Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Aug-25-2009
Reported in : AIR2010SC433; 2010(1)AWC253(SC); JT2009(11)SC311; 2009(11)SCALE731; 2009(9)LC4025(SC):2009AIRSCW6953
..... whether notings recorded in the file would constitute civil or criminal contempt within the meaning of section 2(b) and (c) of the contempt of courts act observed as under:14. now, the functioning of government in a state is governed by article 166 of the constitution, which lays down that there ..... and the chief minister, the state government must be deemed to have withdrawn from the acquisition within the meaning of section 48(1) of the act. this court noted that the society, which claims to have purchased 525 bighas of land from khatedars, represented the government to de- notify the land. the ..... (3) scc 399 and s.n. chandrasekhar v. state of karnataka : 2006 (3) scc 208.53. unfortunately, despite repeated judgments by the this court and high courts, the builders and other affluent people engaged in the construction activities, who have, over the years shown scant respect for regulatory mechanism envisaged in the municipal and ..... bachhittar singh v. the state of punjab (1962) supp. 3 scr 713, in the backdrop of the argument that once the revenue minister of pepsu had recorded a note in the file that the punishment imposed on the respondent be reduced from dismissal to that of reversion, the same could not ..... scc 77; state of kerala and ors. v. k. prasad and anr. : (2007) 7 scc 140; punjab state electricity board and ors. v. gurmail singh : (2008) 7 scc 245 and panchi devi v. state of rajasthan and ors. : (2009) 2 scc 589.52. before concluding, we consider it necessary to enter a caveat. .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Dec-03-2009
Reported in : AIR2010SC972; 2010(1)AWC7(SC); 2009(14)SCALE303; (2010)1SCC409; 2009(10)LC5090(SC)
..... act, 1940 the court jurisdiction of the court is limited. it has also been noticed that the court cannot hear the objections against the award as an appellate court, as the arbitrator is the final arbiter of the dispute referred to him. after noticing the legal position ..... corporation v. central warehousing corporation it was held:at the outset, it should be noted that the scope of interference by courts in regard to arbitral awards is limited. a court considering an application under section 30 or 33 of the act, does not sit in appeal over the findings and decision of the arbitrator. nor can it re-assess or re-appreciate ..... on the point in issue. it is further observed that the arbitrator has passed the award giving reasons in detail. therefore it cannot be said that the arbitrator has acted beyond the scope of reference.9. the civil court took due notice of the settled propositions of law that at the time of hearing of objections under section 30 of the arbitration ..... arbitrator is final and the only grounds on which it can be challenged are those mentioned in sections 30 or 33 of the act. therefore, on the contentions urged, the only question that arose for consideration before the high court was, whether there was any error apparent on the face of the award and whether the arbitrator misconducted himself or the proceedings .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-12-2009
Reported in : (2009)224CTR(SC)1; 2009(165)LC93(SC); 2009(238)ELT3(SC); JT2009(7)SC314; 2009(8)SCALE231; 20STT481; 180TAXMAN609(SC); 2009(4)LC1637(SC); (2009)11VatReporter2
..... on behalf of the revenue, the appellants in the two appeals, it was contended, relying upon a recent decision of this court in union of india v. dharamendra textile processors : 306itr277(sc) that mere non payment or short payment of duty (without anything else!) would inevitably lead to imposition of ..... the slps.2. what are the conditions and the circumstances that would attract the imposition of penalty under section 11ac of the central excise act (`the act', hereinafter)? in the two cases before us the tribunal has taken the view that there was no warrant for levy of penalty since ..... 8) scale 304. the question which arises for determination in all these appeals is whether section 11ac of the central excise act, 1944 (in short the `act') inserted by finance act, 1996 with the intention of imposing mandatory penalty on persons who evaded payment of tax should be read to contain mens rea ..... statement or suppression of facts' which means with intent to evade duty. the next set of words `contravention of any of the provisions of this act or rules' are again qualified by the immediately following words `with intent to evade payment of duty.' therefore, there cannot be suppression or mis-statement ..... statement or suppression of facts' which means with intent to evade duty. the next set of words 'contravention of any of the provisions of this act or rules' are again qualified by the immediately following words 'with intent to evade payment of duty'. it is, therefore, not correct to say .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : UK Supreme Court
Decided on : Dec-09-2009
..... arose the narrow issue of the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the 1991 act. at first instance, in a judgment delivered on 1 august 2008, wyn williams j found in favour of welsh water  ewhc 1936 (qb). his decision was reversed by the court of appeal on 28 november 2008  ewca civ 1552. barratts then proceeded to connect the development's sewer to ..... or undertaker can refuse to agree to the developer's proposals. there is no material difference between the 1936 and 1991 acts for this purpose. the 1936 act provided that disputes between developers and authorities should go to a magistrates' court. the 1991 act provides that a developer who argues that an authority's refusal is unreasonable can take the dispute to ofwat, which ..... vicinity of their development as the connection point. it is, i believe, significant that, in nearly a century and a half since the 1875 act was passed, this is the first occasion upon which the english court has been required to resolve a dispute between property owner and sewerage undertaker as to the point of connection of a private sewer or drain ..... inappropriate point could include pollution and risk to health, thereby infringing articles 2, 3 or 8 of the european convention on human rights. the court was bound, if possible, so to interpret section 106 of the 1991 act as to avoid these consequences see marsleasing sa v la comercial internacional de alimentacion sa (case c-106/89)  ecr 1-4135 and .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jan-21-2009
..... the past eight years, have not been reticent in their criticism of saucier s rigid order of battle. see, e.g. , purtell v. mason , 527 f. 3d 615, 622 (ca7 2008) ( this rigid order of battle has been criticized on practical, procedural, and substantive grounds ); leval, judging under the constitution: dicta about dicta, 81 n. y. u. l. rev. 1249, 1275 ..... v. johnston , 184 wis. 2d 794, 518 n. w. 2d 759 (1994). it had been accepted by every one of those courts. moreover, the seventh circuit had approved the doctrine s application to cases involving consensual entries by private citizens acting as confidential informants. see united states v. paul , 808 f. 2d, 645, 648 (1986). the sixth circuit reached the same conclusion ..... pearson v. callahan - 07-751 (2009) syllabus october term, 2008 pearson v. callahan supreme court of the united states pearson et al. v . callahan certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the tenth circuit no. 07 751.argued october 14, 2008 decided january 21, 2009 after the utah court of appeals vacated respondent s conviction for possession and distribution of drugs, which he sold ..... of state law is also of doubtful precedential importance. as a result, several courts have identified an exception to the saucier rule for cases in which resolution of the constitutional question requires clarification of an ambiguous state statute. egolf v. witmer , 526 f. 3d 104, 109 111 (ca3 2008); accord, tremblay v. mcclellan , 350 f. 3d 195, 200 (ca1 2003); ehrlich v .....Tag this Judgment!