Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2009)24VST356(SC)
ORDER1. Shri Sorabjee, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee, on instructions, states that the appellant - assessee will submit itself to the re-assessment proceedings initiated vide Show Cause Notice (see Annexure P-2). He further states that the assessee will file Form 'F' with the Authority concerned within ten weeks from today.2. On expiry of the period of ten weeks the Assessing Officer will take up re- assessment proceedings which will be completed within a period of three months, thereafter.3. At this stage, it may be mentioned that on the scope and applicability of Section 6A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, there exists difference of opinion between the various Sales Tax Collectors in the country and therefore since the Appellant is now ready to file Form 'F', we are directing the Assessing Officer not to impose penalty/interest, in the re-assessment proceedings as one time waiver. Needless to add that waiver of penalty and interest shall be admissible ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Delay condoned.2. In this batch of Civil Appeals, the main issue which arose for determination before the Adjudicating Authority was whether Intravenous Fluids having a therapeutic value stood covered under Exemption Notification No. 3/2001.3. In the lead matter - M/s. Parenteral Drugs (I) Ltd. - the respondents were engaged in the manufacture of various types of Intravenous Fluids. They were availing the benefits of Notification No. 6/2000, dated 1.3.2000. The said Notification was amended by Notification No. 36/2000, dated 4.5.2000, whereby Entry No. 47-A was added thereby exempting 'Intravenous Fluids' from payment of excise duty. However, from 1.3.2001, the earlier notifications were replaced by Notification No. 3/2001 which defined 'Intravenous Fluids' as those which are used for sugar, electrolyte or fluid replenishment. In other words, open-ended exemption stood restricted by the above three qualifications.4. Accordingly, show cause notices were issued in which it was al...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly the age of the appellant-accused, we reduce the sentence of the appellant-accused to three months only.3. If the appellant has not served out the sentence, he shall be taken into custody to serve out the sentence.4. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant.2. By the impugned order, Madras Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, `the Tribunal') held the appellant guilty of contempt on the ground that she violated the status quo order dated 12.12.2000 and directed her to pay a fine of Rupees two thousand five hundred and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two weeks.3. A perusal of the record shows that the appellant tendered unqualified apology in the form of two affidavits dated 29.3.2001 and 25.4.2001 but, the Tribunal did not accept the same. We have carefully gone through the two affidavits and are satisfied that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal should have accepted the unqualified apology tendered by the appellant and should have dropped the contempt proceeding.4. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the unqualified apology tendered by the appellant is accepted.5. No costs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(5)SCALE129
S.B. Sinha, J.1. This appeal by special leave has been preferred by the appellant questioning the correctness of a Judgment and Order dated 26th October, 2006 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench, Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2002 affirming a judgment of conviction and sentence dated 27th November, 2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhabua, in Sessions Trial Case No. 131 of 2001 convicting him for commission of an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life as also pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.2. The deceased Ramchandra Patidar is related to the appellant. The deceased was playing cards on the platform of the shop belonging to Mahesh Kumar Makwana at about 9:15 p.m. on 10th March, 2001 with him and others. Electricity in the locality had gone off. A lamp was lit.Appellant allegedly arrived at the said Vill...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(57)BLJR1608; 2009(111)BomLR2116; 2009CriLJ2785; (2009)3GLR1833(SC); JT2009(4)SC614; 2009(4)SCALE369; (2009)5SCC787; 2009(4)LC2036(SC)
K.G. Balakrishnan, C.J.1. The petitioner herein, the 117th accused in Special Case No. 1/93 (Bombay Blast Case) before the Special Judge, TADA (Mumbai), was charged under various Sections of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) such as Section 3(3), Section 5 and Section 6 and also for the offence under Section 3 and Section 7 read with Sections 25(1A) and 25(1B) of the Arms Act, 1959. The petitioner was found guilty of offences punishable under Section 3 and Section 7 read with Sections 25(1A) and 25(1B) of the Arms Act and was sentenced to six years rigorous imprisonment. The petitioner has filed appeal against his conviction and sentence and that appeal is pending consideration before this Court. Pending consideration of that appeal, the petitioner was granted bail on 28.2.2007.2. Crl, M.P. No. 4087 of 2009 has been filed by the petitioner under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) praying that execution of the order of conviction and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2009(4)SC631; 2009(4)SCALE681; 2009AIRSCW3318
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC'). He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the first offence but no separate sentence was imposed for the second offence.2. Appellant alongwith two others faced trial. Each was charged for having committed offences punishable under Section 304B IPC and Section 498A IPC. Appellant alone was separately charged for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.3. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:Kewal Krishan (PW 4) is the complainant. He is a resident of Ambala City. He is the Director of G.G. Flour Mills. He had four daughters and two sons. Marriage of his eldest daughter Suman Rani alias Anamika (hereinafter referred to as the `deceased') was solemnized with appellant Pardeep Kumar ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009AIRSCW3017; AIR2009SC2279; 2009CriLJ2820; JT2009(4)SC658; 2009(5)SCALE124; (2009)12SCC413; 2009(2)LHSC1329
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Leave granted.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 498A and 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC'). The present appeal is filed by the appellant, husband of Yogmaya (hereinafter referred to as the `deceased'). A single appeal was filed by the present appellant and his mother-Gita Ghosh and unmarried sister Kalyani Ghosh A-3.3. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:One Jiten Ghosh happens to be the de facto complainant of the instant case who lodged one written complaint with the local P.S. at Ranaghat on 24.07.1987 at 11.05 hours with a plea that his niece (sister's daughter) Yogmaya was married about 1 year 4 months ago with accused Krishna Ghosh after giving proper dowry. Krishna Ghosh, his mother Gita Ghosh and sister Kalyani Ghosh used to rebuke his niece on very trivial house-hold affai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(3)AWC2294(SC); JT2009(5)SC376; 2009(4)SCALE694; 2009(3)LHSC1511
Markandey Katju, J.1. This appeal by special leave has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 22.10.2003 in Regular Second Appeal No. 2176 of 1985.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. The appellants are the daughters of one Bhagwana. They along with one Shobha Ram filed Civil Suit No. 234 of 1982 against the respondents challenging the decree in Civil Suit No. 630 of 1980 regarding certain land and a house filed by Ram Singh against Bhagwana on the ground that the said suit was a collusive suit and hence the decree was illegal and void. Accordingly the prayer in Civil Suit No. 234 of 1982 filed by the appellants was to set aside the decree in Civil Suit No. 630 of 1980. The trial court on 31.5.1983 decreed Civil Suit No. 234 of 1982 and set aside the judgment and decree dated 24.11.1980 in Civil Suit No. 630 of 1980 on the ground that the same was collusive. However, in the first appeal under Section 96 C.P.C. t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2009SC2623; 2009(3)AWC2282(SC); JT2009(6)SC535; (2009)IIILLJ347SC; 2009(5)SCALE168; (2009)5SCC193; 2009AIRSCW4040
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. The right of the appellants herein, if any, to be regularized in Class `C' Services of the Railways is the question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellants against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Circuit Ranchi passed in OA No. 604 of 1997 and OA No. 398 of 1998, was dismissed.3. Appellants were directly appointed in Group `C' posts except serial No. 5 in the Electrical Department of the Railway Electrification Project. As despite working for a long time, their services were not regularized, they filed two original applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna, Circuit Bench, Ranchi, praying, inter alia, for a direction upon the respondents to finalise their regular absorption in the services in grade `C' posts against the sanctioned strength which were marked as OA Nos. 604 o...
Tag this Judgment!