evolawyer/inlegalbert-sc-ner-silver huggingface dataset:
SEEMA A v.

ASHW ANI KUMAR

APRIL 15, 2005

[ARIJIT PASAYAT ANO S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.) B

Family Law:

Record of marriages-Dates of marriages and parties to marriage- Record of-To be kept by official to be auhorised by State Government- C Necessity of Legislation-Court suggesting State Governments to consider issuing of executive instructions which may be made enforceable in terms of orders of Supreme Court, till suitable legislation in this regard is made- Legislation-Necessity of-Suggested

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Transfer Petition (C) No. 29 I of D 2005.

Balraj Dewan for the Petitioner.

The following Proceeding/Order of the Court was delivered :

ORDER

Issue notice.

Issue notice on the application for ex-parte stay also.

There shall be interim stay of proceedings in Matrimonial Suit No. 104 of 2004 entitled Ashwani Kumar v. Seema, pending before Learned Addi.

District Judge, Delhi.

During the hearing of this petition, it appeared to us that in the absence of records relating to dates of marriages and parties to the marriage, problems. G come up which have far-reaching consequences. We, therefore, request learned Solicitor General to consider whether Government orders by way of executive instructins can be issued, on the basis of directions of this Court, to various States and Union Territories to authorise officials specifically to keep record

649.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2005) 3 S.C.R.

A of marriages so that they can be placed as evidence in different proceedings if the necessity arises. Learned Solicitor General submitted that there may be necessity of a suitable legislation in this regard as the Government Orders/ executive instructions may not suffer. We are of the view that until a suitable legislation is made, the Government Order/executive instructions can. be made B enforceable in terms of the orders of this Court. These may be implemented where there is no statutory prescription for recording/registering the marriage, and may be done as an additional measure when there is any such prescription.

We have also requested Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv. to assist us in this matter. If learned Solicitor General feels and if so advised, he may require C the State Governments regard and the Union Territories to place their views in this regard before him and this Court so that appropriate directions can be issued. A copy of our order be handed over to learned Solicitor General and Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv. for necessary steps in this matter.

R.P.

Notice issued.
SHAKUNTLA DEVI

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

OCTOBER 3,2005

[R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., AND G.P. MATHUR AND P.K.

BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.]

Constitution of lndia,1950:

Article 32-Freedom Fighters Pension-Claimed in writ petition-Held, the case does not call for consideration in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 32-Such matters, wherever the petitioners have a genuine grievance, can better be dealt with by the High Court-Filing of such petitions in this Court directly by invoking Article 32 of the Constitution has to be discouraged.

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (C) No. 10 of2005.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).

Madan Mohan Rai, Husband of the Petitioner, Mrs. K. Sarada Devi, E (SCLSC) for the Petitioner.

The following Order of the Court was delivered:

ORDER

We have heard Mr. Madan Mohan Rai who states that he is the husband F of the petitioner herein. Pursuant to the order dated 25.8.2005 Mrs. K. Sarada Devi, Adovcate has been appointed as legal aid counsel for the petitioner.

She has also been heard by us.

We have also perused the contents of the writ petition and the documents G annexed therewith. We are satisfied that the case does not call for consideration in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

We are constrained to observe that a number of cases are being filed in this Court wherein the petitioners claim themselves to be freedom fighters and hence entitled to pension under a scheme framed by the Central

SHAKUNTLA DEVI v. U.0.1. 951

Government. In most of these cases, the State Governments have found the A petitioners' not entitled to the grant of such pension and, therefore, their cases have not been recommended by the State Governments to the Central Government. By filing petitions under Articles 32 of the Constitution before this Court the State Governments are being noticed to appear and show cause here and also to produce the relevant documents. We feel that such matters, wherever the petitioners have a genuine grievance, can better be dealt with B by the High Court. Filing of such petitions in this Court directly by invoking Article 32 of the Constitution has to be discouraged.

The writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file an appropriate petition in the High Court, if so advised.

R.P.

Writ Petition dismissed.
BAGIRATH SINGH AND ANR.

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

SEPTEMBER 6, 2005

[B.P. SINGH AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.J

Practice and Procedure-Appeal filed against the order of dismissal of writ petition-Dismissed by Supreme Court-There is no merit in the present appeal against dismissal of the Review Petition by the High Court-Hence dismissed.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 647 of 2000.

From the Judgment and Order dated 7.5. 1999 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Review Application No. 357/99 in C.W.P. No. 183 JO of 1998. D

P.C. Jain and Mahendra Anand, Ms. S. Janani and Keertee Sinha with them for the Appellants.

S.P. Goyal, Arnita Gupta, Prashant Rana and Himanshu Upadhyaya for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

B.P. SINGH, J. : This Civil Appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the order of the High Court dismissing the review petition filed by F them for review of the judgment and order of the High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 18310 of 1998.

We have today dismissed Civil Appeal No. 646 of 2000 arising out of CWP No. 18310 of 1998. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.

R.P.

Appeal dismissed.
DHARAM VEER SINGH AND ORS.

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

SEPTEMBER 6, 2005

[B.P. SINGH AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.]

Land Laws and Agricultural Tenancy : ~

""- Consolidation scheme-Framed in regard to Sham/at Deh Landc Tenure-holders affected filing writ petition in High Court and later appeal* in Supreme Court-Some of the tenure-holders who were not parties before High Court, filing writ petition in Supreme Court-Held, Civil Appeal having been dismissed, writ petition also dismissed as devoid of merits.

D *Bhagirath Singh & Anr. v. State of Haryana and Anr., [2005) 7 SCC 556, referred to.

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (C) No. 413 of2003.

Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

S.K. Verma for the Petitioners.

Ajay Siwach, Pardeep Dahya and T.V. George for the Respondents.

F The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

B.P. SINGH, J.: This Writ Petition has been filed by some of the land holders who are affected by the Consolidation Scheme framed in regard to Shamlat Deh lands of the concerned villages: The said scheme was challenged by some other proprietors and co-sharers in Civil Writ Petition No. 18310 of G 1998 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The said writ petition having been dismissed, Civil Appeal No. 646 of 2000 was preferred before this Court by Special Leave. Dispite the order of status-quo granted by this Court pending the appeal, the petitioners alleged that they were before displaced since they were not parties in the writ petition filed before

~ H the High Court.

', k 1180

- -

...

DHARAM VEER SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA [B.P. SINGH, J.] 1181

They, therefore, filed the instant writ petition which has been heard A along with civil Appeal No. 646 of of 2000.

We have delivered our judgment today dismissing the Civil Appeal No. 646 of 2000. We find no merit in this writ petition filed by the petitioners and the same is accordingly dismissed.

R.P.

Appeal dismissed.
SWAMY ATMANANDA

SWAMI BODHANANDA AND ORS.

APRIL 13, 2005

[B.P. SINGH AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-Writ of mandamus seeking directions in view of decree passed by the Civil Court-Propriety of-Held: C Decree passed by the Civil Court is to be executed in terms of the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure-Hence, Writ Petition is not the appropriate remedy -Code of Civil Procedure, I 908.

The writ petition was filed for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to give all assistance to the D Appellant in taking over management of the institutions specified therein, as per decree passed by Civil Court. The petition was allowed by High Court. Hence the present appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

E Held : A decree passed by the Civil Court must be executed in terms

of the provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure. The writ petition is not the appropriate remedy therefor. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It, however, goes without saying that the First Respondent shall be entitled to execute the decree in ac.cordance with law. (579-C-D)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3058 of2000.

From the Judgment and Order dated 13.10.99 of the Madras High Court in W.P. No. 15089 of 1998.

G K. Sukumaran, K. Ramamoorthy, L.N. Rao, Dr. A. Francis Julian, Sumit

Kumar, for Mis. Arputham Aruna & Co. M.A. Chinnasamy, Mrs. N. Shobha, Sriram Thalapathy, N.K. Arulmuruganandham, Vikas Mehta, Ms. Indu Malhotra, Ms. Mamata Choudhary, P. Nedu Chezian, C. Paramashivam, R.

Ayyam Perumal, Sewa Ram, S. Vallinayagam, Satya Mitra Garg with them

.,..._

SWAMY ATMANANDA "SWAMI BODHANANDA [S.B. SINHA, .I.] 579

for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.B. SINHA, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.10.1999 passed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition No.15089 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the writ petition B filed by Swami Bodhananda had been allowed. The said writ petition was filed for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents therein to give all assistance to the Appellant in taking over management of the institutions specified therein. The said writ ptition was filed having regard to the judgment of the Civil Court.

A decree passed by the Civil Court must be executed in terms of the provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure. The writ petition is not

the appropriate remedy therefor. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained, which is set aside accordingly. The Appeal is allowed. It, however, goes without saying that the First Respondent herein D shall be entitled to execute the decree in accordance with law.

D.G.

Appeal allowed.
A COMMISSIONER OF Cl;:NTRAL EXCISE AND 'CUSTOMS,

AURANGABAD

MIS. CEA T LTD., NASIK

FEBRUARY 17, 2005

[S.N. VARIA VA, DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.]

Central Excise Act, 1944; Section 35L/Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; C Tariff Headings 59.02 and 59.06, Chapter Note-4 to Chapter 59 and Note-4 to Section XI of the Act: Classification-Dipped Tyre Fabric/Rubberised Tyre Cord Fabric-levy of excise duty under Tariff Headings 59.02 or 59.06- Held: Jn view of reasons recorded in the connected case viz. Commissioner of Central Excise v. MR.F. Ltd, the appeal is dismissed

D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6971of1999.

From the Judgment and Order dated 5.4.99 of the Central Excise, Customs and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, West Reginal Bench at Mumbai in A. No. E/167-R/99-Bom in F.O. No. C-11504-505/WZB of 1999.

E R. Mohan, Additional Solicitor General, Rajiv Dutta, Hemant Shanna, P. Panneswaran and B.Krishna Prasad for the Appeltant.

Ravinder Narain, Sonu Bhatnagar, Ajay Aggarwal and Rajan Narain for the Respondent.

F The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KAPADIA, J. For the reasons given in our decision in Commissioner of Central Excise v. M.R.F. ltd., reported in (2005) I Scale 554, this Civil Appeal filed by the department relating to classification of Rubberised Tyre Cord Fabric is dismissed,. with no order as to costs.

S.K.S.

Appeal dismissed.
, __

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, A

AU RANG ABAD v.

M/S. CEAT LTD., MUMBAI

FEBRUARY 17, 2005 B

[S.N. VARIA VA, DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.]

Central Excise Act, 1944; Section 35UCentral Excise Tariff Act, 1985; Tariff Headings 59.02 and 59.06, Chapter Note-4 to Chapter 59 and Note-4 C to Section XI of the Act :

Classification-Dipped Tyre Cord Fabric-Levy of excise duty under Tariff Headings 59.02 or 59.06-Held: In view of reasons recorded in the connected case viz. Commissioner of Central Excise v. MR.F. Ltd, appeals are remitted to Commissioner, Revenue for a fresh disposal in accordance D with law.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2015 of 2002.

From the Judgment and Order dated 9.10.2001 of the Central Excise, Customs and Gold (Control} Appellate Tribunal, West Reginal Bench at E Mumbai in A. No. C/433/2001-Mum in F.O. No. C-1/3020 of 2001-WZB.

AND

Civil Appeal No. 1612 of 2003.

R. Mohan, Additional Solicitor General, Rajiv Dutta, Hemant Sharma, F P. Parmeswaran and B. Krishna Prasad for the Appellant.

Ravinder Narain, Sonu Bhatnagar, Ajay Aggarwal and Rajan Narain for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KAPADIA, J. For the reasons given in our decision in Commissioner of Central Excise v. MR.F. Ltd, reported in (2005) l Scale 554, both these Civil Appeals filed by the department relating to Dipped Tyre Cord Fabric

l~ H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2005] 2 S.C.R.

A are allowed; the impugned-judgments and orders of the Tribunal as well as of the Commissioner are set aside; and these appeals are remitted to the Commissioner, Mumbai, for a fresh disposal in accordance with law. All contentions on both sides-are kept open:

In the facts and circumstances.of-this case, there will be no order as to B costs.

S.K.S.

Appeals allowed.
M. SELV ANA THAN AND ANR. ETC.

THE REGISTRAR, CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,

CHENNAI AND ORS. ETC.

FEBRUARY 11, 2005

[R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.]

Service law :

Resen, ation--Claimed by migrant Scheduled Caste candidates-Held, C for reasons given in Civil Appeal Nos. 6-7 of 1998* etc. these appeals are allowed.

*S. Pushpa and Ors. v. Sivachanmughave/ue and Ors., [2005] 1 SCR 1158, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1381-82 of 2004.

From the Judgment and Order dated 29.1.2002 of the Madras High Court in W.P. Nos. 8279 and 8280 of 1998.

AND

C.A. No. 1383 of 2004.

V. Prabhakar, C.U. Sunanithni, R.S. Krishan Kumar and M.K.D.

Namboodiri for the Appellant in C.A. Nos. 1381-82/2004.

S. Gurukrishna Kumar, Ms. Srikala, G.K. and S.R. Setia for the Appellant in C.A. No. 1383/2004

M.N. Rao, V.R. Reddy, R. Venkataramani, T.S. Doabia, M.A.

Chinnaswamy, V.G. Pragasam, V. Balachandran, Naveen, R. Nath, Ms. Lalit G Mohini Bhat, Ms. Hetu Arora, Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Ashok Panigrahi, V.K.

Verma, S.N. Terdal and Ms. Sunita Sharma for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2005) 2 S.C.R.

A G.P. MATHUR, J. The issue involved in these appeals is similar to that of Civil Appeal Nos. 6-7 of 1998 and Civil Appeal Nos. 4-5 of l 998. In these cases, the Central Administrative Tribunal had allowed the O.A. flied by some of the respondents following its earlier judgment and order dated 5.11.1996 given in O.A. No. 199/1996 and 0.A. No. 214/1996 and the writ B petition filed by the appellants challenging the said ord.er was dismissed by the Madras High Court.

For the reasons given in Civil Appeal Nos. 6-7 of 1998 etc. these appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Madras Bench) is set aside.

R.P.

Appeals allowed.

.. r
MIS. HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD. v.

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRALEXCISE, JAIPUR ·

FEBRUARY 24, 2005

[~.N. VARIA VA, DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.]

Central' Excises and Salt Act, 1944 :

'Silver Chloride '-Declared as excisable goods-Assessee claiming C exemption under Notification No. 217186-CE dt. 2.4.1986-Held, Revenue having failed to prove marketability of the item produced by assessee during the relevant period, question of applicability of the notification has become academic, and is kept open.

D On the question whether in the event of silver chloride being declared as .excisable goods the assessee was entitled to benefit of exemption under Notification No. 217/86-CE dt. 2.4.1986.

Disposing of the appeal, the Court

HELD : In view of the judgment in the conjoint Civil Appeal No.

E 430 of 2000 holding that the department had failed to prove marketability of silver chloride produced in the factory of the assessee, duri11.g the relevant period, the question of applicability of the said notification during that period has become academic and is kept open. (399-C-D)

F Mis. Hindustan Zinc Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur,

(2005) 2 SCR 391, relied on.

CNIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3991 of200l..

From the Judgment and Order dated 23.1.2001 of the Central Excise, G Customs and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, in F.O. No. 61

200 l-C in A. No. E/2164 of 2000-C.

V. Lakshmikumaran, Alok Yadav, M.P. Devnath and V. Balachandran for the Appellant.

HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD. v. C.C.E. (KAPADIA. J.] 399

R. Venkataramani, A.Subba Rao, Hemant Sharma, Ashok Panigrahi, A Ms.V. Vijaylakshmi, P. Parmeswaran and B.K. Prasad, with him for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KAPADIA, J. The short question which arises for determination in this B civil appeal filed by the assessee under section 35L(b) of the Central.Excise Act, l 944 is whether in the event of the silver chloride being declared "excisable goods", the assessee was entitled to the benefit of exemption under notification No. 217/86-CE dated 2.4.1986.

In view of our judgment in the conjoint civil appeal No. 430 of 2000 C in the case of the same assessee holding that the department had failed to prove marketability of silver chloride produced in the factory of the assessee, during the relevant period(s), the question of applicability of the said notification during" that period has become academic. In future, if the department succeeds in proving that silver chloride produced .in the factory D of the assessee as "excisable goods" in terms of manufacture and marketability and if the assessee intends to take the l;>enefit of the said notification, then, the question is kept open and the decision given by the tribunal herein will not preclude the assessee from relying on the above notification in accordance with law.

Subject to above, the appeal is disposed of with no order as to co5ts.

R.P.

Appeal disposed of.