Tribunal has not looked into the merits of the appeals at all on the facetious ground that the show cause notice did not contain any basis to doubt the classification of the goods and that while issuing the notice, the adjudicating authority had not examined the classification based on the report of the laboratory – Findings of the Tribunal are contrary to the record and cannot therefore be sustained – The goods were leviable to confiscation in terms of Section 111(m) of the Customs Act 1962 – The goods were chargeable to anti-dumping duty; and respondent was liable to pay interest under Section 28AB and penalty under Section 112(a) read with Section 118(a) of the Customs Act 1962.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, PUNE — Appellant Vs. M/S BALLARPUR INDUSTRIES LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and Hima Kohli,…
High Court ought not to have convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 304 PartI IPC – In absence of any intention on the part of the appellant, It is a clear case where the conviction of the appellant is to be modified to one under Section 304 PartII IPC by maintaining the conviction for the offence under Section 201 IPC. HELD converting conviction from the one under Section 304 PartI IPC to the one under Section 304 PartII IPC – Appeals are allowed in part and conviction of the appellant is modified from the one under Section 304 Part I /34 IPC to the one under Section 304 Part II /34 IPC
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KALA SINGH @ GURNAM SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. )…
Second Appeal – Substantial question of law – High Court erred in not recording a finding on the question of law formulated later, to account for the Court Surveyor’s report, vis-à-vis the legal battle over the suit land. Without the decision on the relevant aspect which goes to the root of the dispute, the impugned judgment in our assessment, fails the scrutiny of law.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MATADIN SURAJMAL RAJORIA (DECEASED) THROUGH SOLE LEGATEE LALITA SATYANARAYAN KHANDELAWAL — Appellant Vs. RAMDWAR MAHAVIR PANDE (DEAD) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent (…
(CPC) – Rejection of plaint – Underlying object of Order VII Rule 11 of CPC is that when a plaint does not disclose a cause of action, the court would not permit the plaintiff to unnecessarily protract the proceedings. It has been held that in such a case, it will be necessary to put an end to the sham litigation so that further judicial time is not wasted.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJENDRA BAJORIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. HEMANT KUMAR JALAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ.…
Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 – Section 11 – Discharge or adoption of third party contracts with prior allottees – Successful allottee or bidder has complete freedom to decide as to whether he desires to continue or adopt any such existing contracts in relation to coal mining operation – If the successful bidder or allottee elects not to adopt or continue with the existing contracts, all such contracts shall cease to be enforceable against the successful bidder or allottee in relation to Schedule I coal mines.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. EMTA COAL LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and…
Execution of lease deed – Determination of market value plot – In order, it has been specifically observed that so far as the dispute of the balance enhanced amount is concerned, the same shall be settled and disposed of after exchange of affidavits – In that view of the matter the High Court has erred in observing that the rate of Rs.5900/ per sq.meter mentioned in the lease deed shall be conclusive and final and binding between the parties.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. 24 ORANGES LAB LLP AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and…
Burden of proof in the departmental proceedings is not of beyond reasonable doubt as is the principle in the criminal trial but probabilities of the misconduct – Allegations in the chargesheet that the writ petitioner has fired from the official weapon is a reliable finding returned by the Departmental Authorities on the basis of evidence placed before them. It is not a case of no evidence, which alone would warrant interference by the High Court in exercise of power of judicial review. HELD the order of punishment of dismissal passed as affirmed in appeal and revision stands restored – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. DALBIR SINGH — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ ) Civil Appeal…
Change of date of birth in service record – Application for change of date of birth can only be as per the relevant provisions/regulations applicable – Even if there is cogent evidence, the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right – Application can be rejected on the ground of delay and latches also more particularly when it is made at the fag end of service
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED — Appellant Vs. T.P. NATARAJA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. )…
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 4 and 18 – Land Acquisition – Compensation Determination of – HELD the compensation to be awarded is (137.76/2= 69 rounded off to Rs.70 per square feet) which was the market value assessed by the Reference Court as well – Reference Court is justified in law whereas the High Court has reduced the compensation drastically without any reasonable basis – Appellant is entitled to a compensation at the rate of Rs.70/- per square feet from the date of award by the Land Acquisition Collector.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHANKARRAO BHAGWANTRAO PATIL ETC. — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ. ) Civil…
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 25F – Direction for reinstatement HELD when it comes to the case of termination of a daily-wage worker and where the termination is found illegal because of a procedural defect, namely, in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking the view that in such cases reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and instead the workman should be given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of justice. Rationale for shifting in this direction is obvious.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAM MANOHAR LOHIA JOINT HOSPITAL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MUNNA PRASAD SAINI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R. Subhash Reddy and…