L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
A. Satyanarayana & Ors vs S. Purushotham & Ors

3. Respondents herein were Private Secretaries (PSs) of the Secretaries of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Appellants of the Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.10137 of 2007 are the Section Officers (SOs) working in the Secretariat of the Government of Andhrapradesh.

The total number of posts in the cadre of Sections Officers was 365. Indisputably, 10 PSs attached to the Secretaries of the Government of Andhra Pradesh have to undergo training for a period of two years as a SO. The number of PSs at a given point of time was 25. The promotional channel to the post of Assistant Secretaries was the SO.

On or about 16.6.1971, GOMs No.58 was issued whereby and whereunder Andhra Pradesh General Services class XXVIII was constituted. SOs of different departments including Law, Finance Management as also of any other department were put in different categories. However, in view of the fact that the PSs were not having any promotional channel or avenue for further promotion, with a view to obtain suggestions so as to avoid stagnation in service, the Government of Andhra Pradesh constituted a Committee known as B.N. Raman Committee. The said Committee submitted its report making its recommendations, pursuant whereto and in furtherance whereof, G.O. No.538 was issued on 6.11.1982 inserting Rule 3B in the Rules, which is to the following effect :

(iii) By promotion of Accounts Officers

(iv) If the State Government so direct by transfer from among full members and approved probationers of any other service which the State Government may specify.

Although mere chance of promotion is not a fundamental right, but right to be considered therefor is. In that view of the matter, any policy whereby all promotional avenues to be promoted in respect of a category of employees for all time to come cannot be nullified and the same would be hit by Article 16 of the Constitution of India.

30. We are, therefore, of the opinion that whereas ordinarily the ratio should not be disturbed, the same should not lead the court to a conclusion that such a policy has to be accepted although it takes away the right of a class of employees.

32. A statutory rule, it is a trite law, must be made in consonance with constitutional scheme.

33. Applying the said principle, we are of the opinion that the impugned Government Orders cannot be sustained. They are set aside accordingly. Appeals are allowed with costs. Costs assessed at Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only.)
M/S. Super Poly Fabriks Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Punjab

2. The factual background leading to the said question may briefly be noticed.

4. An appeal preferred thereagainst by the appellant was dismissed by the appellate authority by a judgment and order dated 15.2.2005. A further appeal preferred by the appellant before the Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal has also been dismissed.

14. Unfortunately, the appellant did not appear before the assessing authority. He also did not appear before the appellate authority. The appellate authority in its order dated 15.2.2005, inter alia, noticed :

It is also responsible for collection of tax.

20. Whether in the aforementioned situation, the appellant has incurred any liability to pay service tax or not has not been determined. Its principal activities, as indicated hereinbefore, have not been determined.

21. It is true that the appellant has not appeared before the assessing authority or the appellate authority.

However, keeping this in view, we are of the opinion, that the interest of justice would be subserved if the matter is remitted to the assessing authority with liberty to the parties to adduce such evidence as may be found necessary for determining the issue(s).

Appellant, however, shall not take any adjournment before the assessing authority and shall render all cooperation with it in the matter of determination of the question.

22. The impugned orders are set aside including the order of penalty with the aforementioned directions. Appeal is allowed to the aforementioned extent with no orders as to costs.
Om Parkash Batish vs Ranjit @ Ranbir Kaur And Others

4. On or about 30th June, 1996, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, Ram Lal, suffered an accident coming in contact with a high tension electrical wire passing over the roof of the said M/s. Chandrika Textiles. He suffered injuries as a result thereof. He was shifted to the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Research, Chandigarh, where his statement was recorded. He expired on 6th July, 1996.

5. On the premise that the said Ram Lal was a 'workman' under the appellant, a proceeding was initiated by the Workmen Compensation Commissioner under the Act. In the said proceeding the parties adduced their respective evidences. One of the contentions raised by the appellant was that the accident took place when the said Ram Lal was on the roof of the said textile mills and that he had not been working under him. It was, however, accepted that he had been working for sometime with the appellant for carrying out repair works. It was furthermore urged that a casual employee would not be a 'workman' within the meaning of the provisions of the said Act.

i) the workman must not be employed as a casual workman ;

ii) his employment must be in connection with the employer's trade and business.

Even otherwise, working in a residential house does not satisfy the requirements of law.

26. For the reasons abovementioned the impugned judgment cannot be sustained, which is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed with no order as to cost. However, the amount paid to the respondents by the appellant, if any, shall not be recovered.
Smt. Heena Kausar vs Competent Authority

3. Appellant herein is wife of one Iqbal Mohammed Memon. An order of detention was passed against him under the provisions of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PINDPS Act) by the State of Marharashtra. Allegedly, both the appellant and her husband left India in or about the year 1991. Appellant has not yet come back to India. Her husband admittedly had not been taken incustody pursuant to the order of detention. Admittedly again, Appellant has several properties in her name. A proceeding was initiated against her in terms of Chapter V-A of the Act, wherefor, she was served with a show cause notice dated 9.5.1995 asking her to furnish the proof and/or source of income and/or the channels from which the assets being Flat Nos.501 and 502A along with stilt parking No.19 in Milton Apartments at Juhu Tara Road, Santacruz (W) had been acquired as also to show cause why the said properties should not be held to be "illegally acquired properties" and forfeited by the Central Government under the Act.

4. An appeal thereagainst was preferred before the Appellate Tribunal. By an order dated 10.2.1999, the properties were directed to be confiscated. A writ petition was filed by her before the Bombay High Court which was marked as Writ Petition No.1867 of 1999. The said writ petition was dismissed by a judgment and order dated 15.12.1999 insofar as the order of confiscation of flat No.501 and 502 and stilt parking in Milton Apartments were concerned. However, in regard to the confiscation of three bank accounts, the matter was remitted to the Appellate Tribunal for its decision.

The said application was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal by an order dated 20.6.2002. A writ petition was filed theragainst before the Bombay High Court which was marked as writ petition No.1283 of 2002. By reason of the impugned judgment, the said writ petition has been dismissed.

Classification is justified if it is not palpably arbitrary.

Indeed, the very idea of classification is that of inequality, so that it goes without saying that the mere fact of inequality in no manner determines the matter of constitutionality."

22. In view of the settled legal position as noticed above, we are of the opinion that no case has been made out for us to invoke Article 14 of the Constitution of India so as to hold that the proviso amended in the year 2001 shall also apply to the present category of cases. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee assessed to Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only)
Citibank N.A vs Geekay Agropack (P) Ltd. & Anr

JUDGMENT O R D E R CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2971 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 13130 of 2006) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2972 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 13531 of 2006) State Bank of Mysore .... Appellant Versus Geekay Agropack (P) Ltd. & Anr. .... Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2973 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 5203 of 2007) Geekay Agropack (P) Ltd. .... Appellant Versus State Bank of Mysore & Anr. .... Respondents

5. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeals are that on 21.4.1994 ASK Ingredients Inc. of USA placed a purchase order with Geekay for supply of 1,110 Kgs. of Oleoresin Capsicum and 925 Kgs. of Red Chillies seed okl. For the export of these goods on 11.5.1994 Geekay furnished the necessary documents such as, bill of lading, invoice, bill of exchange, details of the purchaser to the State Bank of Mysore alongwith a covering letter (Collection Order) according to which Citibank N.A. was required to collect the proceeds from the purchaser ASK Ingredients Inc. On 25.5.1994 State Bank of Mysore sent two sets of all the documents to Citibank N.A., New York for collection. As both the Banks failed to collect the sale proceeds from the purchaser, Geekay filed a complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka at Bangalore for recovering the value of goods with interest and expenses amounting to Rs. 14,37,000/-. By judgment and order dated 30.4.1997, the State Commission dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved against the order dated 30.4.1997 of the State Commission, the complainant Geekay filed an appeal before the National Commission.

9. The appeal filed by Geekay for not getting adequate compensation for the total amount of loss incurred by it is misconceived. For the recovery of total amount of loss, it is open for the appellant Geekay to file a civil suit before the appropriate Court which, we are informed has already been filed. The National Commission could have awarded compensation only for the deficiency of service only. The said compensation has been awarded by the National Commission. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere in the appeal filed by Geekay also. In the result, all these appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs insofar as proceedings before this Court are concerned
National Textile Corporation (M.P.) ... vs M.R. Jhadav

2. I hereby undertake that I shall not claim any payments from your management/ mills/ company on account of my Voluntary resignation consequent on my Voluntary Retirement other than those admissible under the aforesaid scheme of Voluntary Retirement.

5. Indisputably, administrative clearance in relation thereto was made but no decision taken by a competent committee in that behalf was communicated to the respondent. Indisputably, he at the material time was aged over 57 years.

6. Respondent on expiry of the said date, i.e., 31.07.2000, requested the appellant for being relieved from his post by a letter dated 19.09.2000.

7. According to the appellant, sufficient fund was not available with it for implementation of the scheme and to proceed with the request of the respondent for his offer to retire voluntarily in terms of the said Scheme. The General Manager in his letter dated 26.09.2000 addressed to the respondent, stated:

9. Indisputably, however, the retirement age of the employees of the appellant corporation was rolled back from 60 years to 58 years. The decision was taken by the CMD of the Holding Company which was approved by the Board of Directors of the Corporation; the procedures wherefor were specified as under:

The said writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of the said Court, by an order dated 8.03.2001, stating:

12. Questioning the validity of the said order, the respondent filed another writ petition before the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court praying inter alia for the following relief:

26. An offer for voluntary retirement must be made and accepted so long the relationship of an employer and employee continues, subject of course to the rules to the contrary. Such relationship would come to an end on the date on which the employee reaches his age of superannuation.

27. The contents of the letter dated 26.09.2000, therefore, indicate that although administrative approval had been granted but no final decision had been taken.

28. We, therefore, are of the opinion that in absence of the communication of the offer of the respondent, the respondent derived no legal right to obtain the benefits of the voluntary retirement scheme.

By reason of Clause 3.2 of the Scheme, the management reserved a right to accept or reject an employee's offer under the Scheme. The said right is absolute and is not hedged by any condition whatsoever. The procedure provided for acceptance also postulates that not only the offer has to be accepted, an order is required to be issued that the post falling vacant in all cases shall stand abolished simultaneously. Issuance of such an order, simultaneously with acceptance of resignation, therefore, plays an important role. Admittedly, no such order was also issued by the appellant.

32. For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained and is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. No costs.
Correspondent, St. Michael vs V.N. Karpaga Mary & Ors

4. The State, however, issued a Government Order dated 16.9.1994 raising the qualification of a teacher, inter alia, stating :

There shall be four subject teachers to handle Tamil, English, Mathematics, Science and Social Science. The Headmaster shall handle one of the five subjects."

On the plea that the respondent did not hold the requisite qualifications in terms of the said GOMs dated 16.9.1994, his services were terminated by the appellant by an order dated 6.1.1995 with effect from 22.12.1994.

16. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice will be subserved if the quantum of back wages is confined to Rs.75% for the total period the respondent remained out of service.

17. Appeal is allowed to the aforementioned extent. This order is being passed keeping in view the fact that the respondent has already been reinstated in service. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Mumbai vs Boc (I) Ltd.

1. The present appeals have been filed by the revenue under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944(for short 'the Act') against the judgment and final order dated April 4,2002 passed by Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Tribunal, Eastern Bench, Kolkatta (for short 'the Tribunal') in final order No. A-507, 508/KOL/2002 dated 04.04.2002 in appeals No. E/R-312, 313 of 2001, wherein the Tribunal has allowed the assessee's appeals relying upon a judgment of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Ammonia Supply Co. v. CCE, New Delhi 2001(45) RLT 271, in which the Tribunal has held that there was no packing/re-packing, labeling/relabeling or any other activity to make the product marketable.

3. The Joint Commissioner adjudicating the case confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty of rupees one lac on the firm and further penalty of rupees one lac on the Business Manager of the firm. On appeal filed by the respondent, Commissioner(Appeals) confirmed the order of the adjudicating authority. Thereafter the respondent filed an appeal before the Tribunal which has been accepted by the impugned order. It was held that the respondent was not involved in the manufacturing activity and in fact no manufacture was carried out by the respondent. Note 10 of Chapter 28 of the Central Excise Tariff reads:

6. We respectfully agree with the view taken by this court in the case of Jhonson & Jhonson Ltd. (supra) and following the same, dismiss the appeals leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Gobind Ram Sharma vs Pramod Kumar Singhania & Ors

The property in suit belonged to one Ram Chandra Singhania. He had four sons, namely, Chhedilal, Madan Lal, Ram Awtar and Haridwar. Madan Lal and Ram Awtar were the original plaintiffs. Indisputably, on or about 25.7.1995, Haridwar - original defendant No.2, purported to have executed a deed of gift in favour of the appellant herein. The original plaintiffs filed a suit, inter alia, for a declaration that the said deed of gift was void. They in support of their plea, inter 2 alia, raised a contention that there had been a family arrangement in the year 1950 as also in the year 1954. The said suit was dismissed by the learned Trial Judge holding that the deed of gift was legally binding on the plaintiff. The appeal preferred thereagainst was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Bettiah.

The discussion in the impugned judgment had thus not been kept confined to the question of law which, in our opinion, was beyond the limited jurisdiction of the High Court which it exercises in terms of Section 100 of CPC.

For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for consideration thereof afresh and for formulating substantial question of law, if any, arising therein. The appeal is disposed of accordingly Keeping in view the fact that the matter is an old one, we would request the High Court to consider the desirability of disposing of the matter as expeditiously as possible.

..........................J (S.B. SINHA) ..........................J (LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA) NEW DELHI, APRIL 24, 2008.
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Meerut vs Motherson Sumi Systems Ltd. & Others

JUDGMENT O R D E R CIVIL APPEAL NOS.7122-7124 OF 2002 M/s.Motherson Sumi Systems Ltd., respondent No.1 herein (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent') is a manufacturer of wiring harnesses. The manufacture is carried out according to specific orders of automotive and air conditioning industry, against specific contracts. In some cases the appellant received certain component parts of wiring harness, free of charge, from their buyers. These components were also incorporated in the wiring harness. In such cases, the value of the free supply component parts were not added to the price of wiring harnesses while fixing their assessable value and paying excise duty on them. Appellant searched the premises of the respondent and came to know that the respondent was not paying duty on the free supplies received by it from their buyers and thus suppressed the information with the intention to evade payment of duty.

By his order dated 27th February, 2001, Commissioner confirmed the demanded duty and also imposed a penalty of the same amount and further penalty of Rs.5 lacs and Rs.7 lacs on the Managing Director and DGM(Marketing) of the respondent's company. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Commissioner, respondents filed appeal before the Tribunal. The point on merits was not gone into by the Tribunal but on the point of limitation the case was decided in favour of the assessee.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and especially in view of the fact that the point on merits is concluded against the revenue and in favour of the assessee by a judgment of this court in the case of International Auto Ltd.(supra), we dismiss these appeals filed by the revenue without going into the question of limitation. The Appeals are dismissed accordingly.
M/S. G.T.C.Industries Ltd vs Collector Of Central Excise & Ors

1897/1992 The CEGAT after considering the application under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 seeking waiver of the pre-deposit of the Duty and penalty demanded, dismissed the same and directed the Petitioner and the job workers to deposit the same. Since the Petitioner did not comply with the said order, the Appeals filed by them were dismissed for non- compliance of the above order on 15.7.1994 and 7.2.1996 (Copies enclosed) 1898/1992 The CEGAT confirmed the demand against the The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the Petitioner vide order dated 4.7.1997. The Petitioner Appeal bearing No. 5134- thereafter filed Civil Appeal No. 5134-35/97 before the 35/97 vide order dated 12.9.97 for want of pre-

8. We are, therefore, of the opinion that interest of justice would be subserved if the impugned judgments are set aside and the matters are remitted back to the High Court for consideration thereof afresh. We direct accordingly.

9. The appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned observations and direction.

10. However, as these matters are pending for a long time, we would request the High Court to consider the desirability of disposing of the writ petitions, filed by the appellants, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months 5 from the date of communication of this order. All contentions of the parties shall remain open.

..........................J (S.B. SINHA) ..........................J (LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA) NEW DELHI, APRIL 25, 2008.