Court : Supreme Court of India
1. Challenge in this appeal, by special leave, is to the judgment and order dated 18th January, 1996, delivered by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in C.W.P. No.599 of 1994. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has come to the conclusion that although the State Government had no authority to levy Excise duty under Section 28 of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 (for short the Act ) on rectified spirit (industrial alcohol) in question but it could impose penalty on the appellant under Rule 633(7) of the Uttar Pradesh Excise Manual, (for short the Excise Manual ).2. The background facts, essential for disposal of the instant appeal, in brief, are that on 15th October, 1988, the Excise Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, issued an order authorising nine distilleries in the State, including M/s Daurala Sugar Works, to export rectified spirit (industrial alcohol), outside India. Since the export consignment was to be routed through the appellant, as handling agent as also the owner of the bon...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. On October 2, 2002 two persons - Sunil and Chand - were shot dead and three persons - Pawan, Rohtas and Rakesh - got injured in the town of Jind (Haryana). One of the injured, Pawan died after three days. In connection with that incident, six persons--Jalpat Rai (A-1), Shyam Sunder (A-2), Satish Kumar (A-3), Purshotam (A-4), Harinder alias Kala (A-5) and Pawan (A-6) -- were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jind for the offences punishable under Section 148, Section 302 read with Section 149, Section 307 read with Section 149 and Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC. Four of them were also charged for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The trial court vide its judgment dated November 20, 2004 convicted A-2 under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.25000/- with default stipulation. A-2 was also convicted for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. Challenge in this appeal under Section 130-E of the Customs Act, 1962 ( for short the Act ), by the importer, is to the final order dated 2nd September, 2009, passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in CUSAA No. 7/2009. By the impugned order the High Court has dismissed appellant's appeal under Section 130 of the Act on the ground that no substantial question of law arises from the order of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short the Tribunal ) in appeal Nos.C/920-22/2005, for its consideration. 2. To appreciate the controversy involved a brief reference to the facts, as found by the Tribunal, would be necessary. These are: The appellant, a body corporate, is engaged in the business of import of plywood, inlays, MDF laminated boards and veneer sheets etc. On 22nd May, 2000, one of the directors of the appellant, namely, Rakesh Chandna, was apprehended by the officers of the Customs department at Calcutta Airport. He was found in possession of US $45,0...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. Challenge in this appeal under Section 130-E of the Customs Act, 1962 ( for short the Act ), by the importer, is to the final order dated 2nd September, 2009, passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in CUSAA No. 7/2009. By the impugned order the High Court has dismissed appellant's appeal under Section 130 of the Act on the ground that no substantial question of law arises from the order of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short the Tribunal ) in appeal Nos.C/920-22/2005, for its consideration.2. To appreciate the controversy involved a brief reference to the facts, as found by the Tribunal, would be necessary. These are: The appellant, a body corporate, is engaged in the business of import of plywood, inlays, MDF laminated boards and veneer sheets etc. On 22nd May, 2000, one of the directors of the appellant, namely, Rakesh Chandna, was apprehended by the officers of the Customs department at Calcutta Airport. He was found in possession of US $45,00...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. Although, the prayers made in this petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution are for quashing order dated 24.4.2011 passed by the Committee constituted by the Chairman of the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) under Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 (for short, the Act ) and for grant of a declaration that the proceedings conducted by the Committee on 24.4.2011 are null and void, the tenor of the grounds on which these prayers are founded shows that the petitioner is also aggrieved by the inclusion of respondent No.3-Shri P.P. Rao, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India in the Committee under Section 3(2)(c) of the Act. 2. Fifty members of the Rajya Sabha submitted a notice of motion for presenting an address to the President of India for removal of the petitioner, who was then posted as Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court, under Article 217 read with Article 124(4) of the Constitution of India. The notice enumerated the acts of misbehaviour allegedly comm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. We, the people as a nation, constituted ourselves as a sovereign democratic republic to conduct our affairs within the four corners of the Constitution, its goals and values. We expect the benefits of democratic participation to flow to us - all of us -, so that we can take our rightful place, in the league of nations, befitting our heritage and collective genius.Consequently, we must also bear the discipline, and the rigour of constitutionalism, the essence of which is accountability of power, whereby the power of the people vested in any organ of the State, and its agents, can only be used for promotion of constitutional values and vision. This case represents a yawning gap between the promise of principled exercise of power in a constitutional democracy, and the reality of the situation in Chattisgarh, where the Respondent, the State of Chattisgarh, claims that it has a constitutional sanction to perpetrate, indefinitely, a regime of gross violation of human rights in a manner, a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. These Special Leave Petitions are directed against the common orders dated 09.06.2008 and 20.06.2008 of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, in Writ Petition No.2881 of 2007 and Writ Petition No.1410 of 2008. The questions raised in these Special Leave Petitions are whether the Lecturers/Demonstrators working in the Moolji Jeitha College established by the Khandesh College Education Society, Jalgaon, are entitled for earned leave and for encashment of unutilized earned leave on their retirement. 2. The relevant facts very briefly are that respondent nos.1 to 14 in both the Special Leave Petitions have worked as Lecturers/Demonstrators in the Moolji Jeitha College (for short `the College') which is a private College established by the Khandesh College Education Society, Jalgaon, and has been receiving aid from the State of Maharashtra. After their retirement, respondent nos.1 to 14 were not granted encashment of their unutilized leave despite demands being made on the Principal o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. Leave granted 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated March 22, 2007 in Crl. R.C. No.300 of 2007 by which the High Court dismissed the criminal revision filed by the appellant and affirmed the order of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge dated December 15, 2006, directing that any interrogation of the respondent may be held only in the presence of his advocate. 3. The facts and circumstances in which this appeal arises need to be noticed first. On July 20, 2006, the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (for short DRI ) Hyderabad, raided the premises of M/s Hy- Gro Chemicals Pharmatek Private Ltd. and found a shortage of 250kgs of Dextropropoxyphene Hydrochloride (DPP HCL). DPP HCL is a manufactured narcotic drug as specified in Government of India's notification S.O. 826(E), dated November 14, 1985, at Serial no.87. 4. C.K. Bishnoi (accused no.1) and P.V.Satyanarayana Raju (accused no.2), the Managing Director and t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. The appellants in these appeals are the lessees of plots allotted by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (for short `the Authority' or `NOIDA') for construction of 5 star, 4 star and 3 star hotels in Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. The said Authority was constituted under the provisions of the U.P.Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 (`Act' for short) for development of an Industrial and Urban Township of Noida in Uttar Pradesh, neighbouring Delhi. 2. Tourism was granted the status of an industry by the state government during 1997-98, by extending certain concessions and facilities available to industries. However as tourism, in particular hotel industry, had not received the required encouragement, the state government with the intention of attracting capital investment in tourism industry came up with a policy, as per its communication dated 22.5.2006 addressed to the Director General of Tourism, Uttar Pradesh. Relevant portions of the said policy ar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1. Leave granted. 2. These appeals arise from a batch of writ petitions filed before the Gujarat High Court questioning the validity of the appointments of Assistant Public Prosecutor (Class-II) made from the select list prepared on the basis of the written examination and viva voce and personality test held by the Gujarat Public Service Commission. The challenge was based on the ground that the minimum qualifying mark, separately fixed for the viva voce, was introduced just two or three days before the commencement of the oral tests though it was not stipulated in the advertisement issued by the Commission for filling up the posts. According to the writ petitioners (respondents before this Court), the introduction of the minimum qualifying mark for the viva voce, after the commencement of the selection process was, illegal and actuated by bias on the part of the Commission. It led to a number of highly anomalous results and completely vitiated the selections and the appointments made ...
Tag this Judgment!