Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2009(12)SC275; (2010)157PLR228; 2009(12)SCALE82; (2009)8SCC785
ORDER1. Delay of 65 days in filing the Special Leave Petition is condoned.2. Issue notice.3. Until further orders, the operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed.4. In this case, the allegation of the petitioner-Insurance Company is that there was no valid insurance coverage on the date of the accident i.e. 30th November, 2003. The cheque towards premium for renewal of the policy was issued on 29th November, 2003 but the same was dishonoured. Hence, the contention of the Insurance Company is that it has no liability to pay any compensation amount to the claimants since there was no insurance coverage on the date of the accident.5. Despite this, the High Court has directed the insurance company to pay the compensation amount to the claimants with liberty to the Insurance Company to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.6. Prima facie, we are of the opinion if the Insurance Company proves that it has no liability to pay compensation to the claimants, the Insurance Compa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(13)SCALE87(1)
ORDER1. Leave granted. Heard the learned Counsel2. The assets of New Horizon Sugar Mills (for short, `New Horizon') were seized and sold by auction under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002 by Indian Bank, a secured creditor. EID Parry India Ltd. (for short `EID Parry') was the auction purchaser.3. While dismissing a batch of writ petitions arising from/challenging the proceedings initiated by Indian Bank under SARFAESI Act, a learned single Judge of the Madras High Court, by order dated 12.7.2005 directed that the workmen of New Horizon will be entitled to the benefits under Section 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as against the employer - New Horizon and EID Parry. Aggrieved by the said order, EID Parry filed W.A. No. 1788/2005.4. By interim order dated 7.12.2005 passed in writ petitions filed by the two employees unions of New Horizon, another learned single Judge appointed a retired Judge of the High Court as the Special Authority to compute the claims of the workmen (in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009AIRSCW6721; (2009)225CTR(SC)233; 2009(169)LC1(SC); 2009(241)ELT326(SC); [2009]317ITR218(SC); JT2009(11)SC571; 2009(12)SCALE61; (2009)9SCC328; [2009]183TAXMAN349(SC); 2009(8)LC3913(SC)
S.H. Kapadia, J. 1. Leave granted.2. The issue for consideration is: whether profit from Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme (DEPB) and Duty Drawback Scheme could be said to be profit derived from the business of the Industrial Undertaking eligible for deduction under Section 80IB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (1961 Act)3. At the outset, we may indicate that although in the present judgment we have focused on the analysis of Section 80IB, the basic Scheme of Sections 80I, 80IA and 80IB (as they then stood) remains the same.Facts:4. The facts in the lead matter Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 5827/07 entitled Liberty India v. CIT are as follows:5. The appellant, a partnership firm, owns a small scale industrial undertaking engaged in manufacturing of fabrics out of yarns and also various textile items such as cushion covers, pillow covers etc. out of fabrics/yarn purchased from the market. During the relevant previous year corresponding to Assessment Year 2001-02, appellant claimed d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
ORDERI.A. No. 2386, 2527, 799, 1626-1627, I.A. No. ...(Unregd.), C.A. Nos. 8133,8134, 8135/2003, I.A. Nos. 2532-2533,2136,2360 & 2603-2604:1. List on 18.09.2009.I.A. Nos. 2626 & 2642:2. Reply/report, if any, may be filed by the C.E.C. within six weeks.I.A. No. 2663:3. As requested, the State of U.P. is granted four weeks time for filing reply.4. List on 09.10.2009.I.A. Nos. 2664-2665:5. Issue notice.I.A. Nos. 170-175 in W.P.(C) No. 460/2004:6. List on 18.09.2009 at a higher position on the Board.SLP (C) Nos. 19628-19629/2009:7. List on 11.09.2009.8. The C.E.C. to give its reply/comments before the next date of hearing.I.A. Nos. 2333-34 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 19959. List on 11.09.2009. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2009(11)SC184; 2009(12)SCALE11; (2009)9SCC111
ORDERR.M. Lodha, J.1. Should Central Bureau of Investigation be requested to trace the minor child Master Adithya Chandran in the Habeas Corpus petition filed by the father is the question presently before us?2. Dr. Ravi Chandran -petitioner and Vijayashree Voora - respondent No. 6 got married on December 14, 2000 at Tirupathi, Andhra Pradesh according to Hindu rites. On July 1, 2002, a son - Adithya was born out of the wedlock in United States of America. The matrimonial discord arose between the petitioner and respondent No. 6 soon thereafter. Respondent No. 6 approached the State of New York Supreme Court in the month of July, 2003 for divorce and dissolution of marriage. On April 18, 2005, the State of New York Supreme Court passed a consent order governing the issues of the custody and guardianship of the minor Adithya. The Court granted joint custody to the petitioner and respondent No. 6 and it was also stipulated in the order to keep the other party informed about the whereabou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(12)SCALE56; (2009)9SCC640
ORDERTarun Chatterjee, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is filed at the instance of Rajesh Kumar, the appellant herein, challenging the impugned order passed by a learned Judge of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital by which an application for recall of an order dated 16th of October, 2008, directing the respondent No. 3-Additional Director Education to decide the representation filed by the appellant dated 9th of September, 2008 in accordance with law, was allowed and consequent thereupon the writ petition of the appellant was dismissed summarily.3. The election for Committee of Management of Janta Inter College, Majari Gummawala, District Haridwar, of which the appellant is one of the Life Member, was held on 23rd of October, 2005 after due process and procedure followed for the same in which the appellant was declared as Deputy Manager. As some dispute arose with regard to the induction of some forged members in the voters list, the election dated 23rd of October, 2005 was no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2009(11)SC609; (2009)IVLLJ286SC; 2009(12)SCALE25; (2009)8SCC556; 2009(9)LC4242(SC):2009AIRSCW6104
R.M. Lodha, J.1. Principally, two questions which this Court is called upon to determine in this group of five civil appeals by special leave are:(one) : Whether a direction to the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'Corporation') by the Industrial Court, and confirmed by the High Court of giving status, wages and all other benefits of permanency, applicable to the post of Cleaners to the complainants is justified? (two) : Whether the two complaints filed by Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana (for short, 'Union'), an unrecognised union under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions & Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, 'MRTU & PULP Act'), alleging unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under item No. 6 of Schedule IV are maintainable?2. The Union, although a registered union under the Trade Union Act, but unrecognised under MRTU & PULP Act, filed two complaints, namely, complaint (ULP) No. 542/1991 and complaint (ULP)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2009(12)SC181; 2009(12)SCALE18; (2009)9SCC447; 2009(10)LC5010(SC)
Aftab Alam, J.1. This appeal arises from a proceeding under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), and the appellant seeks to challenge the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court setting aside the order of the Special Court holding the appellant entitled to continue in possession over the government land under his unauthorised occupation on payment of Rs. 15,50,000/- (being the market value of the land, determined by the Court, as on the date of the order), as compensation, within 2 months from the date of its order.2. What perhaps led to the grant of leave for this appeal and what obliges us to dispose it of by writing a proper judgment is an earlier decision by the Andhra Pradesh High Court that took a view contrary to the view taken in the present judgment and order coming under appeal. Otherwise, the matter does not seem to merit much consideration by this Court.3. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar Mandal, Distr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(12)SCALE1
ORDERP. Sathasivam, J.1. Leave granted.2. Being aggrieved by the interim order dated 10.06.2009 in WAMP No. 1327 of 2009 in W.A. No. 676 of 2009 and common order dated 23.06.2009 in WAMP No. 1631 of 2009 in W.A. No. 676 of 2009, WA Nos. 755, 543, 793 & 794 of 2009 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences (for short 'the University') - the appellant herein, filed the above appeals. Since these appeals are against the impugned orders passed by the High Court in an appeal filed by the University and of the fact that the main Writ Petition No. 3749 of 2009 is still pending before the High Court, there is no need to traverse all the factual details.3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant-University submitted that the University conducted the first year MBBS examination to the students for the year 2005-06 during the period between 05.09.2006 to 10.10.2006 and the results were declared on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(12)SCALE84; (2009)9SCC135; 2009(9)LC4065(SC); 2009(5)LHSC2985
H.L. Dattu, J.1. Leave granted.2. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature of M.P., Jabalpur Bench at Gwalior in W. A. No. 259 of 2007 dated 18.09.2007.3. The facts in brief are: The appellant - Public Service Commission had issued two advertisements inviting applications from eligible and qualified persons for State Service Examination 2001. In the notification issued on 01.11.2001 it was clearly mentioned that the age limit for appearing in the Preliminary Examination shall be 30 years relaxable by three years as on 1.1.2002 and subsequently on 9.10.2003, another advertisement was issued where the age limit has been prescribed as 30 years relaxable by five years as on 1.1.2004.4. The respondents (Arvind Singh Chauhan and others) appeared in the preliminary examination conducted by the appellant. They were declared passed in the said preliminary examination and were allotted roll numbers for appearing in the final examination whi...
Tag this Judgment!