advocatemmmohan
Asia
Minimum age limit for appointment of District & Sessions Judge in A.P. = no minimum age limit = it was not necessary for the appellant to have completed the age of 35 years for being appointed to the post in question as there is no provision in the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 = Sasidhar Reddy Sura …..Appellant Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. …..Respondents = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41044
Minimum age limit for appointment of District & Sessions Judge in A.P. = no minimum age limit = it was not necessary for the appellant to have completed the age of 35 years for being appointed to the post in question as there is no … Continue reading
Cancellation of Railway tender on technical point is not illegal nor arbitrary to interfere by courts – Apex court confirm the judgement of division bench = Maa Binda Express Carrier and Anr. …Appellants Versus Northeast Frontier Railway and Ors. …Respondents = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41031
Cancellation of Railway tender on technical point is not illegal nor arbitrary to interfere by courts – Apex court confirm the judgement of division bench = invited tenders for the grant of a three year lease of 23 tonnes of space in VPH (Parcel Van) on train No.15960/15959 Kamrup Express. Among those who … Continue reading
Company petition = Since company not paid entire sale consideration after allotment of plot by the A.P.I.I.C.Ltd., – and after cancellation of plot and forfeit of amount, the official liquidator of the company can not lay any rights over the plot which was cancelled by the A.P.I.I.C.Ltd., as ownership was not transferred = The A.P.I.I. Corpn. Ltd. …..Appellant. Versus M/s. Team-Asia Lakhi Semiconductors Ltd. (in liquidation) rep. by the Official Liquidator, Hyderabad & Anr. …..Respondents = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41026
Company petition = Since company not paid entire sale consideration after allotment of plot by the A.P.I.I.C.Ltd., – and after cancellation of plot and forfeit of amount, the official liquidator of the company can not lay any rights over the plot which was cancelled by the A.P.I.I.C.Ltd., as ownership was not transferred = … Continue reading
Though the appellant is eligible for consideration of the selection in to IAS – she was denied as she was a junior officer – not correct approach and against the rules and guidelines – B. Amrutha Lakshmi … Appellant Versus State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. … Respondents= judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40890
Though the appellant is eligible for consideration of the selection in to IAS – she was denied as she was a junior officer – not correct approach and against the rules and guidelines = Apex court held wrong but due to lapse of time the apex court granted damages instead of disturbing processes already taken over long … Continue reading
service matter – weightage= There is a clear distinction between weightage given for years of service rendered by an employee for purposes of promotion and weightage given for years of service rendered by an employee for purposes of seniority in a grade. While the first concerns eligibility for promotion to a higher post, the other concerns seniority for being considered for promotion to a higher post. = we see no occasion for interfering with the view taken by the High Court to the effect that the grant of retrospective seniority to Supervisors on their appointment as Junior Engineers violates Article 14 of the Constitution. The weightage of service given to the Supervisors can be taken advantage of only for the purpose of eligibility for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. The weightage cannot be utilized for obtaining retrospective seniority over and above the existing Junior Engineers.- It has been noted therein that the grant of retrospective promotions and seniority was accepted by this Court in four decisions while grant of retrospective seniority was held to be ultra vires in five decisions.- Be that as it may, the pendency of a similar matter before a larger Bench has not prevented this Court from dealing with the issue on merits. Even on earlier occasions, the pendency of the matter before the larger Bench did not prevent this Court from dealing with the issue on merits. Indeed, a few cases including Pawan Pratap Singh were decided even after the issue raised in Asis Kumar Samanta was referred to a larger Bench. We, therefore, do not feel constrained or precluded from taking a view in the matter.
published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=40513 Page 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1712-1713 OF 2002 P. Sudhakar Rao & Ors. …..Appellants Versus U. Govinda Rao & Ors. …..Respondents J U D G M E N T Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. There is a clear distinction between weightage given for years … Continue reading
Mining lease – cancellation – When the litigation raised by original lessee ends in abatement, and after giving lease to third party, the legal heirs of original lessee can not claim any rights for renewal of lease or any rights conferred by the virtue of orders of high court which passed infavour of deceased with out knowledge, after the lapse of 14 years and the Delhi Highcourt has no jurisdiction over the mines of M.P. and over the orders of M.P. High court =In view of the aforesaid fact, we hold that after the death of the original lessee, Rajendra Nath Bhaskar, all rights come to an end and the first respondent or any other legal heir(s) were neither entitled to continue with the lease nor entitled for renewal of lease. The Original Lessee died on 7th September, 1982 during the pendency of Miscellaneous Petition No. 805/81 and much before the final order dated 16th July, 1986 passed in the said case by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. In the absence of petition for substitution of legal heirs, the said case got abated. The legal heirs including the first respondent cannot derive the advantage of the order dated 16th July, 1986, which was inadvertently passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in absence of knowledge of death of the original petitioner/lessee.= Admittedly, the third party rights were created in the meantime in favour of the Mining Corporation pursuant to the order of Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 16th July, 1986. The order passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court was not challenged in any appeal.= failed to decide the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the appeal against the order passed in favour of the Mining Corporation which was passed pursuant to the direction of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. In this background, it was not desirable for the Delhi High Court to entertain the writ petition. Even though the revisional order was passed by the Central Government, the Delhi High Court ought to have asked the first respondent to move before the Madhya Pradesh High Court for appropriate relief. In view of our findings given in the preceding paragraph, the order dated 21st September, 2010 passed by the Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi and the impugned order dated 20th April, 2011 passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court cannot be upheld. They are accordingly set aside. Both the appeals are allowed but there shall be no order as to costs.
published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=40494 Page 1 -1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No. 4950 of 2013 (arising out of SLP(C)No.13053 of 2011) M.P. STATE MINING CORPORATION LTD. … APPELLANT Versus SANJEEV BHASKAR & ORS. … RESPONDENTS With Civil Appeal No. 4951 of 2013 (arising out of SLP(C)No.29421 of 2011) J U D G M E N T SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. Leave granted. These two appeals are preferred by the appellants M.P. State Mining Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Mining Corporation”) and the State of Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the “State”) against the common judgment dated 20th April, 2011 passed by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in LPA No. 742 of 2010 with LPA No. 284 of 2011. By its impugned judgment, the Division Bench dismissed … Continue reading
absence of valid sanction from the competent authority,= Accordingly, the High Court quashed the prosecution of the accused being without valid sanction and, while doing so, observed that the State Government of Uttarakhand shall be at liberty to prosecute the accused after obtaining valid sanction from the State Government of Uttar Pradesh.- It was contended before the High Court that the accused being an employee of an undertaking of the State Government of Uttar Pradesh, the State Government of Uttarakhand is not competent to grant sanction. This submission found favour with the High Court. The High Court held that the accused being an employee of an undertaking of the State Government of Uttar Pradesh and having been repatriated to his parent department, it is the State Government of the Uttar Pradesh which is competent to remove him and to grant necessary sanction. “19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution. (1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 7,10,11,13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction,-……….. (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) xxx xxx xxx (c)in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office.” We are told by Ms. Srivastava that the request of the State Government of Uttarakhand for sanction of prosecution of the accused is still pending before the State Government of Uttar Pradesh. Hence, we deem it expedient that the latter takes decision on the request so made, if already not taken, within 8 weeks from the date of communication of this order. It is made clear that we are not expressing any opinion in regard to the merit of the request made by the State Government of Uttarakhand and it shall be decided by the State Government of Uttar Pradesh on its own merit in accordance with law. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Chief Secretary of the State Government of Uttar Pradesh for appropriate action forthwith. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal and it is dismissed accordingly with the aforesaid observation.
Page 1 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 459 OF 2013 (@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No. 1593 of 2007) STATE OF UTTARAKHAND … APPELLANT VERSUS YOGENDRA NATH ARORA …RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J. Yogendra Nath Arora (hereinafter referred to as … Continue reading
the claim of the petitioners belonging to ‘Thakar, Scheduled Tribe’ was rejected.= the certificate issued in favour of Dilip Pandurang Pawar would be of no assistance to the petitioners as the documents discovered by the Vigilance Cell relating to local school register from 1st August, 1890 to 27th June, 1941 clearly proved that The conclusions recorded by the Scrutiny Committee are reasonable and fully supported by the material placed on record. Therefore, the conclusions reached by the Scrutiny Committee, and affirmed by the High Court cannot be said to be either perverse or based on no evidence. In view of the above, we find no merit in both the Special Leave Petitions. Accordingly, both the special leave petitions are dismissed.
Page 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.3910 of 2008 POURNIMA SURYAKANT PAWAR Petitioner(s) :VERSUS: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS Respondent(s) WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.11376 of 2010 RANI DATTATRAY PAWAR @ RANI UMESH SHINDE Petitioner(s) :VERSUS: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS Respondent(s) O R D E … Continue reading
Customs Act,- “28. Notice for payment of duties, interest, etc. = whether duty on the supply and receipt of furnace oil and electricity respectively was required to be paid. The Development Commissioner, referring to a circular dated 12.10.1999 of the Ministry of Commerce, said as follows: – “They are procuring surplus power from their sister concern M/s. Uniworth Ltd. (Unit- 1, LOP dated 31.01.1989) under Permission No. 248(93) dated 01.11.1994 and the unit transferred 2590.30 KL of furnace oil to M/s. Uniworth Ltd. (Unit- 1) for their captive power consumption. No permission is required from this office for duty free import/ procurement of POL products for captive power consumption. It is further to clarify as per the Exim Policy provision, one EOU may sell/ transfer surplus power to another EOU duty free in terms of Ministry of Commerce Letter No. 1/1/98-EP dated 12.10.1999 (sic)” [Emphasis supplied] The relevant portion of the Ministry of Commerce Letter No.1/98-EP is extracted below: “2. No duty is required to paid (sic) on sale of surplus power from an EOU/EPZ unit to another EOU/EPZ unit. Development Commissioner of EPZ concerned would be informed in writing for such supply and proper account of consumption of raw material would be maintained by the supplying unit for calculation of NFEP.” = Yet, the appellant received a show cause notice from the Commissioner of Customs, Raipur, demanding duty for the period during which the appellant imported furnace oil on behalf of Uniworth Ltd. = in order to attract the proviso to Section 11- A(1) it must be alleged in the show-cause notice that the duty of excise had not been levied or paid by reason of fraud, collusion or willful misstatement or suppression of fact on the part of the assessee or by reason of contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or of the Rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duties by such person or his agent. There is no such averment to be found in the show cause notice. There is no averment that the duty of excise had been intentionally evaded or that fraud or collusion had been practiced or that the assessee was guilty of wilful misstatement or suppression of fact. In the absence of any such averments in the show-cause notice it is difficult to understand how the Revenue could sustain the notice under the proviso to Section 11- A(1) of the Act.’ = the show cause notice must put the assessee to notice which of the various omissions or commissions stated in the proviso is committed to extend the period from six months to five years. That unless the assessee is put to notice the assessee would have no opportunity to meet the case of the Department. It was held: …There is considerable force in this contention. If the department proposes to invoke the proviso to Section 11-A(1) , the show-cause notice must put the assessee to notice which of the various commissions or omissions stated in the proviso is committed to extend the period from six months to 5 years. Unless the assessee is put to notice, the assessee would have no opportunity to meet the case of the department. The defaults enumerated in the proviso to the said sub-section are more than one and if the Excise Department places reliance on the proviso it must be specifically stated in the show-cause notice which is the allegation against the assessee falling within the four corners of the said proviso….” = the burden of proof of proving mala fide conduct under the proviso to Section 28 of the Act lies with the Revenue; that in furtherance of the same, no specific averments find a mention in the show cause notice which is a mandatory requirement for commencement of action under the said proviso; and that nothing on record displays a willful default on the part of the appellant, we hold that the extended period of limitation under the said provision could not be invoked against the appellant. 27. In view of the afore-going discussion, the appeal is allowed and the decisions of the authorities below are set aside, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
REPORTABLE |IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA | |CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION | |CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6060 OF 2003 | | | |M/S. UNIWORTH TEXTILES LTD. |— |APPELLANT | |VERSUS | |COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR |— |RESPONDENT | J U D G M E N T D.K. JAIN, J. 1. This … Continue reading
It is well settled principle of law that where a relief is claimed in respect of compensation for wrong to, immoveable property situated within jurisdiction of different Courts, the suit may be instituted in any court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any portion of the property is situated.
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI (1) REVISION PETITION NO. 3117 OF 2012 (From the order dated 28-05-2012 in Appeal No. 964 to 998/2011 of the State Commission, Haryana) Cosmos Infra Engineering India Ltd. (Previously known as Cosmos Builders & Promoters Ltd.) … Petitioner (s) Versus Sameer Saksena … Respondent (s) (2) REVISION PETITION NO. 3247 OF 2012 … Continue reading
advocatemmmohan 