L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Vikram Cement & Anr vs State Of M.P. & Ors

The bare minimum facts which are required to be mentioned to decide this appeal are recapitulated, in brief, hereinbelow:

As the Notification was issued only in May 1999 and it realted to the past period, i.e. 1.5.1997 to 30.09.1997 and the entry tax is payable at the point of entry of the goods into the State, as and when the appellants were bringing the aforesaid raw material into the State of Madhya Pradesh, they had been paying the entry tax. During the period 1.5.1997 to 30.09.1997, they had paid the entry tax at the rate which was prevalent at that time, though reduced to 1% vide the Notification dated 4.5.1999. In this manner, according to the appellants, though they had paid the entry tax at the higher rate, which was now reduced to 1% vide the aforesaid Notification, they became entitled to get the refund of the excess amount paid, but were still deprived of that refund because of the aforesaid Explanation.

For all the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the impugned Explanations in the Notifications dated 4.5.1999 and 5.7.1999 are unconstitutional. We, accordingly, allow the appeal and quash the said Explanations.

No costs.

MARCH 17, 2015
M/S. Satnam Overseas Ltd vs Commnr. Of Central Excise, New Delhi

The defence putforth by the assessee to the show cause notice issued by the Additional Commissioner was that the aforesaid process does not amount to `manufacture' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It was also argued that, in any case, the product was not classifiable under Heading 2108 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as claimed by the Revenue but it should be covered under Heading 11.01. That Heading applies to products of the milling industry, including flours, groats, meal and grains of cereals, and flour, meal or flakes of vegetables on which nil duty is payable. It was, thus, contended that in no case the assessee was under any obligation to pay the duty on the aforesaid process.

What is to be highlighted is that even after the betel nut which had been cut to different sizes and had undergone the process, the Court did not treat it as 'manufacture' within the meaning of Sec.2(f) of the Act on the ground that the end product was still a betel nut and there was no change in the essential character to that article even when it was the result of treatment, labour and manipulation, inasmuch as even after employing the same it had not resulted in the manufacture of a new product as the end product continued to retain its original character.

And further:

This appeal, accordingly, succeeds and is allowed. The order of the CEGAT as well as demand of excise duty by the Revenue are hereby set aside.

No costs.

Date: 18.3.2015.

(with appln. (s) for ex-parte stay and office report) Date : 18/03/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
Hmt Watches Ltd vs M.A. Abida & Anr

3. Succinctly stated, the appellant filed criminal complaint cases against respondent - M.A. Abida stating that as many as 57 cheques dated 28.09.2006 were issued by her in discharge of outstanding liability towards the complainant/appellant (HMT Watches Ltd.). When the cheques were presented for collection the same were received back, dishonoured by bankers with the endorsement - "payment stopped by the drawer". Notice of demand dated 9.10.2006 was issued by the complainant to the respondent no.1 but she failed to make the payment of the amount mentioned in the cheques, i.e., total Rs.1,79,86,357/-. Instead, she sent reply to the notice disputing liability to pay. On this, complainant filed twenty criminal complaints mentioned above, against the respondent no.1 with regard to the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

4. The accused - M.A. Abida filed Criminal M.C. No. 2366 of 2008 and Criminal M.C. No. 2367 of 2008 challenging the proceedings initiated by the complainant on the ground that she was Re-Distribution Stockist (RDS) of watches manufactured by the appellant. The business with the appellant was done till September, 2003 on "cash and carry" basis. The accused further pleaded in the petitions filed before the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that after 2003 the appellant company used to collect cheques towards the amount covered by distinct invoices with respect to various consignments for securing payment of amount covered by the invoices.

In view of the law laid down by this Court as above, in the present case High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by giving its opinion on disputed questions of fact, before the trial court.

14. For the reasons as discussed above, we find that the High Court has committed grave error of law in quashing the criminal complaints filed by the appellant in respect of offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by accepting factual defences of the accused which were disputed ones. Such defences, if taken before trial court, after recording of the evidence, can be better appreciated.

15. Therefore, for the reasons, as discussed above, these appeals deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The impugned order dated 25.2.2004 passed by High Court of Kerala in Criminal M.C. Nos. 2366 of 2008 and 2367 of 2008 is hereby quashed. The trial court shall proceed with the trial in the criminal complaint cases. It is clarified that we have not expressed our opinion as to correctness of the defence pleas taken by the respondent no.1. No order as to costs.

March 19, 2015
Panna Lal & Ors vs State Of M.P

4. According to the prosecution, Panna Lal, Anandi Lal and Uday Singh i.e. appellant Nos.1, 2 and 3 herein are sons of Ranchhod. Said Ranchhod had one more son, namely Shankar, whose whereabouts were not known. The deceased Ramkunwarbai was wife of said Shankar. It is alleged that there was a dispute between the parties regarding shares in the land of Ranchhod. It is alleged that on 10.10.1995 at about 2030 hrs. said Ramkunwarbai along with Girdhari (PW-1), Satyanarayan (PW-2), Bhura (PW-3) and other persons went to collect the crop of soyabin which was already harvested. When this party was about 300 feet away from the disputed field, the accused party came armed with lathis, sword and other weapons of offence and obstructed them. It is further alleged that a dispute arose and accused party struck blows on the deceased Ramkunwarbai, who died instantaneously. Girdhari, Satyanarayan and Hariram also suffered injuries in the transaction/ altercation. Girdhari rushed to the Police Station Amjhera, District Dhar at about 2330 hrs and lodged FIR (Ext.P/1). Dr. R.L. Patidar (PW-8) examined the injured persons. The post-mortem on the body of Ramkunwarbai was performed by Dr. Ashutosh Sharma (PW-15), who found the following ante-mortem injuries:

9. We thus confirm the order of conviction and sentence passed by the courts below as against Appellant Nos.1, 2 and 3 and dismiss their appeal.

..............................J. (Dipak Misra) .............................J. (Uday Umesh Lalit) New Delhi, March 23, 2015 ITEM NO.1C COURT NO.12 SECTION IIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Criminal Appeal No(s). 1453/2009 PANNA LAL & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF M.P. Respondent(s) Date : 23/03/2015 This appeal was called on for pronouncement of judgment today.

For Appellant(s) Mr. Shashindra Tripathi, Adv.

Mr. Praveen Swarup, Adv.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit pronounced the non-reportable judgment of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra and His Lordship.

The appeal is dismissed insofar as appellant Nos. 1,2 and 3 are concerned. Insofar as appellant No.4 is concerned, the Court passed the following order in terms of the signed non-reportable judgment:
State Of Mp vs Nomi Singh & Anr

4. On the other hand, the case of the respondents (plaintiffs) is that the above mentioned land belonged to one Zamindar Srilal, who granted oral patta to Surjan Singh (father of respondent No. 1 Nomi Singh), and he was recorded as 'Maurusi Kashtkar' (hereditary tenant) in the revenue record. As such, on death of Surjan Singh, name of plaintiff Nomi Singh was entered in the revenue record as 'pakka krishak'. But, later it was found that the names of the plaintiffs were recorded in the column No. 12 of Khasra, i.e. in the column relating to entry of the encroachers. Hence, they filed suit in 1991 numbered as Suit No. 144A of 1991.

15. For the reasons, as discussed above, we find that the High Court has erred in law in allowing the second appeal and setting aside the decree passed by the first appellate court. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 30.5.2011, passed by the High Court in Second Appeal No. 256 of 2005 is set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court (VIII Additional District Judge, Gwalior, in Civil Appeal No. 5A of 2004), affirming judgment and decree passed by the V Civil Judge Class II, Gwalior, in Suit No. 189A of 2004, is restored. There shall be no order as to costs.

March 24, 2015.
Fortis Hospital Ltd vs Commr.Of Customs,Import

The appellant herein, which is the successor of M/s.Wockhardt Hospital and Heart Institute (referred to as the 'Institute' hereinafter) had a hospital at Bangalore. Sometime in the year 1990, the said Institute imported a Cardiac Catherization Laboratory (known as Angiography system) with its spares/accessories valued at Rs.1,14,23,471/-. The said Institute applied for exemption from payment of import duty taking shelter under the Notification No. 64/88-cus dated 01.03.1988. This notification provides for exemption on medical equipment imported against Custom Duty Exemption Certificate issued by the Director General of Health Services. Apart from the said certificate, there are certain other conditions which are mentioned in the notification that need to be satisfied to avail the exemption. These conditions are as under: -

The Institute was not charged any import duty as it had produced requisite certificate dated 11.02.1991 issued by the Director General of Health Services, New Delhi. After sometime, the Revenue authorities/respondent herein came to know that the Institute was committing breach of the aforesaid conditions, as it had not been providing free diagnostic treatment to at least 40 per cent of all its outdoor patients and it was also not giving free treatment to indoor patients having income of less than Rs.500 per month and for this purpose, it had not got 10 per cent hospital beds reserved for such patients. It resulted in issuance of show cause notice to the Institute. Pertinently, this show cause notice dated 12.01.2000 was issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as Act) and after stating that the aforesaid breach was allegedly committed by the appellant, in the show cause notice, it was proposed as under: -

In this manner, appeal was allowed holding that demand of duty was not legally sustainable and that part of the Order-in-Original passed by the adjudicating authority was set aside.

In view of the above, we cannot agree with the submission of Mr. Radhakrishnan that fine been "imposed" in the present case. The stipulation contained in the adjudicating order was only contingent in nature which contingency would have arisen only on exercising the option by the importer to pay fine in lieu of confiscation and to redeem the goods.

In this view of the matter the objection raised by the Centre that Section 28 of the Customs Act would be attracted is not sustainable."

Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court. We make it clear that it would still be open to the Department to take appropriate independent action against the appellant for payment of import duty, in case it is still within period of limitation.

[ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ] New Delhi;

March 24, 2015.
State Of H P And Ors vs Punra Devi

4. Brief facts of the case are that respondent Punra Devi was appointed on 13.8.2007 as Anganwari Helper in Anganwari Centre, Chori, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. There are two Anganwari Centres, namely, Anganwari Centre, Chori and Anganwari Centre, Hardeeppur, which fall within the limits of village panchayat Lagnru. Appellant No. 2, Director, Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, issued communication dated 10.5.2012 to all Child Development Project Officers (C.D.P.Os) of the State informing that in case the post of Anganwari Worker (AWW) falls vacant in any Anganwari Centre, the Anganwari Helper (AWH) working at the same centre can also be considered on priority basis for appointment to the post of AWW. Claiming the benefit of above communication, respondent submitted her application for the post of AWW in Anganwari Centre, Hardeeppur, to Child Development Project Officer (CDPO) Dehra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. She also made a representation to appellant No. 2 seeking her appointment on the above mentioned post. When her request was not accepted, she filed writ petition (CWP No. 7879 of 2012) before the High Court seeking following reliefs: -

7. Be it noted, Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) is a centrally sponsored flagship Scheme of the Government of India which envisages six services, i.e., supplementary nutrition, immunization, health check-up, referral services, pre-school non-formal education and nutrition and health education. The AWWs and AWHs are community based frontline honorary workers under the ICDS, and are central figure in helping the community as to the needs of their children by delivery of services under the Scheme. They are required to be appointed from the local community who come forward to render their services, on part- time basis in the area of child care and development. As per the guidelines, selections of AWWs and AWHs require that the women appointed for such services should be from local village and acceptable to the local community.

13. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders dated 6.3.2013 passed in CWP No. 7879 of 2012-H, and the order dated 23.5.2014 passed in CMP (M) No. 12086 of 2013 (in RPST 7126 of 2013), by the High Court are hereby set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.

March 24, 2015.
Pvr Limited vs State Of Karnataka & Ors

2. The writ petition was dismissed by a learned single judge of the High Court against which order the appellant had instituted Writ Appeal No.979 of 2006 (Cinema). The aforesaid writ appeal, on the grounds and reasons recorded in the order dated 16th November, 2006, was allowed in the following terms:

3. However, on 18th November, 2006, the matter was reconsidered by the Bench once again and the following order was passed:

10. It is the case of the appellant that the documentary films that it had been exhibiting are not produced or certified by the Films Division but are made and supplied by different private sources. The averments in the writ petition indicate that while the appellant was screening such documentary films obtained from private sources, a notice dated 4th March, 2005 was received by the appellant from the 2nd respondent requiring the appellant to pay an amount of Rs.7,33,200/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Thirty Three thousand and Two hundred only) to the respondent No.3 under Rule 35(c) of the Rules failing which appropriate legal action was stated to be in contemplation. On a clarification being sought by the appellant as to the basis of the charges leveled, the appellant was informed by the 2nd respondent that the said amount of Rs.7,33,200/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Thirty Three thousand and Two hundred only) was on account of outstanding payable to respondent No.3 since educational and documentary films were being obtained by the appellant from a private supplier and not from the respondent No.3. Thereafter, on exchange of further correspondences in the matter, order dated 2nd April, 2005 was issued by the 1st respondent which was followed by the Notice/Communication dated 11th April, 2005.

17. However, as the order of the Division Bench clearly states that the impugned later direction is only during the interregnum i.e. valid till such time that the Advisory Board is constituted, there can be no doubt that if at present there is a Advisory Board functioning the said direction must cease to remain in force and consequently the conditions incorporated in the licence of the appellant to the said effect will have to be deleted. We order accordingly and further direct that if the Advisory Board is functioning as on date it will be open to all concerned including the appellant to seek approval under the provisions of Rules 18, 19 and 20 of the Rules of the documentary films it intends to exhibit.

18. Consequently, the part of the impugned order passed on 18th November, 2006 in reversal of the main part of the order dated 16th November, 2006 stands set aside and Civil Appeal No.10091 of 2010 is allowed to the extent indicated above.

19. Civil Appeal No.10093 of 2010 filed by the Union of India is consequently dismissed whereas Civil Appeal No.10092 of 2010 stands disposed of in terms of the order passed in Civil Appeal No.10091 of 2010.

(N.V. RAMANA) NEW DELHI MARCH 25, 2015.
Ranbeer Singh (Dead) By Lrs vs State Of U.P.& Ors

2. The facts of the present case are that Shyamu, Karua and Vinod are sons of Balbir Singh and Balbir Singh is the elder brother of the complainant Ranbeer Singh. The deceased Pooran Singh was the son of the complainant Ranbeer Singh. Admittedly, there is pending criminal litigation between Ranbeer Singh and Balbir Singh, the two brothers. The pending criminal litigation relates to an incident 13 to 14 months prior to the incident in question in present case wherein Balbir Singh had fired at Ranbeer Singh with intention of killing him. The pending civil litigation related to some property between the two brothers. As per the case of the prosecution, on the date of the incident in the instant case i.e. 07-02- 2002, the complainant was irrigating his field along with his son Pooran Singh (the deceased) while the 7 year old son of Pooran Singh was sitting on the Mendh nearby. The four accused persons were irrigating their field, which was adjoining the field of the complainant, and while they were at the tubewell of their field, which is 100-150 yards away from the tubewell of the complainant's field, at around 4:45 pm, four accused persons came to the complainant making an exhortation "Aaj mauke par mil gaye hain. Inhe jaan se maar do aur maan lo ki mukdmein ka faisla ho gaya aur zameen humain mil gayi." (Today, they have met at an opportune time. Kill them and treat the litigation as decided and we got the land). Thereafter, the present three respondents Balbir Singh, Karua and Vinod held Pooran Singh and threw him on the ground and Shyamu made a shot with his gun from behind at the Pooran Singh. As this happened, the Complainant along with 7 year old grandson Ankit, ran away to save their life. On hearing the shouts of the complainant, the persons working in the nearby field saw the accused persons fleeing from the place of occurrence. The FIR was registered on the same day at 6:05 pm by the Complainant. During investigation the weapon being country made pistol of 315 bore was recovered from the field of the accused on the disclosure statement made by Shyamu.

5. The PW2 Ankit was 7 years old when the incident happened and 9 years old when his statement was recorded. He testified that he was sitting 11-12 feet away from where his grandfather and father were irrigating the field. He saw that Shyamu shot his father at the back of his head and before Shyamu shot, Balbir, Karua and Vinod pushed his father in the drain. Thereafter his grandfather carrying him in his lap, ran away from there.

12. On the basis of above discussion, we allow the present appeal. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court is restored.

March 27, 2015.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose pronounced the reportable judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit.

The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court is restored.

(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)
M/S. Vir Rubber Products P. Ltd vs Commnr. Of Central Excise, Mumbai-Iii

The appellant herein was engaged in the manufacture of certain articles from vulcanized rubber as bushes for use in the motor vehicles. Indubitably, the appellant is a Small Scale Industrial unit (hereinafter referred to as 'SSI' for short). The appellant has its own brand name "VIR" and has been manufacturing these products under the said brand name and supplying the same to various customers. In addition, the appellant was also having job orders from some automobile companies like Hindustan Motors, Kinetic Honda, etc. Insofar as orders for manufacture of spare parts placed by these automobile companies are concerned, on the said goods, the appellant had been putting the identification mark such as "HM", "PAL", "KH", etc. The goods which were supplied to these automobile companies used to be cleared by the appellant on payment of excise duty. However, in respect of manufacture of its own goods under the brand name "VIR", the appellant claimed SSI benefit in terms of Notification No. 1/93 which provides for exemption from payment of excise duty on fulfillment of certain conditions. It is admitted case that the appellant fulfils all the conditions mentioned in the aforesaid notification except one, in respect of which the dispute has arisen. This condition under the notification stipulates that the aggregate value of clearances in the preceding financial year should be less than Rs.3 crores. There is a lis as to whether the appellant fulfils this condition or not.

Once we come to the conclusion that in respect of those goods where brand name of other party is used on manufactured goods and that other party is not a SSI unit, exemption is not available, it would lead to inevitable result that the value of such goods cannot be added as well, while considering the value of the goods cleared by the assessee in the previous year.

The upshoot of the aforesaid discussion would be to hold that value of the goods meant for "HM", "PAL", "KH", etc. could not have been included while considering as to whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid Notification or not. Once that is excluded and the case is confined to the brand name 'VIR' which is the appellant's own brand name and in respect of which the appellant had claimed exemption, the value of goods cleared in the previous year was less than Rs.3 crores. Therefore, the appellant shall be entitled to the exemption under the said Notification.

This appeal is, accordingly, allowed, upsetting the order of CEGAT and the authorities below, with direction to give the appellant exemption of the aforesaid Notification for the year in question.

[ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ] New Delhi;

March 27, 2015