Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4436 OF2010NICHOLAS PIRAMAL INDIA LTD. APPELLANT Vs. HARISINGH RESPONDENT JUDGMENT V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.This appeal by special leave is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 28.4.2009 passed by the High Court of judicature of Madhya Pradesh at Indore, in Writ Petition No.2309 of 2009, whereby the High Court has affirmed the award dated 27.1.2009 passed by the Industrial Court, Indore in Civil Appeal No.340/MPIR of 2007 which arises out of the Award dated 29.10.2007 passed by the Labour Court in Case No.421/MPIR of 2001. For the purpose of considering the rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties in this appeal and with a view to find out whether this Court is required to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court, the necessary facts are briefly stated hereunder: The respondent was employed as a workman at the drug manufacturing unit of the appellant-Nicholas Pir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.6561 OF2004M/S. ESCORTS LTD. APPELLANT VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, FARIDABAD ...RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.457 OF2006WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.9469-9470 OF2010JUDGMENT R.F. Nariman, J.C.A. NO.6561 OF20041. The present case raises an interesting question as to whether excise duty is payable on an intermediate product, namely, Transmission Assembly which comes into existence during the manufacture of tractors made by the appellant. The period involved is January 1996 to May 1998. The tractors that are manufactured have engines that are below 1800 CC and are covered by an exemption notification 162/1986. We are informed, however, that after 1.6.1998 this exemption has gone and even tractors of an engine capacity of less than 1800 CC now have to bear excise duty.2. By a show cause notice dated 31.1.2001, the Department for the period aforesaid relied upon evidence in the form of statements mad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2734 OF2012Khub Ram ..Appellant Versus Dalbir Singh & Ors. ..Respondents W I T H CIVIL APPEAL No.4097 OF2015[Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.15871 of 2012]. Mahavir Prasad ..Appellant Versus Dalbir Singh & Ors. ..Respondents JUDGMENT SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J.The Civil Appeal and the Special Leave Petition have been heard together because claim of the parties is in respect of same post of Chief Inspector in the Haryana Roadways to which the appellant - Khub Ram was initially appointed in the year 1990 pursuant to his selection in response to advertisement dated 07.05.1989. First respondent Dalbir Singh challenged the selection and appointment of appellant Khub Ram by filing C.W.P. No.12711 of 1992 in the High Court. That writ petition was allowed on 01.10.2010 by a learned Single Judge. Not only the appointment of Khub Ram and one more person was quashed but a direction was also issued to appoint writ petition...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.4542 OF2007|Pradip Nanjee Gala | Appellant(s) | Versus |Sales Tax Officer & Ors. | Respondent(s) | JUDGMENT H.L. Dattu, CJI This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.2226 of 1989, dated 03.02.2006, whereby and whereunder, the High Court has held that the appellant is liable for payment of tax under Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (for short, the Act) and dismissed the writ petition. The question raised before us is whether the respondent-Revenue could resile from a settlement entered into with the assessee on the basis of which the appellant has already paid and settled his dues under the Act. Since the protracted proceedings in the instant case have spawned over three decades, we would only notice the most relevant facts necessary for disposal of the appeal. Facts in brief are as follows: The appellant had joined as a partne...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4360-4361 OF2015(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 9302-9303 of 2013) Himalayan Cooperative Group Housing Society ...Appellant Versus Balwan Singh ...Respondent WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4363-4364 OF2015(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.9305-9306 of 2013) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4347-4348 OF2015(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.9308-9309 of 2013) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4365-4366 OF2015(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.9310-9311 of 2013) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4353-4354 OF2015(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.9314-9315 of 2013) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4351-4352 OF2015(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.9316-9317 of 2013) and with CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4355-4356 OF2015(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.9318-9319 of 2013) ORDER1 Leave granted.2. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No.7546 of 2005 and connected matters, dated 25.11.2010 and in Review Petition No.138 of 2010 and connected matters, da...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.246 OF2009M/S ARIANE ORGACHEM PVT. LTD. APPELLANT Vs. WYETH EMPLOYEES UNION & ORS. RESPONDENTS WITH C.A. No.247 OF2009JUDGMENT V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.I.A.No.2 of 2015 in C.A.No.247 of 2009 for substitution of the name of the appellant-Company is ordered. These appeals are directed against the common impugned judgment and order dated 16.8.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.444 of 2007, whereby the High Court quashed the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Mumbai, dated 14.8.2006 and directed him to refer the industrial dispute of the concerned workmen as per their demand dated 14.11.2005, for adjudication of the matter to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act). Since both the appeals are filed against the common impugned judgment and order of the High Court, for the sake of convenience, we would refer to th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.709 OF2015(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.5796 of 2014) Indradeo Sao and others Appellants Versus State of Bihar Respondent JUDGMENT Prafulla C. Pant, J.This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 28.2.2014, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.419 of 1998 and Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.437 of 1998, whereby both the appeals are dismissed, and conviction and sentence recorded by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif in Sessions Trial Nos. 192 of 1994/134 of 1996 (PS Case No.63 of 1994) under Section 304B, 498A and 201 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the appellants, namely, Indradeo Sao, Nand Kumar Sao and Raj Kumar Sao, is affirmed. It is pertinent to mention here that we issued notice in this appeal, through special leave, only on the quantum of sentence, and with regard to plea of juvenility of appellant No.2 Nand Kumar Sao (younger bro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.707 OF2015(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.8106 of 2014) Vipul Kumar @ Vipulesh Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Respondent JUDGMENT Prafulla C. Pant, J.This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated October 3, 2013, passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh in Criminal Appeal No.1322 of 2003 whereby said Court has affirmed the conviction and sentence recorded by Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon, in Session Case No.58 of 2003, against accused/ appellant Vipul Kumar @ Vipulesh under Sections 294, 324, 326 and 506 Part II of Indian Penal Code (IPC). It is pertinent to mention here that we have issued notice in this appeal only on the quantum of sentence at the time of entertaining the Special Leave Petition. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers on record. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 19.1.2003 at about 10.30 p.m., an unknow...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.181 OF2013Golbar Hussain and Ors. Appellants :Versus: State of Assam and Anr. Respondents JUDGMENT Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 31.08.2012 passed by the Gauhati High Court in Criminal Appeal No.165 of 2004 whereby the High Court has allowed the appeal filed by the State and convicted all the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each.2. The brief facts of the case, as per the prosecution story, are that on 5.1.2001 at about 6:10 p.m. at Chapra Beparipara which is under Chapar Police Station, the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, committed the murder of Hasen Ali. Amir Hussain, son of the deceased (PW-3) lodged an E...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTON CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.728 OF2015(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.8091 of 2011) T. VASANTHAKUMAR ...APPELLANT :Versus: VIJAYAKUMARI ...RESPONDENT JUDGMENT Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J.Leave granted. This appeal, by special leave, arises from the judgment and order dated 22- 07-2011 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Revision Petition No.263/2011 by which the High Court set aside the judgments of the two Courts below and acquitted the respondent herein. The genesis of the litigation in the present case is that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was filed by the complainant before the XII Magistrate, Bangalore. The learned Magistrate had, after trial, found the defendant guilty and sentenced her to pay Rs.5,55,000/- and in default of payment of the said amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five months. This order of the learned Magistrate was challenged in the a...
Tag this Judgment!