Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.811 OF2007RAMESH KUMAR ...Appellant Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...Respondents JUDGMENT R. BANUMATHI, J.Challenge in this appeal is the order of the High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No.6466 of 2002 dated 02.12.2004, whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed against the order of denial of pay and allowances to the appellant for the period from 01.08.1997 till the date of his actual promotion i.e. 13.11.2000 and also the order dated 18.03.2005 dismissing the Review Application No.55 of 2005.2. Background facts which led to the filing of this appeal are as under:- The appellant got enrolled in the Indian Army on the post of Store Keeper Technical/Sepoy on 19.03.1983 and was subsequently promoted to the rank of Havildar on 01.08.1989. While the appellant was so working, a Summary Court Martial (SCM) for the offences under Sections 41(i), 39 (a) and 63 of the Army Act was initiated against h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO.135 OF2015Yakub Abdul Razak Memon ...Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J.The issue that had seen the end after the days drill at 4.15 p.m. yesterday, i.e., 29.07.2015, appears to have unending character because precisely after ten hours, about 3.15 a.m. on 30.07.2015, it has risen like a phoenix possibly harbouring the idea that it has the potentiality to urge for a second lease of life as put forth by Mr. Anand Grover, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Yug Chaudhry, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, stating that the assail has become inevitable after the President of India in exercise of his power under Article 72 of the Constitution has rejected the mercy petition preferred by the petitioner. Be it stated, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by virtue of the rejection of the mercy petition, the death warrant issue...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1245 OF2009Ganga Bai Appellant (s) Versus State of Rajasthan Respondent (s) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.: The appellant-Ganga Bai was tried before the Additional Sessions Judge, Nimbahera, Rajasthan along with one Udai Lal and Daulat Ram under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as IPC) for the murder of her daughter-in- law and her two minor children. All the three were convicted under Section 302 IPC and were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. There was also a sentence of fine with default clause. In appeal, the High Court acquitted Udai Lal and Daulat Ram holding that the offences against them were not proved beyond doubt. However, in the case of the appellant, the conviction was confirmed with no modification in sentence. The incident is of the year 1999. First Information Report was registered on the complaint given by PW-29. It...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.5804 OF2015(Arising out of SLP (C) No.19819 of 2013) PEERAPPA HANMANTHA HARIJAN (D) BY LRS. & ORS. APPELLANTS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5806-5807 OF2015(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.31624-31625 of 2014) AND CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5808-5810 OF2015(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.3482-3484 of 2015) JUDGMENT V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.Leave granted in all the special leave petitions. Challenge in the appeal arising out of SLP No.19819 of 2013 is arising out of the impugned judgment and order dated 05.03.2013 passed in Misc. First Appeal No.32157 of 2012 (LAC) by the High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Gulbarga (filed against the judgment and order dated 29.09.2012 of Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Gulbarga, Reference Court in LAC No.943 of 1997) whereby, the High Court upheld the quantum of compensation awarded by the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) and declined to interfere ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.6692 OF2004|M/S POONAM SPARK (P) LTD. |.....APPELLANT(S) | |VERSUS | | |COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI |.....RESPONDENT(S) | WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.2684 OF2012JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.The question of law which arises for consideration in the present case is whether the activity of mounting of Water Purification and Filteration System (WPFS) on a base frame carried out by M/s Poonam Spark (P) Ltd. amounts to manufacture or not. The aforesaid issue is to be determined in the following factual background: One M/s Perfect Drug Limited (PDL) had been purchasing/importing various components of WPFS classifiable under Tariff Heading 8421. PDL, after importing these materials, supplied the same to the appellant herein. Job work was assigned to the appellant for the assembly of WPFS on behalf of PDL. Appellant takes job charges from PDL. Various parts which were supplied by the PDL to the appellant ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.1795 OF2005|UNION OF INDIA & ORS. |.....APPELLANT(S) | |VERSUS | | |M/S N.S. RATHNAM & SONS |.....RESPONDENT(S) | JUDGMENT A.K. SIKRI, J.The respondent herein impugned the validity of Notifications Nos.102/87-CE and 103/87-CE, both dated 27.03.1987, whereby whole of the duty of excise was exempted in respect of iron and steel scrap obtained by breaking the ship subject to the condition that customs duty should have been levied at the rate of Rs.1400/- per Light Displacement Tonnage (LDT). With the stipulation of such a condition, giving the exemption of payment of excise duty only to those who had paid customs duty at Rs.1400/- per LDT, another class of persons who also paid custom duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, albeit at a lesser rate, was excluded. The respondent who belonged to excluded category, had challenged the said Notification as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.5779 of 2015 [arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.3632 of 2015]. Dharam Chand ..Appellant(s) versus Chairman, New Delhi Municipal Council and others ..Respondent(s) JUDGMENT M. Y. EQBAL, J.Leave granted.2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated 13.11.2014 of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, which dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the appellant against the decision of learned Single Judge of the High Court, which dismissed the appellants writ petition challenging the order dated 03.12.2013 issued by the Enforcement Department, New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) deciding to relocate the appellant (a squatter) from his existing site outside Supreme Court to a site near Gate of Baroda House adjacent to the existing stalls due to security reasons.3. The appellants case in brief is that since 1965 he was squatting in the area of Chandni Chowk as a Hawker selling...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO.129 OF2015Yakub Abdul Razak Memon Petitioner(s) Versus State of Maharashtra, Thr. the Respondent(s) Secretary, Home Department and Others JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J.Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who has been sentenced to death, has prayed for issue of a mandamus or appropriate writ or direction for setting aside the order dated 30th April, 2015, passed by the Presiding Officer, Designated Court under TADA (P) Act, 1987, for Bombay Blast Cases and the order bearing No.S-0113/C.R.652/13/PRS-3 dated 13th July, 2015, passed by the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department and the communication bearing O.W. No.ASJ/DEATH SENTENCE/222/2015 dated 13th July, 2015, issued by the Superintendent, Nagpur Central Prison, Nagpur, in terms whereof the death sentence awarded to the petitioner has been directed to be executed on 30th July,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.5778 of 2015 [Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.10430 of 2014]. Rajeshwar Baburao Bone ..Appellant(s) versus The State of Maharashtra and Another ..Respondent(s) ORDER M. Y. EQBAL, J.Leave granted.2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order dated 17.12.2013 passed by the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, whereby the High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein.3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.4. The appellant herein claims to be belonging to Koli Mahadev a scheduled tribe community. According to the appellant he separated from his family as there was dispute in respect of the property with his father and for quite some time, the appellant have no relationship or communication with his father and other family members.5. Since the appellant has secured employment with Zilla Parishad, Beed, on the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe category, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.5802 OF2005SHABINA ABRAHAM & ORS. APPELLANTS VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS ...RESPONDENT JUDGMENT R.F. Nariman, J.1. Nothing is certain except death and taxes. Thus spake Benjamin Franklin in his letter of November 13, 1789 to Jean Baptiste Leroy. To tax the dead is a contradiction in terms. Tax laws are made by the living to tax the living. What survives the dead person is what is left behind in the form of such persons property. This appeal raises questions as to whether the dead persons property, in the form of his or her estate, can be taxed without the necessary machinery provisions in a tax statute. The precise question that arises in the present case is whether an assessment proceeding under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, can continue against the legal representatives/estate of a sole proprietor/manufacturer after he is dead. The facts of the case are as follows.2. One ...
Tag this Judgment!