Court : Supreme Court of India
1. Challenge in this appeal, by the revenue, under Section 130E(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short "the Act") is to the order dated 10th December 2004 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, (for short "the Tribunal") whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent has been allowed holding that the assessable value declared by the respondent in the bill of entry should be accepted for the purpose of valuation in terms of Section 14 of the Act.2. M/s. IPCO Enterprise, Thane, a proprietorship concern of the respondent imported a consignment of assorted consumer goods ranging from glass ware, hair dryers etc. to gas filled cylinders and refrigerant-22 gas (R-22). The bill of entry for the said goods was filed on 3rd May 2002, by M/s Vegha Shipping & Transport Pvt. Ltd. on behalf of M/s. IPCO Enterprise, whereby the total assessable value of the goods was declared at ` 6,75, 796.90/- with duty liability of ` 3,86,352/-.3. On an examination of the bill of entry,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. Leave granted.2. These appeals arise out of a common judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 5.12.2008 in Writ Petition Nos. 7727 of 2008, 8264 of 2008, 8270 of 2008, 8279 of 2008, 8310 of 2008 and 11724 of 2008. 3. The primary issues raised in all these writ petitions were:-i) Whether the office of a Lambardar would be an `office of profit' so as to disqualify the incumbent of such an office to seek election as Panch of the Gram Panchayat.ii) Whether the Anganwari workers employed in the various social-welfare schemes in the State of Punjab held an `office of profit' and consequently disqualified for seeking election to the Gram Panchayats.iii) Whether the State Election Commissioner, Punjab was justified in issuing the clarificatory Memorandum, Memo No. SEC-2008/4365 dated 30.4.2008 on the subject "General Elections to Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads - 2008 Clarification regarding contesting of election by Lambardars and Anganwari workers.4. Civil Writ Petition No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. The short question arising for consideration in this batch of appeals is whether Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "the NDPS Act") casts a duty on the empowered officer to `inform' the suspect of his right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, if he so desires or whether a mere enquiry by the said officer as to whether the suspect would like to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer can be said to be due compliance with the mandate of the said Section?2. When these appeals came up for consideration before a bench of three Judges, it was noticed that there was a divergence of opinion between the decisions of this Court in the case of Joseph Fernandez v. State of Goa1, Prabha Shankar Dubey v. State of M.P.2 on the one hand and Krishna Kanwar (Smt) alias Thakuraeen v. State of Rajasthan3 on the other, with regard to the dictum laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 18th April 2001, delivered by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, affirming the judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court in W.P. No. 108 of 1998, setting aside Notification G.O.M. No.311 Housing and Urban Development Department dated 17th February 1979, published in the Tamil Nadu Gazette dated 7th March 1979, being a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act) relating to lands of the respondents comprised in Survey No. 12/2 and 12/3 in Ponmeni village, Madurai.2. Respondent Nos.1 to 17 are contesting land owners, and are represented by respondent No.17 whereas respondent Nos.18 and 19 are the proforma respondents, viz. the State of Tamil of Nadu and the Special Tehsildar, Ellis Nagar Development Scheme.3. The material facts, giving rise to the present appeal, may be stated thus: The Government of Tamil Nadu, vide G.O.M. No.1358 Housing and Urban Development...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. Leave granted.2. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against order dated 11 th January, 2010 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in C.R.M. No. 272 of 2010, granting regular bail to respondent No. 1 in this appeal (hereinafter referred to as "the accused"), under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code").3. The accused is facing trial for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC") for allegedly committing the murder of one Ms. Mallika Sen. Respondent No.2 is the State of West Bengal.4. Very briefly stated the facts material for the adjudication of this appeal can be stated thus:Ms. Mallika Sen, a 57 years old widow was found strangulated at her residence on 2nd July, 2009. The appellant, who is the brother of the victim, lodged a written complaint at the Rampurhat Police Station, on the basis of which FIR No. 111/09 dated 2nd July, 2009 was registered under Section 302, IPC. It has been alleged tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated October 6, 2006 passed by the Allahabad High Court in Government Appeal No.1890/1991 and Criminal Revision No.1140/1991. The High Court, setting aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court, convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Penal Code for committing the murder of one Raj Kumari and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.2. The appellant along with his father Yamuna Chaubey and brother Ram Vyas Chaubey was tried on charges under sections 302/307/34 of the Penal Code. According to the prosecution case, the three accused, Yamuna Chaubey and his two sons and the members of the prosecution party were agnates with a history of litigation behind them. There were disputes between the two sides over the sehans (open courtyard) between their houses. Earlier, the informant Shiv Dutt Chaubey, had filed a suit and obtained an ex parte decree against Yamuna Chaubey who had filed a petition f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.2. The hallmark of a healthy society is the respect it shows to women.3. Indian society has become a sick society. This is evident from the large number of cases coming up in this Court (and also in almost all courts in the country) in which young women are being killed by their husbands or by their in-laws by pouring kerosene on them and setting them on fire or by hanging/strangulating them. What is the level of civilsation of a society in which a large number of women are treated in this horrendous and barbaric manner? What has our society become - this is illustrated by this case.4. This Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order of the Allahabad High Court dated 12.07.2005. The facts of the case are that Geeta (deceased) was married to the appellant No. 1 Satya Narayan Tiwari @ Jolly on 9th December 1997. On 03.11.2000 an FIR was lodged by the father of the deceased Surya Kant Dixit alleging that dowry was being demanded f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. These four appeals at the instance of the State of Uttaranchal and the Officers of its Forest Department are directed against the judgment dated December 27, 2007 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand whereby the Division Bench allowed the review petitions filed by present respondents (writ petitioners) and reviewed its earlier judgment dated April 13, 2004 and thereby allowed the writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners holding that they were not liable to pay stamp duty on the documents pertaining to contract of sale for crude resin. Since the facts and documents involved in this group of appeals are identical, for convenience, we shall refer to the facts and documents in Civil Appeal No. 5876 of 2009. The controversy arises in this way.2. The Divisional Forest Officer, Nainital Forest Range, Nainital notified public auction of resin at Bhuwali Forest Rest House on March 24, 2001. The writ petitioner (Khurana Brothers) participated in that public auction. Its bid in the sum ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. By filing the present appeals the appellants have challenged the validity of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and also the notification issued under Section 6 of the Act whereby the respondents sought to acquire land admeasuring 3 acres 34 guntas situated in Kengeri Village and Hobli, Bangalore, Karnataka.2. Initially appellants filed writ petitions registered as Writ Petition Nos. 20083-20085 of 1993 before the Karnataka High Court challenging the validity of the notification issued under Section 4 invoking the emergency clause. The High Court of Karnataka, while issuing notice, granted stay. Subsequently, an order dated 30.08.1993 was passed in the writ petition regarding the statement/submission on behalf of the State Government that they would not proceed with the acquisition proceeding of invoking the emergency provision under the Act. Consequent to the same, the appellants herein were given opportu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. In this Special Leave Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the decision of the Allahabad High Court dismissing Writ Petition No.16819 of 2003, filed by one Hira Lal Gupta and another praying for quashing of the notices dated 1.5.2002, 25.7.2002, 6.9.2002 and 22.3.2003 sent by the authorities of The New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, hereinafter referred to as `NOIDA', imposing penalty against the writ petitioners for failing to get the lease deed for commercial plot no.1/1-A, Sector 27, NOIDA, executed within the stipulated period of 120 days from the date of allotment of the plot. The said plot measuring 2970 sq. meters was initially allotted to the Writ Petitioner No.1, Hira Lal Gupta, at the rate of Rs.15,552/- per sq. meter. Later on, a revised allotment order was issued to Shri Gupta reducing the area of the plot from 2970 sq. meters to 2590 sq. meters and the consideration for allotment of the plot was proportionately reduced. Subsequently, disputes arose in regard...
Tag this Judgment!