Court : Supreme Court of India
1. The issue that falls for consideration in these appeals is, as to whether the provisions of time limit that are contained in Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short `the Act') are applicable to the recovery of amounts due under the compound levy scheme for Hot-Re-rolling mills, under the Annual Capacity determination Rules 1997 because otherwise, it is a separate scheme for the collection of Central Excise Duty for the goods manufactured in the country.2. In order to record a definite finding on the aforesaid issue it would be necessary to set out certain facts leading to filing of the present appeals.3. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel products falling under Chapter 72 and 73 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. During the period ranging from 01.09.1997 to 31.3.2000, the goods manufactured by the appellants were chargeable to Central Excise Duty in terms of Section 3A of the Act. As per the Act, the duty was suppose to be paid on the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
O R D E R1. The petitioner has approached this Court under the provisions of Article 32 of the Constitution of India with a prayer that the respondents be directed not to demolish Shop No. D/4, Peeragarhi Relief Camp, New Delhi-56 till another shop is given to him in lieu of the shop referred to hereinabove.2. Though the petitioner has voiced the aforestated apprehension that the respondents might demolish the shop in question which is in his occupation, there is no justifiable reason stated in the petition on the basis of which the petitioner believes that his shop would be demolished by the respondent- authorities.3. In pursuance of notice issued by this Court, the learned advocates appearing for the respondents submitted that at present there is no proposal for demolition of the shop in question and they further assured this Court that, except in accordance with the law, neither the petitioner would be evicted from the shop in question nor the shop in question would be demolished.4....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
J U D G M E N T1. Being aggrieved by an order dated 5th November, 2003 passed in Writ Petition No. 7435 of 1979 by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, this Special Leave Petition has been filed by the heirs of the Original Plaintiff, who had filed a suit for a declaration under Section 229-B of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act to the effect that he was an exclusive owner of land bearing Survey No. 22, situated at Village Raipur, Pargana Karvi, District Banda. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties to the litigation have been described as arrayed in the trial court.3. The case of the plaintiff in the suit before the Assistant Collector, Ist Class, Karvi, District Banda, was that his grand father Kali had three sons, namely, Bal Govind, Ram Kumar and Ram Jiawan and the plaintiff was the son of Ram Kumar.4. The tenancy right in respect of the land in question was in the name of Bal Govind as he was the eldest son of Kali. Upon death of Bal Govind, who had no male issu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 02.11.2007 passed by the Jharkhand High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.3. The appellant herein was working as sub-ordinate Judge in Garhwa, Jharkhand when an order was issued by the Governor of Jharkhand removing him from service by an order issued on 31.07.2003 on the basis of a resolution of the Full Court of the High Court of Jharkhand recommending his removal from service.4. The appellant herein challenged the legality of the aforesaid order before the Jharkhand High Court by filing a writ petition contending inter alia that the High Court does not have any power to dispense with an enquiry as envisaged for the purpose of removal of a judicial officer like the appellant and therefore, the impugned order was illegal and without jurisdiction. It was also submitted that there was no evidence on record to show that the appellant was guilty of any misconduct and therefore the orde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
J U D G M E N T1. Leave granted.2. This is an appeal against the order dated 23.05.2008 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Patna in Letters Patent Appeal No.972 of 2007.3. The facts very briefly are that the Government of Bihar in the Department of Human Resource Development granted temporary recognition to the Champaran Physical Training College (for short `the College') for C.P.Ed. (Certificate of Physical Education) and D.P. Ed. (Diploma in Physical Education) courses from July, 1986 alongwith permission to the students of the College to appear in the examinations subject to certain conditions stipulated in the order dated 09.08.1988. The two appellants took admission in the C.P.Ed. course in the College in the academic session 1989-1990. Several other students also took admission in the C.P.Ed. course in the College in different academic years 1989-1990 to 1995-1996. With effect from 01.07.1995, the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (for short `the NCTE Act')...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. Leave granted.2. The appellant herein submitted his application offering himself as a candidate for the post of Munsif to be recruited by the respondents for which an advertisement was also issued. Pursuant to the aforesaid application filed by the appellant, he was called to appear in the various tests held, including the interview conducted by the High Court. He successfully completed his tests and consequently was declared successful in the year 2001.3. After completing his training period, a notification was issued on 21.05.2002, appointing him as a Probationer Munsif. The said notification was issued by the Government of Jharkhand. He was posted at Dhanbad by a notification issued by the High Court. On 04.06.2002, he assumed the charge as Probationer Munsif at Dhanbad. On 15.07.2002, he was conferred with the power of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class. While he was discharging his duties as such, he passed an order on 06.01.2003, discharging all the accused under Section 239 Cr.P.C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
J U D G M E N T1. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition Nos. Nos. 1204/2003, 7673/2003 and 9449/2003.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.3. The facts of the case are that the petitioners filed complaints under section 28 read with items l (a)(b), (d) and (f) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, l97l (hereinafter referred to as the MRTU and PULP Act), before the Industrial Court/Labour Court for certain reliefs claiming that they are employees of the respondent company. The respondent company in all these writ petitions has disputed the status of the employees and has contended in its written statement that there is no relationship of employer employee with any of the petitioners. The company has contended that the complainants were employed through the contractors and that the issue regarding maintainability of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
J U D G M E N T1. Leave granted.2. These appeals arise out of a judgment and order dated 7th August 2008 passed by the High Court of Allahabad whereby the High Court has allowed the writ petitions filed by the selected candidates, quashed the orders under challenge in the same and by a mandamus directed the Director, Higher Education to give effect to the recommendations made by the U.P. Higher Education Service Commission for appointment to the post of Principals in aided/affiliated Degree and Post-Graduate colleges. The High Court has further directed issue of placement orders in favour of the selected candidates without any delay. The facts giving rise to the filing of the petitions may be summarized as under:3. The Government of U.P. has established what is known as `Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Services Commission' in terms of Section 3 of the U.P. Higher Education Services Act, 1980. The Commission is, among other functions assigned to it under the Act, empowered to prepare gui...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 19.5.2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.2866/1980, acquitting the respondents by reversing the judgment and order dated 9.12.1980, passed by the Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial Nos.181 and 182 of 1980, convicting the said respondents under sections 302/34, 307/34 and 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called the `IPC') and sentencing them under the first count to life imprisonment, under the second count to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and under the third count to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years. However, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that on 16.10.1979, in the morning Naresh, respondent no.1 herein, started digging the (Chak Road) to create a passage from the field of the informant Subedar (PW.1). He was stopped by Balak Ram (PW.5). Naresh, respondent no.1, not on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2011SC1290
1. Heard Mr. Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learned Attorney General for India for the Union of India Mr. Vahanvati, Mr. T. R. Andhyarujina, learned Senior Counsel, whom we had appointed as amicus curiae, Mr. Pallav Sisodia, learned senior counsel for the Dean, KEM Hospital, Mumbai, and Mr. Chinmay Khaldkar, learned counsel for the State of Maharashtra. 2. Euthanasia is one of the most perplexing issues which the courts and legislatures all over the world are facing today. This Court, in this case, is facing the same issue, and we feel like a ship in an uncharted sea, seeking some guidance by the light thrown by the legislations and judicial pronouncements of foreign countries, as well as the submissions of learned counsels before us. The case before us is a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, and has been filed on behalf of the petitioner Aruna Ramachandra Shanbaug by one Ms. Pinki Virani of Mumbai, claiming to be a next friend. 3. It is st...
Tag this Judgment!