Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Court: supreme court of india Year: 2010 Page 10 of about 150 results (0.106 seconds)

Apr 12 2010 (SC)

Bata India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-12-2010

Reported in : 2010(175)LC1(SC),2010(3)LC1627(SC)

k.s. radhakrishnan, j.1. the question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether unvulcanised sandwiched fabric assembly produced in the assessee's factory and captively consumed can be termed as 'goods' and can be classified as 'rubberized cotton fabrics' falling under sub-heading number 5905.10 of the schedule to the central excise tariff act, 1985.2. the above question came up for consideration before the customs, excise and gold (control) appellate tribunal (for short `the tribunal). the member (judicial) took the view that the product would not attract duty unless it is established that the goods in question is marketable or capable of being marketed as a distinct product and that the revenue has failed to discharge the burden to prove the marketability and dutiability of the intermediate product in the manufacture of rubber/canvas foot wear. the member(technical), however, disagreed with that finding and held that the revenue has discharged its burden and took the view that the goods in question attracts duty.3. in view of the difference of opinions expressed by the two members, the matter was placed before a third member who concurred with the view expressed by the member (technical) and a final order was passed on the above issue by the tribunal on 24.12.2001 holding that double textured rubberized fabric / unvulcanised sandwiched fabric is an excisable product liable to central excise duty. no opinion was expressed by any of the members on the question .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 19 2010 (SC)

State of A.P. Vs. Hyderabad Potteries Pvt. Ltd. and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-19-2010

deepak verma, j.1. leave granted. arguments heard. record perused.2. on account of illegal and unauthorized grabbing of urban and urbanized land in various metropolitan cities, state of andhra pradesh in its wisdom thought it fit and appropriate to bring an act to curb this menace. the act is known as andhra pradesh land grabbing (prohibition) act, 1982 [hereinafter shall be referred to as the 'act'].3. statement of objects and reasons discloses that it had come to the notice of government that there are organised attempts on the part of certain lawless persons operating individually and in groups to grab either by force, or by deceit or otherwise lands belonging to the government, a local authority, a religious or charitable institution or endowment, including wakf or any other private person. the government was further of the view that such land grabbers are forming bogus co-operative housing societies or setting up fictitious claims and are indulging in large scale and unprecedented and fraudulent sales of land through unscrupulous real estate dealers or otherwise in favour of certain section of people, resulting in large scale accumulation of unaccounted wealth. it was felt that public order is likely to be adversely affected. such unlawful activities of land grabbers had to be arrested and curbed by enacting a special law in that regard.4. keeping the aforesaid objects and reasons, initially, andhra pradesh land grabbing (prohibition) ordinance, 1982, was promulgated by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 20 2010 (SC)

Andhra Pradesh Tourism Development Corpn. and anr. Vs. Pampa Hotels Lt ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-20-2010

Reported in : (2010)5SCC425

r.v. raveendran, j.1. the respondent is a company incorporated on 9.4.2003 under the companies act, 1956. the appellant (andhra pradesh tourism development corporation ltd., for short 'aptdc') is a 'government company' within the meaning of that expression in section 617 of the companies act, 1956.2. according to the respondent, the parties had entered into two agreements in regard to a property known as hill view guest house, alipiri, tirupathi, measuring 1.08 acres. the first was a lease agreement under which aptdc granted a lease of the said property to the respondent for a term of 33 years; and the second was a development and management agreement under which aptdc entrusted to the respondent, the development of a three-star hotel in hill view guest house property on construction, operation and management basis. according to the respondent, both agreements contained a provision for disputes resolution (clause 17 of the lease agreement and article 18 of the management agreement) providing that in the event of disputes, best efforts shall be made to resolve them by mutual discussions, amicably; and in the event of the parties not finding an acceptable solution to the disputes within 30 days (60 days in the case of management agreement), the same shall be referred to arbitration in accordance with the procedure specified in the act.3. aptdc claims that it had terminated the said agreements on 21.4.2004 and took possession of the property on 21.8.2004. the respondent filed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 27 2010 (SC)

Punjab Roadways Moga Through Its General Manager Etc. Etc. Vs. Punja S ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Apr-27-2010

k.s. radhakrishnan, j.1. leave granted in all these special leave petitions.facts of the first two appeals.2. we will first deal with the first two appeals which arise out of a common order dated 21.8.2000 passed by the state transport commissioner (in short 'the commissioner') exercising the powers conferred on the regional transport authorities of jalandhar, patiala and ferozpur. the order of the commissioner was confirmed by the state transport appellate tribunal (in short 'the tribunal') vide its order dated 27.4.2005, but interfered with by the high court in c.w.p no. 8483/2005 and c.w.p. no. 11768 of 2005 respectively with a positive direction to the commissioner to grant stage carriage permits to the private operators rejecting the claims of the state transport undertakings (stus). the legality of the order of the high court is under challenge in these two cases filed by the state of punjab through the commissioner and the punjab roadways, moga, represented by its general manager.3. the secretary, regional transport authority, jalandhar, published a notice in the motor transport gazette, weekly, chandigarh in its issue dated 22.2.1999 inviting applications for the grant of four stage carriage permits for plying two return trips daily in the pathankot - faridkot via mukkerian, dasuya, jalandhar nakodar, moga, talwandi bhai, mudki route a substantial portion of which falls within the national and state highways. as per the scheme published on 9th august, 1990 (in short .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 03 2010 (SC)

Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.i.) Vs. Hopeson Ningshen and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-03-2010

order1. the central bureau of investigation [hereinafter `cbi'] has approached this court by way of transfer petition (criminal) no. 219-220 of 2009 as contemplated under section 406 of the code of criminal procedure [hereinafter `crpc'], seeking transfer of cases rc imph 2009/s0002 and rc imph 2009/s0003, both dated 02-04-09, from the court of the chief judicial magistrate, ukhrul, manipur to a competent criminal court in delhi.2. in these cases, the respondent has been accused of the kidnapping and murder of three government employees in the state of manipur. it would be useful to provide an overview of the fact-situation leading up to the present litigation. on 13-2-2009, dr. thingnam kishan singh (s.d.o., kasom khullen, distt. ukhrul) along with five staff members was abducted by militants while on their way from ukhrul to kasom khullen. on 14-2-2009, three of the abducted persons, namely sh. ram singh siro, sh. ramthing singlai and sh. kapangkhui jajo were released. following this, a case bearing fir no. 8(2)/2009 was registered under sections 365, 368 and 34 of the ipc at the ukhrul police station in respect of the missing persons. however, on 17-2-2009, dead bodies of dr. thingnam kishan singh, sh. y. token singh and sh. a. rajen sharma were recovered from the bank of river taphao kuki in the proximity of national highway-39 in senapati district, manipur. in light of the discovery of the dead bodies, a case bearing fir no. 3(2)/2009 was registered under sections 302 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 11 2010 (SC)

Nanhar and ors Vs State of Haryana

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jun-11-2010

order1. appellant five in number, in both the appeals, feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction dated 7/5/2008 passed in criminal appeal no.919-db/2006 by division bench of high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh, arising out of the judgment and order of conviction dated 24/11/2006 and order of sentence dated 25/11/2006 pronounced by additional sessions judge, bhiwani, convicting them for commission of offences under sections 302/149 of the ipc and awarding sentence to undergo ri for life, together with fine of rs.2,000/-, are before us challenging the same on variety of grounds.2. it may be mentioned herein that initially charge-sheet was filed only against four accused namely nanhar, virender @ binder, rampat and rajbir @ meda under sections 306/34 ipc. the name of the fifth accused umed singh was added subsequently by the trial court on an application being filed by the prosecution under section 319 of the code of criminal procedure and allowed on 3.6.2004. the order of committal makes it clear that the first four appellants were charged and prosecuted for commission of offence under sections 306/34 ipc. accordingly it was committed to court of sessions for being tried for the aforesaid offences. however, on 5.10.2004 charge was framed by the learned trial judge under sections 302/34 ipc. even though umed singh was added subsequently as one of the accused but the charge was not altered to one under section 149 of the i.p.c.3. thumbnail sketch of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 19 2010 (SC)

Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. and anr. Vs. Mathias Oram and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-19-2010

1. speaking in the constituent assembly on november 25, 1949 dr. b.r. ambedkar, the chief architect of the constitution of india made one of the most incisive remarks on it:"on the 26th of january 1950, india would be a democratic country in the sense that india from that day would have a government of the people, by the people and for the people. the same thought comes to my mind. what would happen to her democratic constitution? will she be able to maintain it or will she lose it again? this is the second thought that comes to my mind and makes me as anxious as the first......on the 26th of january 1950, we are going to enter into a life of contradictions. in politics we will have equality and in social and economic life we will have inequality. in politics we will be recognizing the principle of one man one vote and one vote one value. in our social and economic life, we shall, by reason of our social and economic structure, continue to deny the principle of one man one value. how long shall we continue to live this life of contradictions? how long shall we continue to deny equality in our social and economic life? if we continue to deny it for long, we will do so only by putting our political democracy in peril. we must remove this contradiction at the earliest possible moment or else those who suffer from inequality will blow up the structure of political democracy which this assembly has so laboriously built up." what would have been dr. ambedkar's reaction to the facts .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 23 2010 (SC)

Dahyabhai Ranchhoddas Dhobi, D.A.V.Boys Sr.Sec.School. ... Vs. State o ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jul-23-2010

1) leave granted.2) this appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.01.2009 passed by the high court of gujarat at ahmedabad in special civil application no. 5663 of 1990 with civil application no. 3458 of 2006 whereby the high court dismissed the petition preferred by the appellants herein.3) brief facts:a) according to the appellants, they are owners of the land in question measuring 848.66 sq.m., nandh no. 2190/p, ward no.4 of surat city. the state of gujarat initiated acquisition proceedings under the land acquisition act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the "act") for construction of a school in the land in question under the surat municipal corporation. the appellants objected to the said acquisition on the ground that:(i) this is the only land for them for carrying on the business of washermen and they are using this land for the purpose of their livelihood.(ii) there are vacant/open lands adjoining to the land in question.(iii) within a radius of 1 km. , number of schools are available particularly being run by the surat municipal corporation.(iv) while acquiring the land, the respondents have not followed the provisions of sections 4, 5, 6 and 11a of the act.b) on the other hand, it is the stand of the state government that:(i) the land is required for establishing a primary school by the surat municipal corporation.(ii) they fully complied with the statutory notices and other requirements.(iii) the appellants did not avail the opportunity of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 03 2010 (SC)

Manohar Lal (D) by Lrs,ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Ugrasen (D) ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jun-03-2010

1. both these appeals have been preferred by the appellants being aggrieved of the judgment and order of the allahabad high court dated 22nd july, 2003 passed in c.m.w.p. no.6644 of 1989 by which the high court has allowed the writ petition filed by respondent no.1-ugrasen quashing the allotment of land made in favour of appellant-manohar lal and further directed to make the allotment of land in favour of the said respondent-ugrasen. 2. in these appeals, three substantial questions of law for consideration of this court are involved, they are, namely: (a) as to whether the state government - a revisional authority under the statute, could take upon itself the task of a lower statutory authority?; (b) whether the order passed or action taken by a statutory authority in contravention of the interim order of the court is enforceable?; and (c) whether court can grant relief which had not been asked for? 3. facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that lands owned and possessed by predecessor-in-interest of private appellant manohar lal and respondent ugrasen were acquired under the provisions of the land acquisition act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the `act'). notification under section 4 of the act was issued on 13.08.1962 covering about 32 acres of land in the revenue estates of kaila pargana loni dist. meerut (now ghaziabad). declaration under section 6 of the act in respect of the said land was made on 24.05.1965 along with notification under section 17(1 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 08 2010 (SC)

State of MaharashtrA. Vs. Datar Swithgear Ltd. and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Oct-08-2010

leave granted.2. this appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment, dated 9th october 2007, delivered by the high court of bombay in criminal application no. 3715 of 2005, in a petition filed by the two appellants herein under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (in short "the code"). by the impugned judgment, the high court has declined to quash a criminal complaint filed by respondents no.1 to 3 in this appeal against the appellants and others for offences under sections 192 and 199 read with section 34 of the indian penal code, 1860 (for short "the ipc").3. shorn of unnecessary details, the facts, material for adjudication of the issue arising in this appeal may be stated thus: appellant no.1, viz. maharashtra state electricity distribution co. ltd.; constituted in terms of the provisions of the electricity act, 2003 is the successor in interest of maharashtra state electricity board (for short "mseb") and appellant no. 2 is its chairman. respondent no.1 is an incorporated company, viz. m/s datar switchgear ltd. and respondents no.2 and 3, senior officials of respondent no.1, are the complainants and respondents no.4 to 7 are the co-accused.4. pursuant to various contracts entered into between respondent no. 1 and mseb in the year 1993-94 for installation of "low tension load management systems" (for short "ltlms"), mseb issued a work order on 27th march 1997 whereby respondent no. 1 was required to install at various locations and lease out .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //