Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC2748; 2003CriLJ4801; JT2003(1)SC184; 2003(1)SCALE171; (2003)3SCC641; [2003]42SCL275(SC); [2003]1SCR119
ORDER412. In the result it is held that:-1) Criminal Appeal No. 521 of 2000 filed by the State against A2 Ambuj Sushil Kumar Jain is dismissed.2) Criminal Appeal No. 1097 of 1999 filed by A-4 Ram Narayan Popli is allowed and he is acquitted of all the offences alleged against him.3) Further, in view of the judgment rendered by the Majority, Criminal Appeal Nos. 1117 of 1999, 1141 of 1999 and 1150 of 1999 filed by A1 Pramod Kumar Prital Lal Manocha, A-3 Vinayak Narayan Deosthali and deceased A-5 Harshad Shantilal Mehta respectively are partly allowed. The order of conviction awarded by the Special Court in respect of A1, A3 and A5 is confirmed. However, sentence of A1 and A3 is reduced to the period already undergone....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2004)186CTR(SC)115; [2003]264ITR564(SC); (2003)9SCC285
ORDER1. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.2. The appellant shall pay Rs. 10,000 as costs because of the delay of 247 days in filing these special leave petitions.3. Delay condoned.4. Leave granted.5. This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated September 20, 1999, passed by the Income-tax Settlement Commission holding that for the assessment year 1993-94 waiver of interest chargeable under Section 234B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is restricted to 50 per cent. It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant-Revenue that the said order is illegal and erroneous, in view of the judgment rendered by this court in CIT v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala : [2001]252ITR1(SC) and also the decision rendered by this court in C. A. Nos. 7966-7967 of 1996 entitled CIT v. Hindustan Bulk Carriers on December 17, 2002, : [2003]259ITR449(SC) .6. As against this, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that in the judgments rendered by this court in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2005(104)FLR108]; (2004)ILLJ232SC; 2003(10)SCALE476; (2003)9SCC221
ORDER1. The respondent herein was the Secretary to the Society, Hissar Central Co-operative Bank. Series of charges were framed against him alleging that he had caused embezzlement of money of the Society. The enquiry officer found him guilty of the charges and he was thereafter removed from service. The matter by way of reference reached the Labour Court where the dismissal of the respondent from the Society was challenged. The Labour Court found that the enquiry was not done properly and there was no proof to the effect that the respondent had caused embezzlement and the respondent was ordered to be reinstated in service with full back wages.2. The award passed by the Labour Court was challenged by the appellant Society before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. When the matter was admitted, the Division Bench was pleased to issue notice only regarding the question of payment of back wages to the respondent. The award of the Labour Court directing the appellant to reinstate the res...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Cook County v. United States ex rel. Chandler - 538 U.S. 119 (2003) OCTOBER TERM, 2002 Syllabus COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS v. UNITED STATES EX REL. CHANDLER CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 01-1572. Argued January 14, 2003-Decided March 10,2003 Under the False Claims Act (FCA), "[a]ny person" who, inter alia, "knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, to an officer or employee of the United States Government ... a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval," 31 U. S. C. 3729(a)(1), is liable to the Government for a civil penalty, treble damages, and costs, 3729(a). Although the Attorney General may sue under the FCA, a private person, known as a relator, may also bring a qui tam action "in the name of the Government." 3730(b). The relator must inform the Justice Department of her intentions and keep the pleadings under seal while the Government decides whether to intervene and do its own litigating. 3730(b)(2). If the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC788; 2003(1)AWC653(SC); 95(2003)CLT473(SC); [2003(96)FLR682]; JT2003(1)SC101; 2003(1)SCALE115; (2003)2SCC147; [2003]1SCR91; 2003(1)LC302(SC)
Acts/Rules/Orders: Constitution of India - Articles 145, 316, 316(2), 317, 317(1) and 318Cases Referred: Union of India and Ors. v. Gopal Chandra Misra and Ors., Citing Reference: Union of India and Ors. v. Gopal Chandra Misra and Ors MentionedREPORT1. This Reference has been made by the President of India to this Court under Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India seeking immediate suspension and removal of Shri Ravinder Pal Singh Sidhu, former Chairman, Punjab Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission'), by taking action against him levelling several allegations of grave misconduct and mal-practices. In the Reference, it is stated that the matter requires an examination by this Court in terms of Article 317(1) of the Constitution. In the course of the letter sent by the Governor of Punjab to the President on 29th April 2002, certain details as to the conduct of Shri Ravinder Pal Singh Sidhu while functioning as Chairman of the Commission are set out. T...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC843; 2003(85)ECC496; 2003(152)ELT39(SC); JT2003(1)SC106; 2003(1)SCALE123; (2003)3SCC410; [2003]1SCR98
Shah, J.1. The question which were considered by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'CEGAT') in Final Order No. 1467/99-B dated 5.1.2000 arising out of Appeal No. E3646/1990(B), were--whether, as the clearances in issue were effected against approved classification lists, the demand was sustainable in view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Court in Collector of Central Excise, Baroda v. Cotspun Limited and whether there was any ground for invoking first proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereafter referred to as 'the Act')? 2. In these appeals, first question which requires decision is--what is the effect of following amendments in Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1994 which came into force w.e.f. 17.11.1980 by the Finance Act, 2000 (10 of 2000). 3. The relevant part of unamended Section 11A was as under:--'Section 11A--Recovery of duties not levied or not paid ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2003(10)SCALE480; (2003)9SCC288
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. A complaint was made to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short the Forum) in regard to time share in resorts belonging to the respondents. The Forum took the view that the matter was covered by an earlier decision of the National Commission in respect of time share in the immovable property and therefore would not be a consumer dispute.3. This Court in the case of Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta, : AIR1994SC787 took the view that even in respect of matters where immovable property is involved, the question to be examined was whether there was any service to be rendered in relation thereto and whether the complaint made was in respect of the same or not. That aspect seems to have been lost sight of by the Commission. Therefore, we set aside the order made by the Forum and remit the matter to it for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed accordingly....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC807; 2003(1)AWC667(SC); JT2003(1)SC135; 2003(1)SCALE66; (2003)2SCC1
Arun Kumar, J.Civil Appeal No. 3632 of 1996: 1. In this appeal, the appellant claims possession of a piece of land comprising 5 biswas, that is, 250 square yards. The claim is based on alleged occupation as a tresspaser of 10 biswas of agricultural land in village Sanoth within the revenue estate of Delhi. Briefly the facts are that consolidation scheme in village Sanoth was prepared and confirmed in the year 1975-76 under Sections 19 and 20 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The respondents admittedly owned and possessed lands in the said village. The appellant claimed that his predecessor had trespassed on a portion of the land belonging to the respondents and had been carrying on cultivation activity thereon. In the scheme, no encumbrance as alleged by the appellant was mentioned. The appellant, however, relied on a list dated 3rd July, 1982 for substantiating his claim. The Scheme of consolid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2004(1)JCR139(SC)]
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the Public Interest Litigation filed before the High Court has been disposed of rather cursorily and without taking into consideration all the relevant factors which ought to have entered into the consideration of the High Court before making the directions as contained in the operative part of the order.3. The learned senior counsel for the appellant points out that unless and until the High Court finds that the merghat, kabristan and crematorium are legal and satisfy the requirement for registration under the local law till then a direction for extension of amenities and facilities could not have been given, which would have the effect of legalising the illegalities if there be any. It is also pointed out that the State Government may have its own priorities for incurring expenditure and the administrative and financial handicaps and convenience of the State Government should also h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC992; 2003(2)ALT(Cri)35; 2003(51)BLJR1680; 2003CriLJ1234; I(2003)DMC177SC; JT2003(1)SC60; 2003(1)SCALE101; (2003)2SCC698; [2003]1SCR60; 2003(1)LC394(SC)
B.P. Singh, J.1. Deceased Geetu was married to Parvin Kumar on 28.04.1990 at Yamunagar. Her father Ved Prakash, PW--1 is a lawyer of standing at Yamunagar. After the marriage she started residing with her husband and his parents at Sriganganagar. Only 2-1/2 months later, on 13th July, 1990 Geetu committed suicide by hanging. Her parents were informed and they came to Sriganganagar. The post mortem examination of the dead body of Geetu was conducted on the 14th July, 1990, whereafter her body was cremated in the presence of her parents who had come to Sriganganagar along with other relatives. After the cremation at about 4 p.m., Ved Prakash, PW--1, father of Geetu drafted an F.I.R., Ex. P-5 and loged the same at police station. Sadar, Sriganganagar at 8.30 p.m. After investigation the appellants herein who are the parents of Parvin Kumar, the husband of the deceased, along with Parvin Kumar were put up for trial before the Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2, Sriganganagar in Sess...
Tag this Judgment!