L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
M/S. Cipla Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

The Assistant Collector, by the order in original dated 28th February 1988, held that BMS was an excisable product and is classifiable under Chapter Heading 2913.00 upto 9.2.1987 and under Chapter Heading 2942.00 from 10.2.1987 onwards. The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the aforesaid order in original. The High Court, by its order dated 27th July 1988, quashed the said order and directed the Assistant Collector to decide the issue afresh. In another round of litigation, the product in question was held to be excisable and on appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court, the matter was remanded back to the Assistant Collector for passing a detailed order on the question whether the goods were excisable or not after affording due opportunity to the parties to lead their evidence. Pursuant to the said order, the C.A.NO.5793 OF 2002 .... (contd.)

The aforesaid order of the Assistant Collector was reviewed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, under Section 35E(2) of the Act and in pursuance to the said review, an appeal was filed before the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals) against the order in original.

- 6 -
Kanagavalliammal & Ors vs R. Balasubramanian

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

The High Court took the view that the E.P. No. 177 of 1995 which was filed on 10.11.1995 was continuation of earlier E.P. No. 369 of 1986 and other Execution Petitions. Therefore Section 4 of the Act is not applicable to EP No. 177 of 1995.

9. The High Court is not correct in its view that E.P. No. 177 of 1995 was a continuation of earlier EP No. 369 of 1986 and other Execution Petitions. In fact EP No.369 of 1986 was dismissed for default on 28.3.1994 and the E.P. No. 238 of 1994, filed to restore it, was dismissed as not pressed. Therefore, there was no Execution Petition. For that matter no application for recalling, or restoration of any EP was pending on the date of commencement of the Act.

10. That being so, the High Court was not justified in its view. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside. The E.P. No. 177 of 1995 having been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation was not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.

11. The appeal is allowed without any order as to costs.
M.A. Sattar & Ors vs State Of A.P

2. The deceased, Y. Penchal Reddy and accused No.1. P. Yellaiah along with several other persons had occupied some government land in Bhagat Singh Nagar and were residing in tenements that had been raised by them. A dispute had however arisen between the group represented by the deceased and that by P. Yellaiah with regard to the sale of plots. In the elections to the association, the deceased was elected as President and the group represented by P. Yellaiah was defeated. It appears that on account of the bitter relations between the two groups, one Mallaiah belonging to the group of the accused was killed in 1993 wherein the deceased was named as the main accused. He was however acquitted by the trial court. A few days prior to the present incident some violence had taken place and a meeting being held by the deceased was disturbed by the members belonging to the accused party. On 18th March, 1997 at 10.00 A.M., PW 1 Mohd. Hussain accompanied by the deceased was going to Chinthal and when they reached near Omkar Rice Mill, a group of four persons aged about 25 years came from the opposite direction and after putting chilly powder in the eyes of the deceased and PW 1, inflicted multiple stab injuries on the deceased. Mohd. Hussain PW 1 rushed the injured to the C.D.R. Hospital immediately but he was declared dead on arrival. He then went to the police station which was adjoining the hospital and gave a statement at about 11 A.M. which was recorded by PW 11 for offences punishable under Sections 341 and 302 of the I.P.C. On completion of the investigation, a charge under Section 302 read with 34 IPC was framed against the accused G. Raju ( A-4), Hari Lal (A-5), M.A. Sathar (A-6) and Shivaji (A-7) and under Section 302 read with 109 was framed against accused P. Yellaiah (A-1), K. Satyanarayana (A-2), and M. Ashok (A-3).

The appeal was accordingly dismissed and the judgment and order of the trial court was maintained. It is in these circumstances that the present appeals are before us by way of special leave.

8. It is also clear from the record that there appeared to be some enmity between the deceased and the group headed by P. Yellaiah (A-1) and though it has not been possible for the prosecution to bring evidence to show his involvement, but it has come in the evidence of PW 1 that three days prior to the incident, a meeting of all the colony members had been held wherein a decision had been taken that about 20 plots were to be sold to further develop the colony. It appears that this is the factor which precipitated the incident. We are, therefore, of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeals. They are accordingly dismissed.
M/S Parakh Foods Ltd vs State Of A.P. & Anr

3. The relevant facts of the case are that the appellant M/s Parakh Foods Ltd. (now Cargill Foods India Limited) is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The appellant is engaged in manufacture and sale of "Shaktimaan Refined Soyabean Oil", a food product covered under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and it sells and markets the said product throughout the country. On 23.12.2003, respondent No.2, the Food Inspector, District Mahboob Nagar, Andhra Pradesh visited the shop of M/s Md. Dilawar General & Oil Shop No.2-10-4, Old Gunj, Mahboob Nagar, being accused No.1 vendor in the complaint. Respondent No.2 found a carton containing 20 packets of "Shaktimaan Refined Soyabean Oil" kept for sale for human consumption. Respondent No.2 suspected the quality of oil to be adulterated and purchased three packets each containing 1litre oil and obtained cash receipt from the vendor. Thereafter, the packets were sent to the Public Analyst, State Food Laboratory, Nacharam, Hyderabad. The Public Analyst furnished his report on 31.01.2004 and opined that the label contains pictures of vegetables like cabbage, carrot, brinjal, capsicum, cauliflower, tomato and onions, which are in no way connected with soyabean oil and said that the pictures of vegetables on the label is an exaggeration of the quality of the product and hence violates Rule 37 D of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the "PFA Rules") and, therefore, is misbranded.

11. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed and the impugned finding of the High Court as regards misbranding and violation of Rule 37D of the PFA Rules is set aside.
Himalayan Institute Hospital Trust & ... vs Mohit Kumar & Ors

2. The following three litigations are pending before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench :

(3) Original Suit No.865 of 1997 filed by Mohit Kumar, Lilu Kumar and Lt. General M.L. Dar (Retd.) and Himalayan Institute Hospital Trust represented by a Presidential Body consisting of the said three persons for a permanent injunction restraining defendants therein from interfering with the functioning of Himalayan Institute Hospital Trust and its said Presidential Body, and seeking a declaration that nomination letter dated 5.11.1996 in favour of Dato Mohan Swami and three others is null and void.

6. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. Parties to bear their respective costs.
State Of Andhra Pradesh vs M/S. Repute Plastic Colours Ltd

JUDGMENT O R D E R CIVIL APPEAL NOS.6102-6104 OF 2002 W I T H C.A.NOS.6093-6094 OF 2002 Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Andhra Pradesh .....Appellant Versus M/s. Repute Plastic Colours Ltd. .....Respondent C.A.Nos.6102-6104 OF 2002 relate to assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93 and C.A.Nos.6093-6094 of 2002 relate to assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96. The respondent in these appeals was purchasing, amongst other items, Low Density Polyethylene (LDPE) granules being used in the manufacture of cable sheathing compound and claimed set-off of tax on the said purchase. By order dated 11th July 1994, the Commercial Taxes Officer allowed the set-off. The Dy. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes exercising revisional jurisdiction set aside the order of the Commercial Taxes Officer. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent approached the Andhra Pradesh Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, by C.A.Nos.6102-6104/2002 etc. .... (contd.)

In respect of assessment year 1994-95 and 1995-96, the High Court, relying upon its order in Tax Revision Case Nos.212, 237 and 238 of 1998 allowed the appeals filed the respondent herein. The said order is under challenge in C.A.Nos.6093-6094 of 2002. The High Court has in its order observed that the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the respondent processed LDPE granules for a certain purpose, but granules remain LDPE granules and it is not a new product, is a finding of fact and the Tribunal being the final fact finding authority under the A.P. General Sales Tax Act and there being no evidence on record to show that a new product had come into being which was marketable and known to the commercial world, no interference with the order of the Tribunal was called for.

We agree with the view taken by the High Court that the C.A.Nos.6102-6104/2002 etc. .... (contd.)

finding of the Tribunal being a finding of fact, could not be interfered with. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed. No costs.
State Of Himachal Pradesh & Anr vs Ravinder Singh

Respondent was appointed on 3.9.1980 as a daily-rated worker in the Horticulture Department of the State. In the Writ Petition the prayer was for regularization as a clerk on completion of ten years of service on daily wages basis. It is to be noted that the union of the employees had moved the Labour Court for regularization of all daily wagers. The same was adjudicated by the Industrial Disputes Tribunal. A reference was made to the Labour Court and the State filed its response questioning maintainability of the reference. Initially the Labour Court had decided in favour of the workers but on a Writ Petition being filed, the High Court held in favour of the State holding that the claim for regularization was not maintainable. It was noted that no appointment order was issued and the case of the respondent was not sponsored by the employment exchange. It was also noted that the claim for equal work for equal pay was not maintainable as daily-rated persons were not required to perform duties at par with those in regular service and they did not also fulfil the procedure at the time of recruitment. Two Writ Petitions were filed; in one the challenge was to the order of the Industrial Disputes Tribunal while the Writ Petition to which this Appeal relates to the Award by the Labour Court. It is to be noted that the Labour Court had observed that the employer had regularized the respondent as a Chowkidar with effect from 5.7.1997 which was refused by him. Thereafter the engagement as daily wager was terminated. This order was challenged before the Industrial Disputes Tribunal, under Section 33 which was dismissed. However, as noted above the High Court has remanded the matter to the Tribunal.

9. In the background of what has been stated above the directions given for regularization in the post of clerk being indefensible are set aside. However, undisputedly the appellants had regularized the services of the respondent as a Chowkidar in July, 1997 which the respondent had refused. If the respondent is so advised, he may accept the order in that regard by submitting the requisite documents within six weeks from today. If not so done, the respondent shall not be entitled to any relief in terms of the High Court's impugned order which as noted above we have set aside.

10. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent, but without any order as to costs.
M/S. Prachi Industries vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

3. M/s. Prachi Industries is the small scale unit. It buys duty-paid MS tubes from its manufacturers. The said MS tubes are classified under Heading 73.06 of the Schedule to the Central Excise and Tariff Act, 1985 (for short, "1985 Act"). After receiving MS tube from the manufacturers, the assessee cuts the same into requisite lengths. The cut MS tube is thereafter put in the swaging machine in which dies are fitted which imparts "folds" to the flat surface of the MS tube/pipe.

5. At the outset, it may be reiterated that MS tubes bought by the assessee from its manufacturers falls under Heading 73.06 and the Revenue seeks to demand duty once again under the same heading by treating the process of swaging as "manufacture". Accordingly, we quote hereinbelow Chapter Note 3 in Chapter 73 which covers "Articles of Iron and Steel" :

19. Before us, it has been urged that in any event the assessee is entitled to the benefit of CENVAT credit and SSI exemption. This point was not raised by the assessee before the Tribunal. However, we make it clear that we express no opinion on the entitlement of the assessee in that regard. However, our order will not preclude the assessee from making the claim for such entitlement in accordance with law.

21. Accordingly, the above civil appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed with no order as to costs.
M/S Malnad Areca Processing & Marketing ... vs The Dy. Commissioner Of Commercial ...

5. The assessee was engaged in the processing of arecanut purchased from members growers and sale thereof to non resident commission agents. The assessee was registered as a new industrial unit with the Directorate of Commerce and Industries and claimed to be governed by package of New Industrial Policy, 1996 and Package of Incentives and Concessions under 1996-2001 Scheme and eligibility certificate in that regard had been issued. Though initially the claim was accepted, subsequently, the revisional authority initiated proceedings under Section 21(1) of the Act and revised the assessment orders and levied purchase tax under Section 6 along with the turnover tax under Section 6-B of the Act and cess under Section 6-D of the Act on the ground that the appellant is eligible for sales tax exemption only on the sales turnover of manufactured goods in terms of the Government Order dated 15.3.1996 as amended by Government Order dated 14.5.1999 and thus Notifications did not cover tax leviable under Section 6 of the Act on the purchase value of arecanut effected from registered and unregistered dealers. It is to be noted that the writ petition related to the assessment years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 while revision petition related to assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001.

18. In that view of the matter, we find no infirmity in the impugned order of the High Court. The appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
Deoraj Tiwari vs Committee Of Management Sarvodaya ...

JUDGMENT O R D E R CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2376-2377 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 26491-26492/04) Leave granted.

The controversy before the learned Single Judge was with regard to the correction made by the Principal -2- of the College of the appellant's date of birth in his service records. At the time of initial entry into service, the appellant's date of birth was recorded as 1st January,1933, but subsequently it came to light that the appellant had studied in Primary School, Khain, Karchana, Allahabad. In the school records his date of birth was shown as 12th June,1925. On the basis of the above, the Principal of the college issued a notice to the appellant to show cause as to why his date of birth should not be corrected in the college records in view of the School Certificate. A letter was also sent to the appellant to file a medical certificate of the Chief Medical Officer, Allahabad, regarding his age. Thereafter, after giving the appellant a hearing, the Principal of the College corrected the date of birth of the appellant in his service records from 1st June,1933 to 12.6.1925 and issued a letter to him on 20th August,1987. retiring him from service. The said order was challenged in appeal before the Committee of Management of the institution which dismissed the same.

The Division Bench has set aside the said finding on the ground that the learned Single Judge could not have reopened the matter which had been finally decided and against which no further steps had been taken by the appellant. The reasoning of the Division Bench Judge appears to be sound. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, we are unable to differ with the judgment impugned in this appeal and we accordingly, dismiss the Appeal. But there will be no order as to costs.

The Authorities are directed to disburse to the appellant all the dues in terms of the Order of the -4- Division Bench of the High Court, if not already disbursed, within two months from the date of communication of this Order.
Nirmal Chandra Sinha vs Union Of India & Ors

3. Appellant Nirmal Chandra Sinha belongs to the Indian Railway Service of Mechanical Engineers (IRSME) having been appointed on 2.5.1958. When his turn came for consideration for promotion as General Manager, he was working as Chief Mechanical Engineer of Southern Eastern Railway. He was promoted to the post of General Manager on 29.11.1996. He claimed notional promotion w.e.f. 13.3.1996 with consequential benefits. His O.A. was rejected by the Central Administrative Tribunal, but against that order he filed a writ petition which was partially allowed by the High Court.

5. In the appeal filed by appellant Nirmal Chandra Sinha, the ground taken was that the High Court partially allowed the writ petition by giving him notional promotion as General Manager w.e.f. 13.3.1996 with consequential benefits, but the High Court has wrongly rejected his prayer that he should be senior to the contesting private respondent Nos. 3 & 4. On the other hand, in the appeal filed by the Union of India it was alleged that the High Court wrongly directed that appellant Nirmal Chandra Sinha should be notionally promoted as General Manager w.e.f. 13.3.1996 with consequential benefits.

6. We are of the opinion that the appeal of appellant Nirmal Chandra Sinha being Civil Appeal No. 8058 of 2001 deserves to be dismissed while the appeal filed by the Union of India being Civil Appeal No. 8059/2001 deserves to be allowed.

11. For the reasons given above, the impugned judgment is set aside. Civil Appeal No. 8058 of 2001 is dismissed and Civil Appeal No. 8059 of 2001 stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Director, Horticulture Punjab & Ors vs Jagjivan Parshad

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

6. We find that the writ petition involved disputed issues regarding eligibility. The manner in which the High Court has disposed of the writ petition shows that the basic requirement of indicating reasons was not kept in view and is a classic case of non-application of mind. This Court in several cases has indicated the necessity for recording reasons.

9. That being so, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remit the matter to it for fresh consideration in accordance with law. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. It goes without saying that the High Court shall pass a speaking order recording reasons in support of its conclusions.

10. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent without any order as to costs.
Collector & Dist. Magistrate & Ors vs S. Sultan

J U D G M E N T REPORTABLE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 567 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 993 of 2007) With CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 568 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1308 of 2007) With CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 570 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.2089 of 2007) With CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 569 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.2090 of 2007) With CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 571 OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.2091 of 2007) Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

10. So far as the stand that incidents were stale incidents, it is to be noted that most of the incidents highlighted are of November 2005. The order of detention was passed on 20.3.2006. The State Government approved the order of detention on 28.3.2006. The Advisory Board confirmed the order of detention and based on the recommendation of the Advisory Board, the Government confirmed the order of detention for a period of 12 months from the date of detention. That being so, it cannot be said that the order of detention was based on stale incidents.

19. Looked at from any angle, the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and is set aside. However, the period of detention as fixed in the detention order is already over. It would be open to the State Government to consider whether there is a need for detaining the detenu for the balance period covered by the original order of detention.

20. The appeals are allowed.
Union Of India & Ors vs Kashiswar Jana

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court allowing the Writ Petition filed by the respondent. The controversy lies within a very narrow compass. The respondent claimed to be a freedom fighter and claimed freedom fighter's pension. The application in this regard was filed on 28th July, 1981. The application was rejected by the Central Government on 29.1.1993. A Writ Petition was filed before the Calcutta High Court questioning correctness of the order of the Single Judge. The writ petition was allowed and the present appellants were directed to release pension to the respondent.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the said order the Division Bench was moved in a Letters Patent Appeal which was dismissed. A special leave petition was also filed before this Court which was rejected as barred by time. The question that arose was the date from which the respondent was entitled to pension. Appellants released the pension with effect from 4th August, 1993 when the writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed by the learned Single Judge. Respondent claimed pension from the date of filing of the application. According to him he is entitled to pension from 28.7.1981 when the application was filed by him. Reference was made to the decision of this Court in M.L. Bhandari v. Union of India [AIR 1993 SC 2127].

4. Stand of the present appellants was that since the claim of the respondent could not be decided till 1993 because of the non co-operative attitude of the State Government regarding supply of requisite information. In any event, the benefit of doubt was granted to the respondent and in line with the order passed by the High Court earlier pension was granted from the date of order i.e. 4th August, 1993. The High Court did not accept the stand.

9. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent without any order as to costs.
Godfrey Phillips India Ltd vs Ajay Kumar

2. Challenge in these appeals is to the order of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (in short the 'National Commission'). One order was passed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction against the concurrent finding of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar (in short 'District Forum') and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short 'State Commission') dated 11.5.2001 and 12.7.2001 respectively. Commission has also issued directions.

4. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

This according to the National Commission was sufficient to hold that the impugned advertisement amounted the unfair trade practices. On the basis of the aforesaid finding, the National Commission gave the following directions:

13. It is, therefore, submitted that the order of the National Commission is unsustainable.

20. Looked at from any angle, the orders of the National Commission are indefensible and are set aside. The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs.