Court : Supreme Court of India
NON REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1219 OF2009State through Narcotics Control Bureau Appellant Vs. Yusuf @ Asif & Ors. Respondents JUDGMENT ARUN MISHRA, J.1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras recording acquittal of respondents thereby setting aside the judgment and order of conviction for commission of offence under section 8(c) read with sections 21, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and the sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1 lakh imposed by the Special Judge for NDPS Act cases, Chennai.2. According to the prosecution, in a stationed lorry, the appellants were sitting inside on 28.3.2000 at 2 a.m. Lorry was parked in front of Puzhal Jail, it was intercepted by Rajasekhar PW-1, Jaberia Nazir PW-2, P.Saran PW-6, all Intelligence Officers of NCB headed by Mr. K. Raghavan PW- 8, an officer of the Gaze...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1964 OF2008M/S GANAPATHY & CO., BANGALORE ...APPELLANT VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX BANGALORE ...RESPONDENT JUDGMENT RANJAN GOGOI, J.1. The High Court of Karnataka by the impugned order dated 3rd July, 2007 had answered the questions referred to it for its opinion under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (as it then existed) against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal upon grant of leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.2. At the outset, the questions of law on which the High court had rendered its opinion may be set out as below. |i. |Whether on the facts and in the | | |circumstances of the case, the Income | | |Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in | | |law in deleting the disallowance of | | |service charges paid to M/s Universal | | |Trading Company made under Section | | |40A(2)?. | |ii. |Whether on the facts and in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.286 OF2016(Arising out of SLP(C) No.8906 of 2011) M/S RAHMAN INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. APPELLANT (S) VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS RESPONDENT (S) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.: Leave granted. The appellant challenged the award dated 27.08.2010 passed under the provisions of the Timely Payment of Wages Act, 1978 and the recovery before the High Court leading to the impugned judgment dated 09.02.2011. The High Court found that the order passed by the Labour Court was without jurisdiction, and hence, the impugned orders were quashed. However, it was clarified that the judgment of the High Court did not mean that the workmen was left without any remedy. The question was only on invocation of proper remedy before the appropriate forum. And thus, it was directed that in case, any such matter is brought before the Government, the Government will refer it for adjudication before the Labour Court. To quote:However, quashing of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.575 OF2016(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) No.21/2016) Ramesh Chandra Bhandari .Appellant(s) VERSUS Ram Singh Salal Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 31.08.2015 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition No.1696 of 2012 (M/s) whereby the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the appellant-landlord thereby granting the decree for eviction against the respondent in relation to the suit shop but at the same time further granting two years time to the respondent to vacate the suit shop.3. Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. They, however, need mention in brief to appreciate the short controversy involved in the appeal.4. The appellant is the plaintiff whereas the respondent is the defendant.5. The appellant is the owner/landlord of the suit premises, which is situated at Almora (Uttara...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO245OF2014IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.6736 OF2013Anuj Joshi & Anr. Petitioners Versus Chief Conservator of Forests & Others . Respondents ORDER Uday Umesh Lalit J.This contempt petition under Sections 2(3) and 15 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 read with Article 129 of the Constitution of India alleges violation of directions contained in judgment and order dated 13.08.2013 passed by this Court in Alaknanda Hydro Power Company Limited vs. Anuj Joshi and others[1]. (C.A. No.6736/2013 with Civil Appeal No.6746-6747/2013 and Transferred Case No.55 to 57 of 2013). Four persons are arrayed as alleged contemnors in this petition. However, during the course of arguments, the petitioners gave up their case against alleged contemnor Nos.3 and 4. We are also satisfied that no case is made out against them and as such the proceedings against them are dropped. We therefore, confine ourselves in respect of allege...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1829 OF2008Commissioner of Central Excise, Appellant(s) Pune Versus Hindustan National Glass and Respondent(s) Industries Limited ORDER Dipak Misra, J.A show cause notice under F. No.Prev/CEX/AEI/OBL/ 141/99/797 dated 16th August, 2002, was issued to M/s. Owens Brockway (I) Pvt. Ltd., the predecessor-company of the respondent which is presently known as Hindustan National Glass and Industries Limited, by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I, alleging that the manufacturing company was not adding the additional consideration received from the customers in the form of advance and, therefore, the notional interest accrued thereon is to be added to the sale price, for such non-addition had resulted in depression of the assessable value of the goods, namely, the bottles manufactured by the respondent-assessee.2. In the show cause notice, it was mentioned that the assessee had short paid the duty on i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.8632-8634 OF2010LAL BABU DAS & ORS. ... APPELLANT(S) VS. OIL INDIA LTD. & ANR. ... RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT ANIL R. DAVE, J.1. Heard the learned counsel.2. Upon perusal of the record and the sale instances, we find that the valuation arrived at by the Reference Court was more just and therefore, we set aside the impugned judgment delivered by the High Court and restore the order passed by the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984.3. The appeals stand disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. ............J.[ANIL R. DAVE]. .................J.[SHIVA KIRTI SINGH]. .................J.[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL]. New Delhi; 14th January, 2016....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.11450 OF2014GAIL (INDIA) LTD. Appellant(s) VERSUS PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS REGULATORY BOARD & ORS. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT KURIAN, J.1. The main issue raised in this appeal is whether the denial of access to common carrier capacity on reasonable endeavor basis to the two pipelines laid by the appellant to the second respondent, is discreminatory and amounting to Restrictive Trade Practices or not. In the nature of the order we are required to pass in this case, it is unnecessary to go in detail to the factual matrix.2. The issue arises under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (Authorising entities to lay, build, operate or expand natural gas pipeline) Regulations, 2008 and Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (Guiding Principles for Declaring or Authorising Natural Gas Pipeline as Common Carrier or Contract Carrier) Regulations, 2009.3. In terms of the Regulations, the appellant publ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4943 OF2006N.D.SHARMA & ORS. ... APPELLANT(S) VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4944/2006 & 282/2008 JUDGMENT ANIL R. DAVE, J.1. Delay in filing substitution applications in Civil Appeal No.4943/2006, is condoned.2. Applications in Civil Appeal No.4943/2006, for bringing on record the legal representatives of Appellant Nos.1 and 3 are allowed.3. In all these appeals, the issue involved is with regard to enhancement of compensation in respect of the land, which had been acquired under a Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on 3rd June, 1987 for establishment of a Power House. A big chunk of land ad-measuring approximately 270 bighas and 15 biswas was acquired by the Government from three different villages, namely, Holambi Khurd, Bawana and Naya Bans @ Iradat Nagar.4. It is an admitted fact that for the land situated in Iradat Nagar,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2140 OF2007United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Appellant(s) VERSUS M/s Orient Treasures Pvt. Ltd. Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.5141 OF2007M/s Orient Treasures Pvt. Ltd. Appellant(s) VERSUS United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.C.A. No.2140 of 20071) This appeal under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is filed against the order dated 19.03.2007 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission), New Delhi in Original Petition No.375 of 1999 whereby the Commission allowed the petition filed by the respondent herein and directed the appellant- insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.36,10,211/- with interest @10% p.a. from 03.12.1995 till date of payment and also directed the insurance company to pay costs assessed at Rs.50,000/- to the respondent-Complainant herein.2) In order to appreciate the issue inv...
Tag this Judgment!