Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant pressed the appeal on the question of sentence only. He stated that the occurrence had taken place about twenty two years ago and the appellant has remained in custody for about two months.3. Having taken into consideration the totality of the circumstances, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met in case the sentence of five years' imprisonment awarded against the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him.4. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in-part and the sentence of imprisonment awarded against the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him.5. The appellant, who is on bail, is discharged from the liability of bail bonds. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. The appeals are dismissed for non-prosecution.2. The matters were called out for hearing yesterday when a request for adjournment was made by the counsel appearing for Ms. Reena Singh, Advocate on the ground that she was in personal difficulty. The request for adjournment was declined but the matter was passed over to enable the counsel to inform Ms. Singh about our order. Somehow the matters could not be taken up yesterday and have now been called out for hearing. Again the same counsel makes prayer for adjournment. We have declined the prayer. We have requested the counsel to argue, but he has expressed his inability to do so. Under the circumstances we have no option but to dismiss the appeals for non-prosecution.3. Ordered accordingly. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2009]183TAXMAN78(SC)
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. This civil appeal pertains to assessment year 2001-02.3. By the Finance Act, 1990, Section 28 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has been amended by inserting therein, clauses (iiia), (iiib) and (iiic) with retrospective effect with a view to ensure that cash compensatory support (CCS), duty drawback (DD) and profit on sale of import entitlement licences (IL) shall be taxable under the head 'Profits and Gains of Business or Profession'. In view of this amendment, the above three export incentives have got to be included in the profits of the business for computing the deduction under Section 80HHC.4. In this case we are only concerned with two out of three above-mentioned export incentives, namely, duty drawback and profits arising from sale of DEPB licence. We quote hereinbelow Section 28(iiia) and (iiic) of the 1961 Act which read as under:Profits and gains of business or profession.28. The following income shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head 'Profits a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2010SC199; 2009CriLJ4640; JT2009(8)SC190; 2009(8)SCALE785
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 61(1)(a) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').3. The allegation against the accused-appellant was that he was carrying illicit liquor in a container wrapped in a gunny bag. The accused was driving truck bearing No. HPA-1975 and the truck was stopped and search was carried out. On checking the container, it was found that it contained five bottles of illicit liquor. On analysis by the Chemical Examiner, the sample which was collected was found to be illicit liquor.4. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 61(1) (a) of the Act and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation.5. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. This appeal is at the instance of the Insurance company against the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 2/1/2001 dismissing the appeal filed by the Insurance company in limine at the admission stage itself. The only grievance made by learned Counsel for the appellant is that in view of the observations recorded by the tribunal in its award dated 23/2/2000, it appears the licence of the driver of the vehicle had not been issued by the DTO Kamrup and as such the licence produced by the driver was a fake one. He has accordingly prayed that in this situation the owner of the vehicle be directed to reimburse the sum awarded to the claimant which has admittedly been paid in the meanwhile. Notices have been issued to the owner- respondent No. 2 and he has not put in appearance, though served. The record also discloses that he had not appeared before the tribunal as well and that he had been proceeded against ex-parte.2. In this view of the matter, we allow this appeal, set aside...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The appeal is directed against a judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in a second appeal. No question of law was raised before the High Court. The finding of fact recorded by the District Judge which were endorsed by the High Court is that the respondents were technical hands and were matriculates with ITI certificates and were entitled to a pay scale of 1200-2040. The learned Counsel for the appellant has sought to produce before us a document dated 18th September 1991. This document is subsequent to the suit and in any case was not exhibited in the present proceedings. We, therefore, decline the prayer of the learned Counsel for the appellant to take this on record.2. In view of the above, we find no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. We observe from the impugned order of the High Court dated 29/9/2006 that the Hon'ble Judge has given findings that the arbitration agreement was not legally valid, that the claim was stale and time barred. We are of the opinion that these findings are on the merits of the case and it was not open to the Court to decide this issue as these matters were to be left for the decision of the arbitrator.3. In this view of the mater, we are of the opinion that the impugned order has to be set aside. It is, accordingly, set aside. We also request Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy, a retired Judge of this Court, to be the sole arbitrator to settle the disputes between the parties. We clarify that the expenses for the arbitration will be borne by the appellant. We further request the arbitrator to take a decision in the matter as expeditiously as possible. All contentions including the question of limitation and as to the stale nature of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. This appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana dated 7/12/1999 in which a direction had been issued that the services of the petitioner/respondent before us be continued till regular appointees are appointed. The respondent had been appointed on contract basis and his service was terminable at any time without notice.2. Notice was issued in this case on 13/8/2001. The respondent was served but has not put in appearance. It appears that in some connected cases, this Court had stayed the order of the High Court in similar matters. It is possible, therefore, that the respondent, who was on contract basis, would have been relieved by now and it is this reason that he has not put in appearance despite notice. We are also disinclined to adjourn the appeal, as it pertains to the year 2002.3. We, accordingly, allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and dismiss the writ petition. No order as to costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11.12.1996 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana issuing directions to the appellant in the following terms:In the above circumstances, we direct the respondents to re-compute the pensionary benefits due to the petitioners after reckoning the services rendered by them in the schools run by the Local Bodies prior to 1.10.1957. Arrears of pension and gratuity as may be found due, should be paid to the petitioners within six months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Writ petition is allowed in the above terms. 2. The State of Punjab, aggrieved by the aforesaid direction, has filed the present appeal by special leave. At the time of issuing of notice in this case on 1.12.1997, this Court had directed that the notice going to the respondents shall state that the matter will be disposed of at the SLP stage in the light of the judgment of this Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Dev Dutt Kaushal ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDER1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The sole appellant was convicted by the High Court under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rupees two thousand; in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Hence, this appeal. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant stated that in terms of the direction given by the High Court, the appellant has deposited the amount of fine. Learned Counsel then submitted that as the appellant has already remained in jail for five months, the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him may be reduced to the period already undergone.3. Having taken into consideration all the pros and cons of the matter, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met in case the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone.4. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in-part and wh...
Tag this Judgment!