evolawyer/inlegalbert-sc-ner-silver huggingface dataset:
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. _..,

MANJIT KAUR AND ORS.

JANUARY 5, 2004

(V. N. KHARE, CJ. AND S.B. SINHA, J.]

., Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Motor accident-Driver of vehicle not holding {

licence-Compensation-Awarded by Tribunal and Co11/ir111ed by High Court c with permission to Insurance C:ompany to realize the amount from the driver

of the vehicle-On appeal, held: In view of the facts of the case orders of Courts below justified and need no inference under discretionary jurisdiction- Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136.

National Insurance Co. ltd v. Swaran Singh and Ors., 120041 3 SCC D 297, relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 176 of 2004.

From the Judgment and Order dated 12.12.2002 of the Punjab and !!; E Haryana High Court in F.A.0. No. 5766 of 2002.

Dr. Kailash Chand (N.P.) for the Petitioner.

The Judgment of the Cou1t was delivered by

F V. N. KHARE, CJ. This Special Leave Petition is directed against a judgment and order dated 12112/2002 passed by the High Court of Punjab

and Haryana at Chandigarh whereby and whereunder it affirmed the award .,. passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ropar in Case No. 119 of i 8.12.2000. The question raised in the Special Leave Petition is as to whether in view of the finding of the Learned Tribunal that the driver of the Maruti G Car was not holding a driving licence and paiticularly when he happened to be the owner of the vehicle, the learned Tribunal as well as the High Court committed an error in passing the impugned judgment.

Keeping in view of the fact that both the Tribunal and the High Court

had recorded that the Petitioner would be entitled to realise the amount of H 126

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. 1•. MANJIT KAUR [Y. N. KflARE, CJ.] 127

compensation as assessed from the driver of the offending vehicle, we do not A intend to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, particularly, having regard to our decision in SLP (Civil) No. 9027 of 2003, National Insurance Co. ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Ors. we do not intend to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction in the matter.

B The Petition is dismissed.

K.K.T.

Petition dismissed.
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v.

BHAGWANI AND ORS.

JANUARY 5, 2004

(V. N. KHARE, CJ. AND S.B. SINHA, J.]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Motor Accident-Driver holding /earner's licence-Compensation-Awarded-Held: Award of compensation justified as C learner's licence is also a valid licence.

National Insurance Co. ltd. v. Swrrran Singh and Ors., 120041 3 SCC 297, relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C) No.

D 921S of 2003.

From the Judgment and Order dated 28.1.2003 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in F.A.O. No. 434 of 2003.

Atul Nanda, Ms. Veena Nanda and P.N. Puri for the Petitioner.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

V. N. KHARE, CJ. This Special Leave Petition is covered by a judgment of this Court in SLP (Civil) No. 9027 of 2003, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh & Ors, delivered today where it has been held that F the learner's licence is also a valid licence.

It is accordingly dismissed.

K.K.T.

Petition dismissed.
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

RAM KALI AND ORS.

JANUARY 5, 2004

(V. N. KHARE, CJ., D.M. DHARMADHIKARI AND

S.B. SINHA, JJ.]

'f ' Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Motor accident-Claim for compensationc Compensation awarded by Tribunal despite holding that terms and conditions of insurance policy violated at the time of accident-High Court confirming the award despite holding that driving licence of driver of vehicle was fake- Special leave petition before Supreme Court-Held: Order of courts below need no interference as in awarding compensation they had exercised discretion in favour of the claimant-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C) No. 9065 of 2.003.

From the Judgment and Order dated 20. I 2.2002 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in F.A.O. No. 5942 of 2002.

Pannanand Gaur for the Petitioner.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered .,

This Special Leave Petition is directed against a judgment and order F dated 20th December, 2002 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the petitioner -... herein questioning an award dated 6-9-2002 made by Motor Accident Claims • Tribunal, Fatehabad was dismissed. The High Court has dismissed the aforementioned appeal inter a/ia on the ground that the driving licence of the offending vehicle had been found to be fake. The learned Tribunal, G however, arrived at the finding of fact that the first respondent herein has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by plying the Maruti Van on hire/i-eward at the time of accident-.

Y' The said question, it appears from the impugned judgment of the High

Court, was not adverted to before it.

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. RAM KALI 177

In view of the fact that both the Tribunal and the High Court had A exercised their discretion in favour of the claimant. We do not intend to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article l 36 of the Constitution

of India. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. No costs.

K.K.T.

Petition dismissed.
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

\'.

SA VITRI DEVI AND ORS.

JANUARY 5, 2004

[V. N. KHARE, CJ., D.M. DHARMADHIKARI AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Motor accident-Vehicles driven without valid j

and effective licence-Claim for compe11satio11-Compensation awarded by c Tribunal holding insurance company liable to pay with pepiiission to recover the amount from the owner of offending vehicle-Confirmatioq of award by High Court-Special leave petition before Supreme Court-Held: Jn view of facts of the case. award justified.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C) No.

D 171 of 2004.

From the Judgment and Order dated 7.10.2002 of the Punjab and Haryana High Comt in F.A.0. No. 4965 of 2002. {..

Ms. Kiran Suri for the Petitioner.

E The Judgment of the Court was delivered

This Special Leave Petition is directed against a judgment and order dated 7.10.2002 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the petitioner herein F questioning an award made by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala was dismissed. The High Court passed the said order on the ground that the Petitioner has been permitted to recover the amount from the owner of the -..

offending vehicle. On a perusal of the award impugned before the learned Tribunal it appears that a finding of fact has been arrived at that the vehicle in question was driven by the first respondent without valid and effective G licence as on the date of the accident. While answering issue No. 3 that as to whether insurance company is not liable to make any payment of compensation on account of the preliminary objections taken by it in its written statement, the learned Tribunal observed that although the Petitioner .,... /

is liable to pay compensation to the claimant, it may recover the same from

H 178

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. SAVITRI DEVI 179

the owner of the offending vehicle.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we do not find any merit in this petition and is dismissed. No costs. '

K.K.T.

Petition dismissed.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL v.

HARESH C. BANERJEE AND ORS.

MAY 26, 2004

[RAJENDRA BABU, CJ. AND P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, J.]

Service Law :

West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules :

Constitutional validity of-On appeal, Held: Since the question involving validity of Rule 10(1) affecting large number of employees, it has

to be examined by a larger Bench-However, State Government to comply with the High Court's direction for making payment of arrears-West Bengal (Classification, Control & Operation) Rules, 1971; sub-rule (1) of D Rule JO.

The question which arose for consideration in this appeal was regarding constitutional validity of Rule 10(1) of the West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules. High Court held the E same ultra vires the Constitution. Hence the present appeal. This Court while granting leave made it clear that even if appeal succeeds the benefit available to respondent No. I-retired employee in accordance with the impugned order of the High Court would not be recalled and the State Government was directed to make payment of arrears, if any. F

Referring the matter to a larger Bench, the Court

HELD : The sole question for consideration is the constitutional validity ofRule 10(1) of the West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules. The same involves larger question arising as to the G operation of the West Bengal (Classification, Control and Operation) Rules. Since, the question may often arise affecting a large number of employees, the matter is referred to a larger Bench. (782-F)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2579of1998. H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A From the Judgment and Order dated 6.5.1996 of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A.T. No. 1202 of 1~98.

Tapas Ray and S.K. Nandy for the Appellant.

B Amlan Kumar Ghosh for the Responde, nts.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

RAJENDRA BABU, CJ. : In this matter, the constitutional validity C ofRule 10(1) of the West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules (for short 'the Rules') is involved and the High Court has held that the same is utra vires the Constitution and that conducting the departmental enquiry against the respondent after his retirement was also held to be ultra vires the Constitution.

D This Court, by an order made on 1.5.1998, while granting leave on the question of vires of Rule 10 of the Rules, directed that even if this appeal succeeds the benefit available to respondent No. I in accordance with the judgment of the High Court will not be recalled and the appellant shall make available to respondent No. 1 all the arrears, if any, payable E as per the impugned order of the High Court within the stipulated time.

Now the sole question for consideration is the validity of Rule 10(1) of the Rules. The same involves larger question arising as to the question of the West Bengal (Classification, Control and Operation) Rules, 1971 and F sub-rule ( 1) of Rule 10 of the said Rules. As such questions may often arise affecting a large number of employees, we think it appropriate to refer this matter to a larger bench. ·

S.K.S.

Referred to the Larger Bench
MOOL SHANKAR SINGH

v. (

REGIONAL MANAGER, P.N.B. AND ANR.

MARCH 12, 2004

[BRJJESH KUMAR AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.]

------ Constitution of India, 1950:

c Article 226-Writ petition before High Court pertaining to claim for higher special allowance-D{sposed of with a direction to make _...

representation-Representation made but rejected-Employee again { approaching High Court__;_Grievance of employee not considered on merits- Held, merely because in the earlier writ petition the High Court had provided only for making representation, it would not mean that the matter is closed D and the petitioner was not entitled to approach High Court-High Court should have considered the grievance of the employee on merits -Matter remanded to High Court for consideration on merits-Practice and Procedure.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1591 of2004.

E From the Judgment and Order dated 4.10.2002 of the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P. No. 2196 of 1994. _......._

Mohan Pandey for the Appellant.

F Dhruv Mehta, Mohit Choudhary, Mrs. Shalini Gupta for Mis. K.L.

Mehta & Co., for the Respondents.

--..,,...

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted.

G Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

In our view the High Court should have considered the grievance of the appellant on merits pertaining to his claim for higher special .allowances. t_ Merely because in the earlier writ petition the High Court had provided only H 1178

M.S. SINGH v. REGIONAL MANAGER. P.N.B. 1179

for making representation, it would not mean that the matter is closed and the A petitioner was not entitled to approach the High Court, later even though the representation was rejected and no relief was granted to him. The High Court never considered the case on merits.

We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court and remand the matter for consideration on merits.

R.P.

Appeal allowed.
S1' A TE LEGAL AID COMMITTEE, J & K v.

STATE OF J & KAND ORS.

NOVEMBER 5, 2004

[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.]

Preventive Detention:

Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978:

s. I 3- Order of detention-Ground to be disclosed/communicated to the detenu-Plea that grounds of detention were served upon, read over and explained to the detenu and he was informed ofhis right to make representation, but he refused to receive copy of the order and also refused to put his signatures on the documents-Held, there is no affidavit of the person who wanted to serve the documents nor is there any endorsement of refusal-Even the name of the official has not been indicated in the affidavit-Order of detention quashed

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Crl.) No.8 E of 2004.

Bhim Singh, B.S. Billowria, L.K. Gupta, S.K. Bandhyophadyay and P.V. Yogeswaran for the Petitioner.

Ravi P. Mehrotra, Mrs. Deepti R. Mehrotra, Garvesh Kabra, Mrs. Neelam F Singh and Anis Suhrawardy for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered:

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Though several questions have been raised in this petition, it is not necessary to deal with them in detail as we find that G there is no definite material to show that the requirements of Section 13 of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (in short the 'Act' ) requiring the grounds of order of detention to be disclosed/communicated to the person affected by the order has been complied with. Though, in the affidavit filed by State, it has been stated that the contents of the warrants and grounds of

H 1090

' _..

' .....

'"

STATE LEGAL AID COMMITTEE, J & K v. STA TE OF J & K ] 091

detention were served, read over and explained to the assessee and he was A informed about his right to make a representation against the detention, if he so desired, there is no material placed on record to substantiate this stand. It is stated in the affidavit that the detenue refused to receive copy of the detention order and also refused to put his signatures on the documents. The least the State could have done is to file an affidavit of the person who wanted to serve the relevant documents and an endorsement to the effect that B there was refusal. Even the name of the official has not been indicated in the affidavit. That would have been sufficient to comply with the requirements of Section 13 of the Act.

Though a prayer for extension of time is made to file the details, we C find that the currency of the detention order is expiring on 06.11.2004.

Therefore, we do not accept the prayer for extension of time. Learned counsel for the State submitted that there is no bar on a fresh order of detention being passed. We do not express any opinion in this regard. In the present proceedings, the order of detention of the detenue is quashed. This however, shall not stand in the way of such action being taken by the State and/or any D authority in accordance withlaw.

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

R.P.

Writ Petition disposed of.
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE

M/S. KRIPA CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.

4 NOVEMBER, 2004

[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.]

Central Excise Rules, 1944:

Modavt-Cost of production-Held, excise duty on raw material. if C modvaued is not to be included in determining cost of production of excisable products.

_Collector of Central facise, Pune v. Daiichi Karkaria limited, (1999) 112 EL T 353 SC, relied on.

Central Excise Act, 1944:

Excisable product-Valuation-Job work-profit earned by job worker- Held, value of raw material, value of the job work done and the manufacturing profit and the expenses for the processing have to be taken into consideration.

UjagG1: Prints etc. etc. v. Union of India and Ors .. (1989) 39 EL T 493 SC, relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No. 5000 of 1999.

From the Judgment and Order dated I 0.5.99 of the Central Excise Customs and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Bombay in A.No.E/1719/ 94-A in F.0.No. C-I/930/WZB/1999.

Mohan Parasaran, Additional Solicitor General and B. Krishna Prasad G with him for the Appellant.

C.N. Sree Kumar and Ms. M.L. Shyjatha for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

H 970

COMMIR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE v. KRIPA CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. (PASAYAT, J.] 971

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Heard.

This appeal involves two issues. One of them relates to the calculation of cost of production and whether excise duty paid on raw material, if modvatted, is to be included. in determining the cost of production of excisable products. This issue has been examined by this Court by a three Judge Bench

in Collector of Central Excise, Pune v. Daiichi Karkaria Limited (1999) 112 B 353 SC and it was held that excise duty paid on raw material, if modvatted, is not to be included in determining the cost of production of excisable products. The other issue raised is the question as to whether profit earned by the job worker is to be included and to what extent? In the clarificatory order passed by this Court in Ujagar Prints etc. etc. v. Union of India and C Ors., (l 989) 39 EL T 493 SC, it was explained by way of an illustration that the value of the raw material, the value of the job work done and the manufacturing profit and the expenses for the processing have to be taken into consideration. The determination of the excisable value shall be done on that basis. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.

R.P.

Appeal disposed of.