evolawyer/inlegalbert-sc-ner-silver huggingface dataset:
-~-

NARP AT SINGH v. RAJASTHAN FINANCIAL 289

CORPORATION.

I.A. No. 15-16 for clarification and direction of Court's Order dated A 3.5.2007 are totally misconceived. Moreover, ordinarily nos. I.A. lies after a case is finally disposed of. Ordinarily, an I.A. is maintainable only in a pending case. Once a case is finally disposed of the Court becomes funcyus officio, and thereafter an I.A. lies ordinarily only for correcting clerical or , accidental mistakes. The same are accordingly, dismissed. .

Put up the Contempt Petitions (C) No. 151 -152 of2007 in Civil Appeal No. 2181-2182 of 2001 after six months.

RP.

I.As. dismissed and Contempt Petition adjourned. c
STATE OF RAJASTHAN ·.?- v . .

CHANDA@ CHANDKORI AND ORS

SEPTEMBER 24, 2007

[A.K. MATHUR AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.]

Code a/Criminal Procedure, 1973: -'(- c Appiication /or leave to appeal against acquittal-Rejected by High Court by a cryptic order-Held: While.disposing of an application for leave to appeal against an acquittal, it is expected that High Court should pass a speaking order showing due application of mind-Since that has not been done in the instant case, order of High Court is set

D aside and the matter remitted back to it for passing an order after showing due application of mind

Delay-Condonation of-260 days delay in filing Special Leave Petition by Government-Held: Ordinarily Court would not condone such a long delay-Such kind of delay causes grave injustice to the E parties-However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, delay condoned-Constitution of India-Article 136.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1293of2007.

From the Judgment and Order dated 14.07.2005 of the High Court

..j F of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench in.D.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal No. 165of2005.

Manish Kumar and Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary for the Appellant.

G B.S. Jain, Ajay Veer Singh, Mamta Jain, Neha Tiwari and Dr. Vipin Gupta for the Respondents. )---

The following Order of the Court was delivered:

H 290

STATEOFRAJASTHANv. CHANDA@CHANDKORI 291

We have heard learned counsels for the parties.

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

This appeal is barred by time by 260 days. Ordinarily we may not B have condoned such a long delay, and we do not appreciate the delays caused in filing Special Leave Petitions by the Government before this Court. Such kind of delay causes grave injustice to the parties. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we condone the delay.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14th July C 2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in D.B. Criminal Leave to appeal No. 165 of2005 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court had passed a cryptic order dismissing the application for leave to appeal against as acquittal judgment without giving proper reasons and without showing due application of mind. While disposing of an application for leave to appeal against an acquittal, it is D expected that the High Court should pass a speaking order showing due application of mind. Of Course the said order need not be as elaborate as a full fledged judgment, but at least briefly some reasons should be given. That has not been done in this case. Hence we cannot sustain the impugned order dated 14th July 2005 passed by the High Court. We set E aside the order of the High Court and remit the matter back to the High Court for passing an order after showing due application of mind.

The appeal is accordingly, allowed.

RP.

Appeal allowed.
M.D., U.P. STATE AGRO-INDUSTRIAL CORPN. LTD.

MAHENDRA KUMAR MISHRA AND ORS.

OCTOBER 12, 2007

[TAR UN CHATTERJEE AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.]

Service Law-Dismissal fi'om service-C, hallenged-High Court ordering reinstatement with consequential benefits-On appeal, held: C Order of reinstatement just{fied

Prahl ad.Sharma v. State of UP. and Ors., [2004] 4SCC113, relied on

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4889 of

D 2007.

From the Judgment & Order dated 19.1.2006 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in W.P. No. 7(S/S) of2001.

Rajesh for the Appellant.

Sunil Kumar Jain, Chandra Prakash Pandey, Nikhil Majithia, Prashant Kumar, Arjun (for AP and J Chambers) for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

T ARUN CHATTERJEE, J. 1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3 .. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 10th G of January, 2006 of a learned Judge of the Allahabad High Court in WP No. 7150 (S/S) of 2000 and WP No.7 (S/S) of 2001.

4. In the writ petitions, the writ petitioner had challenged an order dated 1 lth of December, 2000, by which he was dismissed from the

H 442

M.D., U.P. STATE AGRO-INDUSTRIAL CORPN. LTD. v; 443

MAHENDRA KUMAR MISHRA [CHATTERJEE, J .]

service. By the impugned order, the High Court has allowed the writ A petitions in the following manner:

"In view of the above facts, the writ petition deseives to be allowed and accordingly an order/direction in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order dated 11.12.2000 passed by the opposite paiiy No. 3 as contained in Annexure No. 8 9f this B writ petition.

Since writ petition No. 7 (S/S) of2001 has already been aHowed so no relief in writ Petition No. 7150 of2000 is being granted.

The Petitioner would be reinstated on his services in accorClance c with the order dated 25.8.2000 passed by the opposite party No. 2 and petitioner may be given all consequential benefits induding the arrears of salary etc. etc."

5. The question involved in this appeal is covered by a decision of this Court in the case of Prahlad Sharma v. State of U.P. and; Ors., D (2004] 4 SCC 113. In view of the aforesaid decision of this Cowrt and as the case is covered by the aforesaid decision, this appeal is dismissed.

I There will be no order as to costs.

6. We are informed that the Respondent has already been reinstated E and the order of the High Court has already been implemented and backwages have been paid. This judgment and order shall not be treated as a precedent in case of similarly situated persons.

K.K.T.

Appeal allotved.
- ,

MIS. F ARWOOD INDUSTRIES (P) LTD.

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI

JANUARY 17, 2007

[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.]

Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985:

Hr.lures and Furniture-Difference between-Exigibility o/-Held, in view of the judgment in Mis. Craft Industries case*, the order passed by the Assessing OfJicer and as affirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, requires re-consideration-Matter remitted to the Commissioner of Central Excise for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

*Mis. Craft Interiors Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore & Anr., (2006] 11 SCALE 78, relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3 715 of2005.

__ From the Final Judgment and Order No. 345/2005 dated 3.3.2005 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at E Chennai in Appeal No. E/319111998.

A.K. Ganguly, Sr. Adv., Nikhil Nayyar and Amit Singhal for the Appellant.

Subba Rao and B. Krishna Prasad for the Respondent.

The Order of the Court delivered :

ORDER

Heard Mr.A.K.Ganguly, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr.Subba Rao, learned counsel for the respondent.

We have perused the order passed by the Assessing Officer and also

the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2007] I S.C.R

The learned senior counsel for th~ appellant at the time of hearing relied upon the Judgment in Mis.Craft Interiors Pvt.Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore & Anr. reported in (2006] 11 SCALE 78 and in particular paragraph 17 of the said Judgment. In view of the above Judgment, the order passed by the Assessing Officer and as affirmed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai requires re-consideration. We, therefore, remit the matter to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai- III for a fresh disposal in accordance with law. The appeal stands allowed accordingly.

Both parties are at liberty to place additional' documents before the C Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-III.

R.P.

Appear allowed:
- ,

--.,_

SUCHITRA COMPONENTS LTD. v.

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, GUNTUR

JANUARY 17, 2007

[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND V.S. SIRUPURKAR, JJ.]

Central Excise Act, 1944:

Excise duty -Date from which liable to be paid-Held, in view of the judgment in Mysore Electricals Industries case*, assessee is liable to pay the duty from the date of issue of the show cause notice and not from an earlier date as ordered by the Tribunal.

Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Mysore Electricals Industries Ltd., (2007) 204 ELT 517, relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3596 of2005.

From the Final Order No. 204/05-NB-A dated 14.1.2005 of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Block, New Delhi in Appeal

No. E/3422/93-NB-(A).

A.R. Madhav Rao and M.P. Devanath for the Appellant.

K. Radhakrishna, Sr. Adv., Ms. B. Sunita Rao and B. Krishna Prasad for the Respondent.

The Order of the Court was delivered :

ORDER

This appeal is directed against the Final Order no.204/05-NB-A dated G 14th January, 2005 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No.E/3422/93-NB-A.

We have heard Mr. A.R. Madhav Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned Senior Counsel for the H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2007] I S.C.R.

respondent. We have perused the orders passed by the lower Authorities and also of the Tribunal. The point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is covered by the recent judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal No.4488 of 2005, Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Mis.

Mysore Electricals Industries Ltd., reported in (2007) 204 ELT 517. In the said Judgment, this Court held that a beneficial circular has to be applied retrospectively while oppresive circular has to be applied prospectively.

Thus, when the circular is against the assessee, they have right to claim enforcement of the same prospectively.

In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the C appellant and also of the judgment of this Court in C.A. No.4484/05 (supra), the appellant is liable to pay the duty from 29.8.1990 i.e. from the date of issue of the show cause notice and not from 1.3 .1990 as ordered by the Tribunal.

D The Civil Appeal stands allowed on the above terms. No costs.

R.P.

Appeal allowed.

...
IMRAN ALI A -J v.

HABIBULLAH AND ANR.

MARCH 19, 2007

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

,_, Bail-:-Order-Recording of reasons-Purpose and extent of-Held, recording of reasons, whenever necessary, is only to indicate the considerations that may have weighed with Court in granting bail and Court c must do so in a manner that may not prejudice caseof parties-In instant case, High Court while recording a very detailed reasoned order erred in virtually holding that prosecution case has no merit-Such findings ought to be eschewed when Sessions Trial/appeal is taken up for hearing-, However, order granting bail not upset.

D CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Petition For Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No. 3986 of2006. ...

From the final Judgment and Order dated 24.04.2006 ofthe High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No. 1447 of2005.

WITH

S.L.P. {Crl) No. 3987, 3988 of2006.

Samir Ali Khan, Rishad Murtaz.a, Amit Kumar and Gaurav Dhama for the F Appellant.

.,..J

U.U. Lalit, Kunwar C.M. Khan, Imran K. Burney, Zafar Khan and E.C.

Vidya Sagar for the Respondents.

The Order of the Court was delivered by G

ORDER

J I. We have heard counsel for the Parties.

.. - 183 H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2007] 4 S.C.R.

2. It is no doubt true that the High Court felt persuaded to grant bail to the respondents in the pending appeal before it. The High Court, however, went on to record a very detailed reasoned order .virtually holding that the prosecution case has no merit. Such observations either for or against the prosecution, made in orders disposing of bail applications may prejudicially B affect the interest of the parties because in case a trial is pending before the Sessions Court, the Trial Judge may consider itself bound by the observations made in such an order. In any event such observations are bound to influence its mind. It is no doubt true that in appropriate cases particularly in serious matters, the High Court may record reasons, but the High Court while recording reasons must take care to safeguard against prejudicing the case of the C parties. The recording of reasons, wherever necessary, is 011ly to indicate the considerations that may have weighed with the Court in passing the order and the Court rriust do so in a manner that may not prejudice the case of the parties. The trend recently noticed, to virtually write a judgment while disposing of an application for grant of bail must be discouraged.

3. While not upsetting the order passed by the High Courts, we obsserve that the findings recorded in the Order granting bail ought to be eschewed when the appeal itself is taken up for hearing.

4. The Special leave Petitions are disposed of accordingly.

E RP.

SLP disposed of. .:

- '
ASHOKKUMAR

STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI AND ORS.

JUNE 12, 2007

[DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.]

Evidence Act, 1872:

s. I I 3B-Presumption under, is relatable to death occurring within 7 years of marriage--On facts, marriage was solemnized more than I 0 years before the death of wife-Hence, High Court's order convicting accused not sustainable-Pena/ Code, 1860-ss.304B and 498A.

The present appeal is filed by accused-husband against the High Court's order upholding conviction under ss. 498-A and 304-B IPC.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: The conviction of the appellant cannot be maintained. The coaccused persons were acquitted of all the charges as evidence was not sufficient to substantiate the accusation. Additionally burden has been put on the accused-appellant to show as to under what circumstances the death was caused. The presumption in such matters is relateable to a death occurring within seven years of marriage. Admittedly, the marriage in the present case was solemnized more than I 0 years before the date of occurrence.

That being the position, the order of the High Court is not sustainable and the same is set aside. The appellant is entitled to acquittal. 1999-A, B, CJ

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 552 of 2002.

From the Judgment and Order dated 15. I 0.200 I of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 414of1997.

Anu Mohla for the Appellant.

Ashok Bhan, S. Wasim A. Qadri and D.S. Mahra for the Respondent.

..J.

,:(

"""

-<-

ASHOKKUMAR v. STATEOFN.C.T.OFDELHI[PASAYAT.J.) 999

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. Having heard the learned counsel for the respondent-State, we find that the conviction of the appellant cannot be maintained. It is to be noted that the co-accussed persons were acquitted of

all the charges as evidence was not sufficient to substantiate the accusation.

Additionally burden has been put on the accused-appellant to show as to B under what circumstances the death was caused. The presumption in such matters is relateable to a death occuring within seven years of marriage.

Admittedly, the marriage in the present case was solemnised more than IO years before the date of occurrence. That being the position, the order of the High Court is not sustainable and the same is set aside. The appellant is C entitled to acquittal. The bail bonds of the accused executed for the purpose of bail in terms of the order dated 15.07.2002 shall stand discharged.

The appeal is allowed.

,, D.G.

Appeal allowed. D