Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.3238 OF2015(Arising out of SLP(C) No.1865 OF2014 CHANDERI DEVI & ANR ...APPELLANTS Vs. JASPAL SINGH & ORS ....RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.Leave granted. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimants against the Judgment and order dated 25.07.2013 passed in FAO No.1652 of 2010 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, wherein the High Court has partly allowed the appeal by enhancing the amount of compensation to Rs.17,10,000/- from Rs.2,00,000/- as awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sonepat (for short 'the Tribunal') in its award. The necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder to appreciate the case with a view to ascertain whether the appellants are entitled for further enhancement of compensation as prayed in this appeal. On the intervening night of 29/30.9.2006, Surinder Singh, Chander Singh and Bijender Singh were travelling in a car bearing registration No.CH-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
'REPORTABLE' IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2807 OF2004M/S. OSWAL CHEMICALS & FERTILIZERS LTD. ... Appellant VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOLPUR ... Respondent JUDGMENT A. K. SIKRI, J.In the present appeal filed by the assessee, it is seeking refund of duty which was initially paid by M/s.Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'BPCL'). According to the appellant, this duty was paid by it to the BPCL on purchase of Naphtha from BPCL. The period involved is 25.09.1996 to 16.10.1996. Under Rule 192 of the Central Excise Rules 1944, Naphtha can be procured without payment of duty as provided under Notification No.75/84-CE dated 01.03.1984 as well as Notification No.8/96-CE dated 23.07.1996, in case the purchaser is in possession of CT-2 certificate and an L6 licence issued by the Departmental authorities. The appellant did not have this certificate at the material time and that is why duty was paid. However, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
'REPORTABLE' IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2729-2730 OF2004M/S. HOLOSTICK INDIA LTD. ... Appellant VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NOIDA ... Respondent JUDGMENT R. F. NARIMAN, J.The present case concerns itself with a classification issue. The facts necessary to appreciate the controversy are as follows: - The appellant manufactures security holograms. At the very beginning of the manufacturing process, they use coated metallised film which we are informed is classified under Tariff entry 39.20.36 after which the said film is embossed. Post embossing, there is adhesive coating and release coating which results in a hologram which ultimately is cut to size and utilised by customers of the appellant for security purposes. In the show cause notice dated 04.02.2000, the Department sought to classify the security hologram under Tariff entry 39.19 of the Central Excise Tariff 1999-2000. In the reply dated 15.05.2000, the appellant disputed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.520 OF2015[Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.5825 of 2014]. State of Punjab ... Appellant Versus Saurabh Bakshi ... Respondent JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J.Long back, an eminent thinker and author, Sophocles, had to say: "Law can never be enforced unless fear supports them." Though the aforesaid statement was made centuries back, it has its pertinence, in a way, with the enormous vigour, in today's society. It is the duty of every right-thinking citizen to show veneration to law so that an orderly, civilized and peaceful society emerges. It has to be borne in mind that law is averse to any kind of chaos. It is totally intolerant of anarchy. If any one defies law, he has to face the wrath of law, depending on the concept of proportionality that the law recognizes. It can never be forgotten that the purpose of criminal law legislated by the competent legislatures, subject to judicial scrutiny within constitutionall...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
'REPORTABLE' IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2609 OF2004M/S. VIR RUBBER PRODUCTS P. LTD. ... Appellant VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-III ... Respondent JUDGMENT A. K. SIKRI, J.The appellant herein was engaged in the manufacture of certain articles from vulcanized rubber as bushes for use in the motor vehicles. Indubitably, the appellant is a Small Scale Industrial unit (hereinafter referred to as 'SSI' for short). The appellant has its own brand name "VIR" and has been manufacturing these products under the said brand name and supplying the same to various customers. In addition, the appellant was also having job orders from some automobile companies like Hindustan Motors, Kinetic Honda, etc. Insofar as orders for manufacture of spare parts placed by these automobile companies are concerned, on the said goods, the appellant had been putting the identification mark such as "HM", "PAL", "KH", etc. The goods which were supplied to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.205 OF2009Ranbeer Singh (dead) by L.R. ...Appellant :Versus: State of U.P. and Ors. ...Respondents JUDGMENT Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal by the Complainant against the impugned judgment and order dated 30-04-2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.1674 of 2006. In the impugned judgment the High Court had allowed the appeal of three accused persons and acquitted them while maintaining the conviction of the main accused. The present appeal before us has been filed by the complainant against the acquittal of the three accused by the High Court. The Sessions Court after trial had convicted the main accused Shyamu under S. 302, IPC along with Section 25 of the Arms Act while it convicted the other three accused persons, Balbir Singh, Vinod and Karua (respondents herein) under S. 302, IPC read with S. 34 IPC. The appeal of Shyamu against his convi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3211-3212 OF2015(Arising out of SLP(C) NOS. 1668-1669 of 2014) ASHA VERMAN & ORS ...APPELLANTS Vs. MAHARAJ SINGH & ORS. ...RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.Leave granted. These appeals have been filed by the appellants against the final judgment and order dated 22.02.2013 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in M.A. No.480 of 2008, wherein the High Court partly allowed the appeal of the appellants and dismissed the review petition No.256 of 2013 dated 21.6.2013. The necessary relevant facts are stated hereunder to appreciate the case with a view to determine whether the appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation amount as prayed in these appeals?. On 27.11.2006, Jhabbu Verman, aged 35 years, was on his way back from Tripuri to Garha (Jabalpur) on his motorcycle bearing registration No.MP- 20-Y-7669 and met with an accident when a truck bearing registration No.MP- 20-GA-2221...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos.3209-3210 OF2015(Arising Out of SLP (C) Nos.7105-7106 of 2014) UMRALA GRAM PANCHAYAT ......APPELLANT Versus THE SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES UNION & ORS. ......RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.Delay condoned. Leave granted. These appeals have been filed by the appellant against the final judgment and order dated 23.07.2013 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.551 of 2013 in Misc. Civil Application No.3071 of 2012 in Special Civil Application No.7082 of 1994, by the High Court of Judicature of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, whereby the High Court has dismissed the same as being not maintainable and has upheld the judgment and order of the learned single Judge of the High Court dated 13.07.2010, passed in Special Civil Application No.7082 of 1994, which is also impugned herein, wherein the application filed by the appellant has been dismissed by the High Court by confirming the Award dated 15.05.1991 pas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3213 OF2015(Arising out of SLP(C) No.5840 of 2012) P.R. Yelumalai ... Appellant :Versus: N.M. Ravi ... Respondent WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.3214 OF2015(Arising out of SLP(C) No.10852 of 2013) N.M. Ravi ... Appellant :Versus: P.R. Yelumalai ... Respondent JUDGMENT Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.1. Leave is granted in both the matters.2. These cross appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 22.08.2011 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Petition (Civil) No.6449 of 2010, whereby and whereunder the High Court of Karnataka has set aside the order dated 15.02.2007 passed by the Trial Court in O.S. No.439 of 2006 and remitted the matter to the Trial Court for disposal afresh in accordance with law.3. The factual background of the case is that on 04.08.2006, one P.R. Yelumalai, who is the appellant in the first appeal, entered into an Agreement of Sale with N.M. Ravi, the respond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.2 OF2014(For correction/modification of appearance in Order dated 08.12.2014 and Judgment dated 16.12.2014 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.11439 OF2014T.N.RAGHUPATHY ... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S) ORDER Mr. Vikas Mehta, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant-Respondent No.4 has submitted that Shri Aditya Sondhi, learned senior counsel, had in fact not appeared in the matter and yet his name has been recorded in the order as well as appearance shown in the proceedings. He has further submitted that the name of the learned counsel has been recorded because a mistake had been committed in the appearance slip submitted by the learned Advocate-on-Record on 8th and 16th December, 2014. Though Shri Aditya Sondhi had not appeared, his name had been stated in the appearance slip and therefore, his name is recorded in the Judgment as well as in the appearance....
Tag this Judgment!