Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.6988 OF 200.Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai IV Appellant (s) Versus M/s. Ciens Laboratories, Mumbai Respondent (s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.4434 OF 200.Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-II Appellant (s) Versus M/s. Time Pharma, Mumbai Respondent (s) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.:1. Care or cure, is the clue for the resolution of the lis arising in these cases. If the product by name Moisturex is held to be a medicament for cure, the decision goes in favour of the assessee and if the product is held to be one for care of the skin, the decision benefits the Central Excise. The Tribunal has held in favour of the assessee and, thus, the Central Excise is in appeals.2. The Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as CETA) under Chapter 30 of the Schedule (2) deals with pharmaceutical products for the purposes of tariff. At the relevant time, if a product is held to be medicament, then, the rate of du...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.6770 OF 201.(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.1427 of 2009) State of Jharkhand & Ors. .. Appellant(s) Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr. ..Respondent(s) WITH C.A. No.6771/2013 (arising out of SLP(C) No.1428 of 2009) JUDGMENT A.K. Sikri, J 1.Leave granted.2. Crisp and short question which arises for consideration in these cases is as to whether, in the absence of any provision in the Pension Rules, the State Government can withhold a part of pension and/or gratuity during the pendency of departmental/ criminal proceedings?. The High Court has - answered this question, vide the impugned judgment, in the negative and hence directed the appellant to release the withheld dues to the respondent. not happy with this outcome, the State of Jharkhand has preferred this appeal.3. For the sake of convenience we will gather the facts from Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(Civil) No.1427 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON- REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.5985 OF 201.JOSPHINE JAMES ... APPELLANT VS. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR. .. RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT V. Gopala Gowda, J.This civil appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 13.01.2012 passed by the High Court of Delhi in MAC Appeal No.433 of 2005 by allowing the appeal of the respondent herein and reducing the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (in short the Tribunal) in suit No.778 of 2003 urging various facts and legal contentions.2. The appellant widow is the mother of the deceased who filed claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation on account of the death of her son who was aged about 21 years, in a car accident which occurred on 12.06.1998. The car (bearing registration not DL 2.F 3431), which he was driving from Jaipur to Delhi, was hit by a truck (bearing registration not RJ 1.G 7596), which was owned by respondent No.2. and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 6748-6749 OF 201.(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 6177-6178 of 2012) Buddhadeb Ruidas & ors. etc. etc. ... Appellants Versus State of West Bengal and ors. ...Respondents With CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 6750-6751 OF 201.(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 23631-23632 of 2012) With CIVIL APPEAL No.6752 OF 201.(Arising out of SLP (C) No.21677 of 2013) With CIVIL APPEAL No.6753 OF 201.(Arising out of SLP (C) No.21679 of 2013) JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J.Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.2. Regard being had to the similitude of the seminal issue that arises for consideration in all these appeals they were heard together and are disposed of by a common judgment. For the sake of clarity and convenience we shall state the facts from Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 6177-6178 of 2012) wherein the challenge is to the judgment and order dated 11.11.2011 in WPST Nos. 269 and 275 of 2011 passed by the High Court of Calc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.6736 OF 2013.(SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.362 OF 2012.ALAKNANDA HYDRO POWER CO. LTD. APPELLANT Versus ANUJ JOSHI & ORS. .RESPONDENTS WITH Civil Appeal Nos.6746-6747 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.5849-5850 of 2012) and T.C. (C) No.55 to 57 of 2013 JUDGMENT K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.Leave granted.2. Srinagar Hydro Electric Project (SHEP) located in Tehri / Pauri Garhwal district of Uttar Pradesh was a project envisaged by the then Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board (UPSEB) on river Alaknanda, which was basically run-of-the-river scheme.3. The Techno-Economic approval of the scheme was granted for 200 MW by the Central Electricity Authority (CEA), a competent authority exercising powers under Section 29 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, in its meeting held on 6.11.1982, subject to the environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment. SHEP was later segregated from twenty two other G...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 1 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1166 OF 201.(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.5513 of 2013) Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav .... Appellant(s) Versus State of Jharkhand .... Respondent(s3. JUDGMENT P.Sathasivam, CJI. 1) Leave granted. 2) This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 01.07.2013 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Criminal Misc. Petition No.1619 of 2013 whereby the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellant herein for transferring the case being R.C. No.20(A)/1996 from the Court of Special Judge-IV, CBI, (AHD), Ranchi to any other Court of competent jurisdiction. 3) Brief facts: (a) This appeal relates to illegal withdrawal of a sum of Rs.35,66,42,086/- from the Treasury of Chaibasa by the officials of Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Bihar in connivance with the politicians and suppliers in the year 1994-95 which culminated into the registration of a F...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.73 OF 201.Raj Rishi Mehra and others ...Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.77 OF 201.ORDER Whether the petitioners, whose names were included in the select list prepared for recruitment to Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) are entitled to be appointed against the posts which became available due to the resignation of two of the appointees and the unfilled posts of reserved categories is the question which arises for consideration in these petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Punjab Public Service Commission (for short, the Commission) issued Advertisement No.1 in the year 2011 for holding examination for recruitment to the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch). The break up of the posts advertised by the Commission was as under: | |General |47 | | | |Scheduled Castes, Punjab.|09 | | | |Scheduled Castes, |02...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 6726-6727 OF 201.(Arising out of SLP (Civil) NO.20763-764 OF 2007.Prabhudas Damodar Kotecha & Ors. . Appellants v. Manhabala Jeram Damodar & Anr. ...Respondents JUDGMENT K. S. Radhakrishnan, J Leave granted.2. We are, in these appeals, concerned with the question whether a suit filed by a licensor against a gratuitous licensee under Section 41(1) of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882 (for short the PSCC Act), as amended by the Maharashtra Act not XIX of 1976 (for short197. Amendment Act) is maintainable before a Small Causes Court, Mumbai. .3. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Ramesh Dwarikadas Mehra v. Indirawati Dwarika Das Mehra (AIR 200.Bombay 470) held that a suit by a licensor against a gratuitous licensee is not tenable before the Presidency Small Causes Court under Section 41 (1) of the PSCC Act, and it should be filed before the City Civil Court or the High Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6707/2013 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.26967/2011) Manot Manu & Anr. .Appellants Vs. Union of India & Ors. .Respondents JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal has been preferred by the present appellants questioning the validity of the judgment and order dated May 16, 2011 passed by the High Court, in Writ Petition which was filed by the appellants questioning the validity of the order dated 29th March 2011, of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), Principal Bench, New Delhi. The Tribunal had dismissed the Original Application preferred by the appellants herein under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act against their non- appointment to the post of Section Officers Grade of the Central Secretariat Service. The said O.A. was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 29th March 2011 which has been upheld by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2052 of 2010 State of Punjab Appellant Versus Madan Mohan Lal Verma Respondent JUDGMENT Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 3.3.2009 in Criminal Appeal No.414-SB/1996 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, setting aside the judgment and order of the Trial Court dated 28.5.1996 by which the respondent stood convicted under the provisions of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 1988) and had been awarded the sentence of one year on each count and a fine of Rs.2,500/- was imposed, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for one month.2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that: A. The complainant - Naresh Kumar Kapoor was contacted by the respondent the Income Tax Inspector who threatened him ...
Tag this Judgment!