and further claimed an additional unit for his two minor grand-sons. He stated that by gift deeds dated 28 September, 1962 he had given 21.98 acres and 21.43 acres respectively to his two married daughters: 2.56 acres were taken in acquisition by the S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(4)AWC3622(SC)
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. This is an appeal arising out of interim order dated 26th October, 2006 and order dated 8th February, 2007 both passed by a learned Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 30272 of 1998 and Modification Application No. 260414 of 2006 respectively.3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and examined impugned orders as well as other materials on record. From the impugned orders, we find that the rate of rent payable by the tenants was Rs. 25/- per month, which has been increased by the High Court to Rs. 1500/- per month from October, 2006. Admittedly, the landlord (respondent herein) was the writ petitioner before the High Court, in which he has challenged the order of the Appellate Authority, by which the Appellate Authority had set aside the order of eviction passed by the prescribed Authority.4. In view of the above, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified in increasing the rate of rent from...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(134)ECC95; 2008(160)LC95(SC)
ORDERS.H. Kapadia and B. Sudershan Reddy, JJ.1. Appeal admitted.2. The short question which arises for determination in this Civil Appeal is whether the 'Tipper-Gold Tipped' brand manufactured by the Respondent-Assessee is 'other than Filter Cigarettes' falling under Chapter Sub-heading-2403.11 as contended on behalf of the Respondent or whether it falls under Chapter Sub-heading-2403.13 (Filter Cigarette) as contended on behalf of the Appellant (Department).HeadingSub-headingDescription of goodsRate of duty No. No. BasicAdditional24.3 Cigarettes and Cigarillos of tobacco or of tobacco substitutes - Cigarettes of tobacco: - Other than filter cigarettes, ofRs. 78 perRs. 37 per length not exceeding 60thousandthousand millimeters 2403.11- Cigarettes of tobacco: 2403.13- Filter cigarettes of length (including the length of the filter, the length of filter being 11Rs. 395Rs. 185 per millimeters or its actual length,perthousand whichever is more) not exceedingthousand 70 millimeters 3. At th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2008]146CompCas327(SC); (2008)4CompLJ1(SC); JT2008(10)SC144; 2008(12)SCALE243; [2008]86SCL263(SC)
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.1. Leave granted.2. A common Judgment of High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in Miscellaneous Company Appeals filed by the Respondents herein is in challenge before us. These Appeals were filed by the Respondents against the order of the Company Law Board (CLB) arising out of the applications filed by the appellants herein under Section 397 and 398 of the Companies Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') alleging mismanagement of the company by the Respondents. Both the parties have already completed one round of litigation upto this Court and have come up before us in the second round. The factual matrix leading to the filing of the present appeals before us dates back to July, 1995 when the appellants herein filed the petitions under Section 397, 398 of the Act. The facts are as under.3. This is a family dispute amongst two brothers, namely, J.K. Srivastava and H.K. Srivastava, both of whom have expired. Their Legal Representatives are before us. J.K. Srivast...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008CriLJ4596; 2008AIRSCW6167
ORDER1. This is a petition under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for transfer of the trial of Case No. RC AC1 2000 A0006 (Special Case No. 4/2003) pending in the Court of Special Judge, Ambala to any court of competent jurisdiction at Delhi.2. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the statements made in the application for transfer and considering the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties that they have no objection if the case is transferred to the Special Court at Shimla (H.P.) instead of competent court at Delhi, we transfer the case from the Court of Special Judge, Ambala to the Special Court at Shimla (H.P.). Let the records of the case be transferred from Ambala Court to the Special Court at Shimla (H.P.) at an early date. The Special Court at Shimla (H.P.) is directed to dispose of the case at an early date preferably within six months from the date of receiving the records from the Court of Special Judge, Ambala. The Transfe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008(2)ALD(Cri)759; 2008CriLJ4592; 2008(12)SCALE237; (2008)9SCC45; 2008AIRSCW6161; 2008(9)SCC45; 2008CriLJ4592; 2008(4)Crimes23; 2008(6)Supreme685; 2008(5)LH(SC)3249
Altamas Kabir, J.1. Leave granted.2. The short point for decision in this appeal is whether a Special Judge exercising jurisdiction under the provisions of the West Bengal Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1949, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Special Courts Act, 1949'), can take cognizance of an offence against a member of the State Legislative Assembly (hereinafter referred to as 'M.L.A.') when he had ceased to be a M.L.A., though the offence was alleged to have been committed when he was a sitting M.L.A.3. On the basis of certain newspapers reports one Nikhil Kishore Roy filed a Public Interest Litigation in the Calcutta High Court against the respondent No. 1, Shri Shyamadas Banerjee, alleging that he had misused his official position as M.L.A. by submitting forged and fictitious medical bills and fees for prescription for Rs. 1,65,530.30 on account of the treatment of his wife and his mother between 8.9.1998 to 10.11.1998. The said Writ Petition, being No. 1311 of 1999...
Tag this Judgment!