Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.10265 OF2014(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.8738 OF2014 Balaji Steel Re-Rolling Mills .... Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs .... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT R.K. Agrawal, J.1) Leave granted2) The sole question of law which arises for consideration in the present appeal is as to whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal') has the power to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution or not.3) The appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the manufacture and sale of Hot Re-rolled products. The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad, vide order dated 20.07.1999, re-fixed the annual capacity of production and duty liability of the appellant. Being aggrieved, the appellant moved the Tribunal. The Tribunal, vide order dated 18.01.2002, remanded the matter back to the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.10265 OF2014(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.8738 OF2014 Balaji Steel Re-Rolling Mills .... Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs .... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT R.K. Agrawal, J.1) Leave granted2) The sole question of law which arises for consideration in the present appeal is as to whether the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal') has the power to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution or not.3) The appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the manufacture and sale of Hot Re-rolled products. The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad, vide order dated 20.07.1999, re-fixed the annual capacity of production and duty liability of the appellant. Being aggrieved, the appellant moved the Tribunal. The Tribunal, vide order dated 18.01.2002, remanded the matter back to the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.162 OF2009KRISHNA @ KRISHNAPPA . Appellant Versus STATE OF KARNATAKA . Respondent JUDGMENT Uday U. Lalit, J.1. This appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 10.06.2008 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No.1360 of 2001 setting aside the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Ld. XXV Additional Sessions Judge, Bangalore in Sessions Case NO.62 of 1994 and convicting the appellant herein for the offences punishable under Sections 376 read with Section 511 IPC and also under Section 341 IPC.2. Crime No.48 of 1991 was registered with Devanahalli Police Station pursuant to FIR (Ext.P-9) lodged by PW-1 victim alleging that on 06.03.1991 at about 4.00 PM while she was returning from the bus stop of their village after having sent her husband and son to sell silk cocoons at Vijayapura, the present appellant wrongfully restrained her near eucalyptus grove...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.10221 OF2014@ (SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.5249 OF2014 GHANSHYAM SARDA APPELLANT Versus M/S SHIV SHANKAR TRADING CO. & ORS. .RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.10222 OF2014@ (SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.5897 OF2014 GHANSHYAM SARDA APPELLANT Versus M/S SHIV SHANKAR TRADING CO. & ORS. RESPONDENTS CIVIL APPEAL NO.10223 OF2014@ (SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.8610 OF2014 JK JUTE MILL MAZDOOR EKTA UNION APPELLANT Versus M/S SHIV SHANKAR TRADING CO. & ORS. RESPONDENTS CIVIL APPEAL NOS.10224-10225 OF2014@ (SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS.8611-8612 OF2014 JK JUTE MILL MAZDOOR EKTA UNION APPELLANT Versus M/S SHIV SHANKAR TRADING CO. & ORS RESPONDENTS CIVIL APPEAL NO.10226 OF2014@ (SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.6412 OF2014 GHANSHYAM SARDA APPELLANT Versus M/S JK JUTE MILLS CO. LTD. & ANR. RESPONDENTS CONTEMPT PET. (C) NO.338 OF2014IN (SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.5249 O...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2402 OF2014[ Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.6197 of 2014]. K. Subramani Appellant(s) versus K. Damodara Naidu Respondent(s) JUDGMENT C. NAGAPPAN, J.Leave granted. This appeal is preferred against judgment and order dated 10.10.2013 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No.368 of 2009 wherein the High Court set aside the judgment of acquittal of the trial court and remanded the case to the trial court for retrial. 1 The respondent herein/complainant and the appellant/accused were working as lecturers in a Government College at Bangalore. The case of the complainant is that the accused borrowed a loan of Rs.14 lakhs in cash on 1.12.1997 from him to start granite business, promising to repay the same with 3% interest per month on demand and issued post-dated cheque dated 30.11.2000 for sum of Rs.29,12,000/- which included principal and interest and few days prior to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.10221 OF2014@ (SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.5249 OF2014 GHANSHYAM SARDA APPELLANT Versus M/S SHIV SHANKAR TRADING CO. & ORS. .RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.10222 OF2014@ (SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.5897 OF2014 GHANSHYAM SARDA APPELLANT Versus M/S SHIV SHANKAR TRADING CO. & ORS. RESPONDENTS CIVIL APPEAL NO.10223 OF2014@ (SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.8610 OF2014 JK JUTE MILL MAZDOOR EKTA UNION APPELLANT Versus M/S SHIV SHANKAR TRADING CO. & ORS. RESPONDENTS CIVIL APPEAL NOS.10224-10225 OF2014@ (SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS.8611-8612 OF2014 JK JUTE MILL MAZDOOR EKTA UNION APPELLANT Versus M/S SHIV SHANKAR TRADING CO. & ORS RESPONDENTS CIVIL APPEAL NO.10226 OF2014@ (SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.6412 OF2014 GHANSHYAM SARDA APPELLANT Versus M/S JK JUTE MILLS CO. LTD. & ANR. RESPONDENTS CONTEMPT PET. (C) NO.338 OF2014IN (SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.5249 O...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2401 OF2014(arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.5947 of 2013) State of Madhya Pradesh .Appellant(s) Versus Surendra Singh Respondent(s) JUDGMENT M.Y. EQBAL, J.1. Leave granted.2. State of Madhya Pradesh has preferred this appeal by special leave against the judgment and order dated 22.8.2012 passed by learned Single Judge of High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior, who allowed the appeal, preferred by the respondent-accused, in part maintaining his conviction but reducing the sentence awarded by the trial court to the period already undergone subject to depositing further compensation of Rs.2,000/- to the widow/mother of the deceased.3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 11.5.1998 a ward boy of Sabalgarh Hospital lodged a written report at Sabalgarh police station to the effect that one Vijay Singh of village Mangroli died in accident caused by a jeep bearing registration no.SP7 6045. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.7499 OF2004Union of India & Ors. ... Appellants Versus M/s. Agarwal Iron Industries ... Respondent WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.7502 OF2004JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J.In these appeals the assail is to the legal tenability of the order dated 3.9.2003 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Writ Petition No.275 of 2000 whereby the High Court has quashed the search and seizure conducted on 16.2.2000 in the factory premises of the 1st respondent.2. Filtering the unnecessary details, the facts that constitute the filament of the controversy is that the 1st respondent is engaged in the manufacture of C.I. pipes, fittings and manholes and has obtained the licence under the Central Excise Act. The factory in question has been filing income-tax returns under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity 'the Act'). On 16.2.2000 when the sole proprietor of the factory Shri Om Prakash Agarwal was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.7499 OF2004Union of India & Ors. ... Appellants Versus M/s. Agarwal Iron Industries ... Respondent WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.7502 OF2004JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J.In these appeals the assail is to the legal tenability of the order dated 3.9.2003 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Writ Petition No.275 of 2000 whereby the High Court has quashed the search and seizure conducted on 16.2.2000 in the factory premises of the 1st respondent.2. Filtering the unnecessary details, the facts that constitute the filament of the controversy is that the 1st respondent is engaged in the manufacture of C.I. pipes, fittings and manholes and has obtained the licence under the Central Excise Act. The factory in question has been filing income-tax returns under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity 'the Act'). On 16.2.2000 when the sole proprietor of the factory Shri Om Prakash Agarwal was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Non-reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.11136 OF2013John Kennedy & Another ... Petitioners Versus Ranjana & Others ... Respondents JUDGMENT Chelameswar, J.1. The instant special leave petition is filed by two unsuccessful petitioners before the High Court of Madras in CRP (PD) No.3342 of 2012 aggrieved by a final order dated 15.11.2012 passed therein.2. The petitioners herein are defendant nos.2 and 3 respectively in Original Suit No.300 of 2011 on the file of the Court of District Judge, Coimbatore. The said suit was filed by the first respondent herein. She is the daughter of 2nd respondent herein. The suit was filed with the prayer as follows: ".a) for partitioning of the properties more fully described in the schedule hereunder and allot share to the plaintiff. b) directing the defendants to pay plaintiff the cost; c) granting to the plaintiff such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may de...
Tag this Judgment!