Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. A short question which arises for determination in this Civil Appeal is - whether the assessee was under statutory obligation under Income Tax Act, 1961, and/or the Rules to collect evidence to show that its employee(s) had actually utilized the amount(s) paid towards Leave Travel Concession(s)/Conveyance Allowance?2. It may be noted that the beneficiary of exemption under Section 10(5) is an individual employee. There is no circular of Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) requiring the employer under Section 192 to collect and examine the supporting evidence to the Declaration to be submitted by an employee(s).3. For the above reasons there is no merit in the Civil Appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. By the impugned order, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [for short, 'the National Commission'] dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant, in effect and substance, on the ground that the same was barred by limitation.3. A perusal of the complaint and the documents filed by the appellant shows that Respondent No. 3-M/s. Rao Constructions gave a post-dated cheque bearing No. 929131 dated 17th October, 1996, to the appellant on 17th April, 1996 for repayment of the loan. The Manager of Chembur Branch of the Bank guaranteed encashment of the cheque. However, on 16th July, 1996, that is a day before the due date of payment, the Branch Manager asked the appellant not to present the cheque. On the next day, cheque No. 929131 was taken from the appellant and another cheque bearing No. 217401 dated 17th October, 1996 was issued for Rupees twenty lakhs. The bank gave fresh guarantee to the appellant that the cheque will be h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. It is an admitted position that the present appellants were not made parties to Writ Petition No. 484/2000 although they were affected by the impugned judgment of the High Court. Therefore, impugned judgment of the High Court needs to be set aside merely on the said ground. The question of maintainability of the writ petition was also to be considered by the High Court.2. In that view of the matter, keeping all question open, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and send the matter back to it for a fresh consideration and decision after making the present appellants as parties to the writ petition. The High Court is requested to decide the writ petition after hearing the parties including present appellants within a period of six months from this date, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.3. The Civil Appeal is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(2)AWC1628(SC); JT2009(1)SC654; 2009(1)SCALE745; (2009)2SCC703
ORDER1. These writ petitions have been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.2. It appears that the All Bengal Excise Licensees Association had filed a writ petition in the High Court of Calcutta challenging the policy of the State of West Bengal of granting additional licences for foreign liquor and country made spirit. That petition was filed through the General Secretary of the Association. Subsequently, the writ petition was withdrawn.3. During the pendency of the writ petition, and before it was withdrawn, an interim order had been passed by the High Court staying the grant of licences. A contempt petition was filed before the High Court alleging that licences were granted in violation of the stay order of the High Court, but that contempt petition was dismissed. Against that order dismissing the contempt petition, a special leave petition was filed in this Court which was decided by this Court in the judgment reported as All Bengal Licensees Association v. Raghabend...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009AIRSCW1118; AIR2009SC1636; JT2009(1)SC621; 2009(1)SCALE713; 2009(1)LHSC413; 2009(2)JT621; 2009(3)KCCRSN111
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court directing acquittal of the respondents who were convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') and sentenced to suffer capital punishment so far as respondents 1 and 2, namely, Prakash and Ramu are concerned. Accused No. 3-Shiva was convicted for the aforesaid offence but was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. All the three accused persons were also convicted for offence punishable under Section 506 read with Section 34 IPC. No separate sentence was imposed.2. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:Jaitubai is the sister of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and niece of respondent No. 3. Jaitubai was married to Madhukar (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) long back. Jaitubai had a son Alpesh (PW6) and daughter Hema (PW5). Alpesh and Hema are major. All of them are residents of R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC1395; 2009CriLJ1316; JT2009(1)SC549; 2009(1)SCALE721; (2009)4SCC218
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court dismissing the application filed under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the `Code'). Challenge in the Criminal Revision Petition was to the order passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2004 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Asansol confirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 22.4.2004 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Asansol.3. Since the appellant did not appear when the matter was called, the matter was taken ex-parte. The High Court noted that a sum of Rs. 2,30,000/- was payable to the complainant-respondent No. 1 herein by the present appellant -accused and since the payment was not made there was an agreement between the parties to stipulate the mode of payment. A sum of Rs. 2,30,000/- was to be paid in 8 instalments and the first instalment was of a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC1658; 2009CriLJ1534; [2009(2)JCR110(SC)]; JT2009(1)SC544; 2009(2)KLJ92; 2009(1)SCALE740; (2009)3SCC384; 2009(1)LC361(SC); 2009AIRSCW1182; 2009(1)LHSC423; 2009CriLJ1534; 2009(2)SCC(Cri)110; 2009(3)KCCRSN133; 2009AIRSCW1182; 2009(1)LHSC423; 2009CriLJ1534; 2009(2)SCC(Cri)110
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior Bench. The appellant was convicted by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind, for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 109 or in the alternative under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC'). He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.3. The High Court by the impugned judgment altered the conviction to Section 304 Part I IPC read with Sections 109 and 34 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- with default stipulation.4. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:Report Ex.P/1 was lodged by complainant Lakhansingh (PW1) according to which on 31.5.1990 his cousin Pappu had some altercation with Kanthshree (DW1), sister-in-law of appellant. Due to that incident when on 1.6.1990 at 6.00 a.m. Pappu was going to an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC1741; 2009CriLJ1586; JT2009(1)SC539; 2009(1)SCALE683; (2009)4SCC289; 2009(1)LHSC510; 2009(1)JT539; 2009CriLJ1586; 2009(3)KCCRSN88
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.1. Eight accused, namely, (1) Fateh Singh, (2) Ram Chander, (3) Brahma, (4) Satvir, (5) Ram Saran, (6) Harbir, (7) Pratap and (8) Genda were tried by learned VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Meerut, in Sessions Trial No. 70 of 1978 for committing the murder of Hari Dutt Singh.2. By judgment and order dated 05.12.1979, the learned trial judge convicted all the accused under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and sentenced each to imprisonment for life. The accused - Ram Saran, Satvir and Harbir have been further convicted under Section 148 IPC and each sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment, whereas Fateh Singh, Genda, Pratap, Brahma and Ram Chander have been convicted under Section 147 IPC and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were, however, ordered to run concurrently.3. The accused persons filed joint appeal in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The High Court by fina...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC1692; JT2009(1)SC625; 2009(1)SCALE717; (2009)11SCC262; 2009AIRSCW1226; 2009(1)LHSC396; 2009(3)KCCRSN127
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 321 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') and sentence of life, nine months and nine months respectively and fine with default stipulation.3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:The accused Shiva Karam Payaswami Tewar was working in Hotel Premier run by the complainant Anthony Xavier at Dharavi, Mumbai-70. The accused was entrusted with the work of preparation of spices. Muttukumar (hereinafter referred to as the `deceased') was working as a manager in the said hotel. Considering the nature of their work the accused as well as Muttukumar used to stay overnight in the hotel.On 31.8.1995 in the evening complainant Anthony Xavier went to the Hotel Premier and after usual supervision and talk with manager at night he returned. At that time the ac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(3)AWC2432(SC); JT2009(1)SC447; 2009(1)SCALE651:2009AIRSCW2805:2009(2)SCC558:2009(1)SCR423:2009(1)LHSC626
Tarun Chatterjee, J.1. The petitioner is a company incorporated in London. The respondent is a Government of India undertaking having its corporate office at NALCO Bhawan, P-1 Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar, Orissa. The petitioner filed an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') for appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes, which arose between the parties in respect of the global tender and the purchase order dated 29th of September, 2000 issued by the respondent pursuant to the tender. Clause 16.0 of the tender contained the Arbitration Clause which reads thus:All disputes or differences arising under the contract whether during or after completion of the contract or whether before or after determination, for closure or breach of the contract (other than those in respect of which the decision of any person is by the contract expressed to be final and binding) shall after written notice by either pa...
Tag this Judgment!