//
archives

Supreme court

This tag is associated with 229 posts

National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPCA) under the DPCO,1995, – the Drugs (Prices Control) Order (for short, ‘DPCO’) – Fixation of prices /Revised prices of the drugs manufactured & stocked by company by notification – Whether operative in respect of all sales subsequent to 15 days from the date of the notification by the Government in the official gazette/receipt of the price fixation order by the manufacturer – Karnataka High court held that it applies from the date of notification -that revised prices will not apply to the existing stocks but only to new batches of drugs and formulations to be manufactured after 15 days of the notification cannot be accepted. The provisions of the DPC Order are clear that prices should be revised within 15 days even in regard to the formulations which were manufactured prior to the date of notification or those manufactured within 15 days from the date of notification. – Delhi high court held that it applies only after 15 days of notification – Apex court held that Karnataka High court view is correct and Delhi High court view is incorrect – held that it applies only from the date of Notification to all sales & stocks = GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited (Formerly known as SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals (India) Limited) … Appellant Versus Union of India & Ors. … Respondents = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41053

National  Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPCA) under the DPCO,1995, – the  Drugs      (Prices  Control)  Order  (for  short,  ‘DPCO’)  – Fixation of prices /Revised prices of the drugs manufactured & stocked by company by notification – Whether operative in respect of all sales subsequent  to 15 days from the date of the notification by the Government in the  official gazette/receipt of the price … Continue reading

Jurisdiction of TDSAT -Challenge to the Regulations framed under sec.36 of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act for rapid developement of Telecommunication – Apex court held that TDSAT has no jurisdiction – view taken by TDSAT and the Delhi High Court does not represent correct law. – aggrieved person shall be free to challenge the validity of the regulations framed under Section 36 of the Act by filing appropriate petition before the High Court. = Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited … Appellant versus Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and others … Respondents = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41056

Jurisdiction of TDSAT -Challenge to the Regulations framed under sec.36 of Telecom     Regulatory Authority of India Act for rapid developement of Telecommunication – Apex court held that TDSAT has no jurisdiction – view taken by TDSAT and  the Delhi High Court does not represent correct law. – aggrieved person shall be free to challenge  the  validity of the … Continue reading

Land Acquisition Act – sec.30 & sec.18 references -Collector award 1985 Sec.30 disposed in 1991- with in 6 weeks applied for sec.18 reference – Lower court awarded enhanced compensation – High court held that the reference was barred by limitation – Apex court set aside the order of High court – after disposal of sec.30 only sec.18 arises – as they applied with in 6 weeks – reference was not barred by limitation = MADAN & ANR. … APPELLANT (S) VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA … RESPONDENT (S) = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41051

Land Acquisition Act – sec.30  & sec.18 references -Collector award 1985 Sec.30 disposed in 1991- with in 6 weeks applied for sec.18 reference – Lower court awarded enhanced compensation – High court held that the reference was barred by limitation – Apex court set aside the order  of High court – after disposal of sec.30 only sec.18 … Continue reading

Service matter – Appointment for the post of District judge – whether a public prosecutor is eligible for the post of Judiciary – Apex court held yes = Lakshmana Rao Yadavalli & Anr. …..Appellants. Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. …..Respondents = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41050

Service matter – Appointment for the post of District judge – whether a public     prosecutor is eligible for the post of Judiciary – Apex court held yes =       whether   a   Public   Prosecutor/Assistant    Public           Prosecutor/District  Attorney/Assistant  District   Attorney/Deputy       … Continue reading

When C.B.I. may be directed to enquiry – Kidnap of a minor girl by Forest Officials – only statements of Forest department were recorded but not the eye witnesses and general public who protested the Forest Officials while taking minor girl and another woman who escaped from Forest Geep – Forest officials admitted the galata took place but denied kidnap/forceful taken over the Rajanandini – 14 years minor girl – Habeaus Corpus – modified and Apex court directed for C.B.I enquiry = Alsia Pardhi …. Appellant(s) Versus State of M.P. & Ors. …. Respondent(s) = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41047

When C.B.I. may be directed to enquiry – Kidnap of a minor girl by Forest Officials – only     statements of Forest department were recorded  but not the eye witnesses and general public who protested the Forest Officials while taking minor girl and another woman who escaped from Forest Geep – Forest officials admitted the … Continue reading

Scope of sec.301 and Sec.311 Cr.P.C. – Duty of court / Public prosecutor = Victim/ complainant has got limited scope to participate in criminal trial as state take over the case – When latches and lacunas were brought to the notice before the court or Public prosecutor by him/her , it is their duty to consider the same instead of reject the same as not maintainable under sec.301 Cr. P.C. – When an official Witness who conducted Test Identification parade – Being a Judicial Officer – how can he be permitted to depose in his chief examination contradicting his report/beyond his report which was not found in his record produced – is it not a duty of court or the public prosecutor to cross examine that witness statement made deliberately with out any basis infavour of Accused = Apex court set aside the orders of Lower court and High court and directed the lower court to recall the witness and made specific cross examination about the specific point deposed by him with out any record or beyond his record test identification report and gave an opportunity to file written submissions at the time of arguments = Sister Mina Lalita Baruwa …. Appellant VERSUS State of Orissa and others …. Respondent = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41046

Scope of sec.301 and Sec.311 Cr.P.C. – Duty of court / Public prosecutor = Victim/     complainant has got limited scope to participate in criminal trial as state take over the case – When latches and lacunas were brought to the notice before the court or Public prosecutor by him/her , it is their duty to consider the … Continue reading

Sec.138 ,139 and sec. 118 of N.I.Act – Burden of proof – when the complainant not able to say the date when the amount was given – when failed to produce source of income – when gave contradictory statement about filling of cheque whether by accused or by himself – when there is no pleading that cheque was filled with the consent of accused – mere lack of issuing a reply notice and mere non putting a suggestion that the cheque was a blank cheque are not countable points to over throw the positive admissions made by the complainant – Lower court rightly dismissed the complaint – High court wrongly with out assigning valid reasons convict the accused – Apex court set aside the high court orders = John K. Abraham …. Appellant VERSUS Simon C. Abraham & Another …. Respondents = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41045

 Sec.138 ,139 and sec. 118 of N.I.Act – Burden of proof  – when the complainant not able to     say the date when the amount was given – when failed to produce source of income – when gave contradictory statement about filling of cheque whether by accused or by himself – when there is … Continue reading

Or. 47 rule 1 C.P.C. = Review of it’s own judgement basing on fresh documents & fresh thoughts – not correct = Or.1, rule 10 impleading a party with out asking for any relief against him is maintainable as the very purpose of impleading is only for having full and final settlement and to avoid multiple proceedings = N.ANANTHA REDDY Petitioner(s) VERSUS ANSHU KATHURIA & ORS. Respondent(s) = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41043

 Or. 47 rule 1 C.P.C. = Review of it’s own judgement basing on fresh documents & fresh thoughts – not correct – Review of it’s judgement arose only in case of patent errors occurred in earlier judgement but not on fresh out look of the case  – High court confirmed the order of lower court when … Continue reading

By reason of the Limitation Act, 1963 the legal position as was obtaining under the old Act underwent a change. In a suit governed by Article 65 of the 1963 Limitation Act, the plaintiff will succeed if he proves his title and it would no longer be necessary for him to prove, unlike in a suit governed by Articles 142 and 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908, that he was in possession within 12 years preceding the filing of the suit. On the contrary, it would be for the defendant so to prove if he wants to defeat the plaintiff’s claim to establish his title by adverse possession. =Md. Mohammad Ali (Dead) By LRs. RESPONDENT: Sri Jagadish Kalita & Ors. = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=19379

By reason of the Limitation Act, 1963 the legal position as was obtaining under the old Act underwent a change. In a suit governed by Article 65 of the 1963 Limitation Act, the plaintiff will succeed if he proves his title and it would no longer be necessary for him to prove, unlike in a … Continue reading

Market fee on castor seeds purchased by company in the market area of Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Baroda (for short “APMC”) – Apex court held as the company bought the seeds , it is not entitled for any exemption for fee as it is agriculture product = The respondent-Company, manufacturing castor oil from out of the castor seeds purchased by it comes under the jurisdiction of the market area of the APMC and therefore, it is liable for paying the market fees/cess for the trading activities carried out by it in the market area. APMC levied market fee on the castor seeds bought by the Company on the basis that castor seeds were brought within the market area of APMC. = AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE ……APPELLANT Versus BIOTOR INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR. ….RESPONDENTS = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41040

Market fee on castor seeds purchased by company in the market area of Agricultural Produce     Market Committee, Baroda (for short “APMC”) – Apex court held as the company bought the seeds , it is not entitled for any exemption for fee as it is agriculture product =    The respondent-Company, manufacturing castor oil … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,886,956 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com