evolawyer/inlegalbert-sc-ner-silver huggingface dataset:
[2009) 1 S.C.R. 421

R. MANJULA A

.. v.

V. RAJA (Transfer Petition (C) No. 458 of 2007)

JANUARY 20, 2009 B

[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR

GANGUL Y, JJ.]

Matrimonial dispute - Transfer Petition - Wife seeking transfer of case from Nasik (Maharashtra) to Vellur c (Tamilnadu) - Parties directed to appear before Mediation Centre, Vellur - Thereafter filing a joint compromise memo that the parties willing to live together along with their children at Vellur - Proceedings closed - Transfer Petition disposed

~ of accordingly.

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Transfer Petition (C) No. 458 of 2007.

B. Sridhar, for the Petitioner.

E G. Sivabalamurugan, Y. Arunagiri and L.K. Pandey, for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. 1. This transfer petition has been F filed by the petitioner-wife seeking transfer of H.M.P. No.289 of 2005 titled V. Raja v. R. Manjula pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nasik, Maharashtra.

Prayer is to transfer the case to Family Court at Vellur District, Tamil Nadu. During the pendency of the matter, a Bench of this G Court directed the parties to appear before the District Mediation Centre, Vellore to explore the possibility of setting the disputes. By report dated 4.11.2008 the Mediation Centre has reported as follows:

421 H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2009) 1 S.C.R.

A "The parties have appeared and advises given.

Parties given time to think and decide. Parties filed joint compromise memo. Joint compromise memo recorded.

The Mediation Centre has successfully conducted enquiry as per the directions of Honourable Supreme court Legal B Services Committee. Parties are now living together after compromise efforts.

This information submitted to Honourable Supreme Court Legal Services Committee."

2. Learned counsel for the parties has also filed a joint

compromise memo which reads as follows:

'We both appeared before Vellore District Mediation Centre, Vellore (Tamil Nadu State) for five dates (i.e.) on 17.10.2008, 31.10.2008, 7.11.2008 14.11.2008 and 28.11.2008. We both were advised by Honourable committee Members. Sufficient time was granted to think and decide the issue. After consultation of our elders and as per benevolent advice of Mediation Centre we are whole heartedly willing to live together along with our children at our native village, Arcot, Vellore District in Tamil Nadu."

3. In view of the aforesaid happy situation, nothing needs to be done in these proceedings except to direct that further F continuance of H.M.P. No.289 of 2005 is not necessary. The proceedings stand closed.

4. The transfer petition is accordingly disposed of.

G.N.

Transfer petition disposed of.
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 636

MIS BABA TRADING CO.

VIDARBHA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES

& ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos.390-391 of 2009)

JANUARY 23, 2009

[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR

GANGUL Y, JJ.]

LEA VE AND LICENCE:

Licence - Extending the licence period - Payment for licence fee - Directions given while disposing of the appeals.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 390-391 of 2009.

From the Judgment and Order dated 20.10.2008 and 1.12.2008 and 1.12.2008 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in W.P. No. 392 of2008 and E MCA (Review) No. 1348 of 2008 in W.P. No. 392 of 2008

respectively.

Gaurav Agrawal for the Appellant.

Rajiv Dhawan, Amol Suryavanshi, Rameshwar Prasad F Goyal R.S. Hegde Chandra Prakash, Rahul Tyagi, J.K. Nayyar, Aswhani Garg, P.P. Singh, Venkateshwara Rao Anumolu, Prabhakar Parnam, Satyajit A. Desai, Anagha S. Desai, Sanjay V. Kharde and Asha G.Nair for the Respondents.

G The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Leave granted.

i..

2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties we dispose of the appeals with following directions: H 636

BABA TRADING CO. v. VIDARBHA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 637

& INDUSTRIES & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

3. The appellant shall be permitted to continue as licencee A till the period ending 30th September, 2009. He has to pay Rs. 7,62,48,333/- p.a. The amount shall be payable in 12 monthly instalments . If any amount has already been paid, the same shall be duly adjusted. Needless to say, if any amount is payable for the period ending on 30th January, 2009, the same shall be B paid along with instalment due for February, 2009. The respondent No. 6 i.e. Mis. Joshi Freight Carriers Dhule, shall be given licence for the subsequent two years, i.e. period ending on 30th September, 2011 at the aforesaid rate of Rs. 7,62,48,333/- p.a. payable in 12 monthly instalments basis. The c earnest money, if any, deposited by respondent No. 6 shall be returned to be re-deposited by 1st October, 2009.

4. The other I.As and petitions are disposed of.

5. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.

G.N.

Appeals disposed of.
--.-

[2009] 1 S.C.R. 641

ST ATE OF KERALA & ORS.

PRABHAVATHY THANKAMMA & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No.460 of 2009)

JANUARY 23, 2009

[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR

GANGUL Y, JJ.]

SALES TAX LAWS:

"Goods" - Purchaser's right on purchasing a lottery ticket - Held: Is an actionable claim and therefore would be excluded from the definition of "goods" - Actionable claim.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.460 of 2009.

From the Judgment and Order dated 20.7.2007 of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in W.A. No. 1786 of 2007.

R. Salish for the Appellants.

The following Order of the Court was delivered

ORDER

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the F petitioner.

2. Delay condoned.

3. Leave granted.

4. In view of the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Sunrise Associates vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors reported in 2006 (5) SCC 603, we find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. It need to be stated that this

SUPREME COURT REPORTS


A Court in the said case inter alia held as follows:

"We have noted earlier that all the statutory definitions of the word , goods' in the State Sales Tax Laws have uniformly excluded, inter alia, actionable claims from the definition for the purpose of the Act. Were actionable claims etc., not otherwise includible in the definition of 'goods' there was no need for excluding them. In other words, actionable claims are , goods' but not for the purpose of the Sales Tax Acts and but for this statutory exclusion, an actionable claim would be 'goods' or the subject matter of ownership. Consequently, an actionable claim is movable property and 'goods' in the wider sense of the term but a sale of an actionable claim would not be subject to the sales tax law.

x:xxxxx x:xxxxx )()()()()(

A lottery ticket has no value in itself. It is a mere piece of paper. Its value lies in the fact that it represents a chance or a right to a conditional benefit of winning a prize of a greater value than the consideration paid for the transfer of that chance. It is nothing more than a token or evidence of this right. The Court in H. An raj, as we have seen, held that a lottery ticket is a slip of paper of memoranda evidencing the transfer of certain rights. We agree.

xxxxxxx xxxxxxx x:xxxxx

5. The question is, what is this right which the ticket represents? There can be no doubt that on purchasing a lottery ticket, the purchaser would have a claim to a conditional G interest in the prize money which is not in the purchaser's possession. The right would fall squarely within the definition of an actionable claim and would therefore be excluded from the definition of 'goods' under the Sale of Goods Act and the Sales tax statutes."

H G.N.

Appeal dismissed.
(2009] 15 S.C.R. 450

MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA

MANAS RANJAN BEHERA & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 7134-35 of 2009)

OCTOBER 26, 2009

[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI. AND P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

Education/Educational Institutions: c Admission to medical courses - Time Schedule prescribed - High Court directing admission to students after cut-off date - HELD: In view of directions of Supreme Court that time schedule provided in Regulations to be strictly adhered j.<YtSy all concerned, High Court should not have

0 passed the impugned order - However, it has been noticed that the students concerned were eligible, and because of unprecedented situation, they could not secure admission within the prescribed time limit - Delay in giving admission to them is condoned as a one time measure - However, it is E clarified that the time schedule prescribed by the Court should be followed strictly.

Mridul Dhar (Minor) and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors. 2005 (2) sec 65, relied on.

Case Law Reference:

2005 (2) sec 65 relied on para 2

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7134-35 of 2009.

From the Judgment & Order dated 27 .10 .2008 of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in W.A. Nos. 200 & 201 of 2008.

Abhinav Mukerji, Gaurav Sharma, Sumeet Bhatia and

...

' ,,

MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. MANAS RANJAN 451

BEHERA & ORS.

"' ,,, Surbhi Mehta for the Appellant.

Amarendra Bal, Pankaj Kumar Singh, Dr: Vinod Tiwari, J.P.N. Gupta (for K.L. Janjani), Jana Kalyan Das for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The Medical Council of India has challenged the Order C passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa directing the admission of 12 students after the cut-off date of 30th September of the concerned year. It may be noticed in Mridul Dhar (Minor) and Anr. v. Union of India and others, reported in 2005 (2) SCC 65, this Court directed that all the D parties shall comply with the directions issued by this Court as regards admission to students in the Medical and Dental colleges. In Direction-15 of paragraph 35 of the Judgment, we has also indicated, "Time schedule provided in the Regulations shall be strictly adhered to by all concerned failing which the E defaulting party would be liable to be personally proceeded with."

In view of these directions, the High Court should not have passed the impugned Order. However, we have noticed that these 12 students were eligible and because of unprecedented F situation, they could not secure admission within the prescribed time limit. We condone the delay in giving admission to them as a one time measure. However, we clarify that these time schedule prescribed by this Court should be followed strictly.

• .; The appeals are disposed of accordingly.

R.P.

Appeals disposed of.
[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 887

~A_

THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, GOA AND A

; (

...

ANR. v.

M/S. FUNSKOOL (INDIA) LTD. AND ANR.

(Civil Appeal Nos. 3460-3462 of 2004)

NOVEMBER 12, 2009

[S.H. KAPADIA AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.]

Central Excise and Tariff Act, 1985 - Chapter 95 - First Schedule - Heading 95. 04 - Games in context of Chapter 95

.- "Snake and Ladder";. "Monopoly" and "Scrabble/Upwards" - C Classification of - Held: All the three items are classifiable under Heading 95.04 - Appeals filed by Department allowed.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 3460-3462 of 2004.

From the Judgment & Order dated 23.01.2004 in order Nos. 103-105 of 2004 of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal1 South Zonal Bench, Chennai.

Gopal Subramaniam, SG, T.V. Ratnam, B. Krishna Prasad E for the Appellants.

M. Chandrasekharan, K.R. Nambiar, S. Ignatius for the ' l Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.H. KAPADIA, J. 1. This batch of civil appeals is filed by . the Department against the decision of CESTAT dated 23.1.04

in Final Order Nos. 103 to 105 of 2004. These are virtually cross appeals to civil appeals filed by the assessee bearing Civil G Appeal Nos.4309-4311 of 2008 - Mis. Pleasantime Products, & Anr. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I, in which we have delivered the judgment today. The question in both sets ' of civil appeals, however, is common as far as the game

887 H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

"Scrabble/Upwards" is concerned.

2. In thls batch of civil appeals filed by the Department we are concerned with classification of 12 items falling within the declaration filed by Mis. Funskoo/ (India) Ltd.

3. We make it clear 'that the following three items are classifiable under Heading 95.04ofthe Central Excise and Tariff Act, 1985 ("CET A"; for short). They are as follows:

(i) Snake and Ladder.

. (ii) Monopoly .

(iii) Scrabble/Upwards (in terms of our judgment delivered today in M/s. Pleasantime Products (supra)

4. In our judgment in Mis. Pleasantime Products (supra), we .have broadly indicated the tests to distinguish toys, puzzles and games in the context of Chapter 95 ofthe CET A. The tests applied by the Department, namely, age of the player, is not correct as indicated in our judgment in M/s. Pleasantime .

Products (supra). Therefore, we remit this case to the Tribur.a! for de novo consideration in accordance with law. It is made clear that the Tribunal will decide the controversy only with regard to nine out of 12 items. We once again declare that "Scrabble/ Upwards" is a game falling under Heading 95.04 of CET A.

5. Accordingly, civil appeals filed by the Department are allowed with no order as to costs.

8.B.B.

Appeals allowed.

J..._

\_

,..

...

..;
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 653

DESIGNATED AUTHORITY, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & A

INDUSTRY & ANR.

INDIAN METALS & FERRO ALLOYS LTD. (Special Leave Petition (c) No. 1795 of 2009)

JANUARY 27, 2009 B

[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR . .;.

GANGUL Y, JJ.]

Reference to larger Bench: c

Questions as to whether the interpretation that Anti Dumping Duty is country specific rather than exporter specific is in consonance with the provision of Rules 12, 15, 17(3), 18, 19(3) and Annexure 1 to Custom Tariff (Identification, D ....

Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping on Dumped Articles and For Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995; and whether the interpretation placed upon Rule 7 of Rules is correct in so far as it diminishes the Rule of confidentiality statutorily provided for under Rule 7 - Referred to larger E Bench - Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C) No 1795 of 2009.

From the final Judgment and Order dated 1.11.2007 of the F High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No, 16893 of 2006.

Gopal Subramaniam, A.S.G, Brijender Chahar, Rashmi Malhotra. Jyoti Chahar, D.S. Mahra and Anil Katiyar for the G Petitioners.

The Judgement of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Challenge in this petition is to

653 H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS


A the order passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court

allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent. The issue before the High Court was with regard to interpretation of Anti Dumping provisions of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (in short the 'Act') and the Custom Tariff (Identification, Assessment and B Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and For Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules').

2. The writ petition was allowed primarily relying on C Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Designated Authority and Ors.

(2006 ( 10) SCC 368) and the interpretation placed on Section 9A(5) of the Act in the matter and scope of Section 9A(5) of the Act as considered by this Court in Rishiroop Polymers (P) Ltd. v. Designated Authority and Ors. (2006 (4) SCC 303).

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the issues are of complex nature and will have wide ramifications on domestic and international business and commerce.

4. We are of the view that the view expressed in Reliance Industries case (supra) needs a fresh look and following questions need to be dealt with by a Larger Bench:

(1) Whether the interpretation that Anti Dumping Duty is country specific rather than exporter specific in F consonance with the provision of Rules 12, 15, 17(3), 18, 19(3) and Annexure 1 to the Rules.

(2) Whether the interpretation placed upon Rule 7 of the

Ru 1es is correct in so far as it diminishes the Rule G of confidentiality statutorily provided for under Rule 7.

5. The records be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for necessary orders.

H D.G.

Matter referred to larger Bench.
(2009] 1 S.C.R. 723

ST ATE OF KERALA & ORS.

MINI SHAMSUDIN & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 594 of 2009)

FEBRUARY 2, 2009

[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR

GANGUL Y, JJ.]

KERALA GENERAL SALES TAX ACT, 1963:

ss. 2(xii) and 17(3) -'Goods' - 'Actionable claim' - Sale of lottery tickets - HELD: Right of a purchaser of lottery ticket would fall within the definition of 'actionable claim' and would, therefore, be excluded from the definition of 'goods' under the Sale of Goods Act and the sales tax statutes.

Sunrise Associates vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 2006 (1 ) Suppl. SCR 421 =2006 (5) SCC 603, relied on.

Case Law Reference:

2006 (1 ) Suppl. SCR 421 relied on para 4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 594 of 2009.

From the Judgment and Order dated 26.6.2007 of the High F Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Appeal No. 1525 of 2007.

R. Sathish for the Appellants.

The following Order of the Court was delivered:

ORDER

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 723

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

(2009) 1 S.C.R.

A Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

In view of the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Sunrise Associates vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors 8 reported in 2006(5) sec 603, we find no merit in this appeal

which is accordingly dismissed. It need to be stated that this Court in the said case inter alia held as follows:

"We have noted earlier that all the statutory definitions of the word 'goods' in the State Sales Tax Laws have uniformly excluded, inter alia, actionable claims from the definition for the purpose of the Act. Were actionable claims etc., not otherwise includes in the definitions of 'goods' there was no need for excluding them. In other words, actionable claims are 'goods' but not for the purpose of the Sales Tax Acts and but for this statutory exclusion, an actionable claim would be 'goods' for the subject matter of ownership. Consequently, an actionable claim is movable property and 'goods' in the wider sense of the term but a sale of an actionable claim would not be subject to the sales tax law.

XXXJOO(

XXXJOO( )()()()()()(

F A lottery ticket has no value in itself. It is a mere piece of paper. Its value lies in the fact that it represents a chance or a right to a conditional benefit of winning a prize of a greater value than the consideration paid for the transfer of that chance. It is nothing more than a taken or evidence G of this right. The Court in H. Anraj, as we have seen, held that a lottery ticket is a slip of paper of memoranda evidencing the transfer of certain rights. We agree.

)()()()()()(

XXXJOO( )()()()()()(

STATE OF KERALA & ORS. v. MINI SHAMSUDIN & 725

ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

The question is, what is this right which the ticket A represents? There can be no doubt that on purchasing a lottery ticket, the purchaser would have a claim to a conditional interest in the prize money which is not in the purchaser's possession. The right would fail squarely within the definition of an actionable claim and would therefore be excluded from B the definition of 'goods' under the Sale of Goods Act and the Sales tax statutes."

R.P.

Appeal dismissed. c
[2009) 3 S.C.R. 336

PEDDI ASHOK KUMAR & ORS.

v. ..

PEDDI SUDARSHAN RAO (Civil Appeal Nos. 1143-44 of 2009)

FEBRUARY 20, 2009

[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASHOK KUMAR

GANGUL Y, JJ.)

Interim Order: c Partition suit - Preliminary decree - Appeal before High Court - Interim order maintaining status quo - Modified by High Court permitting respondent to raise construction of second floor - HELD: Merely because there was some D purported inconvenience indicated by respondent, that could - not have been a ground to permit construction of second floor

- Order of High Court set aside - Parties to maintain status quo till disposal of matter by High Court.

E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1143-1144/09

Form the Judgement & Order dated 20.10.08 of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Sccundcrabad (AP.), - in CCCA MP No.111 of 2007 and CCCA MP. 671 of 2006.

F Dharam Bir Raj Vohra and S.K. Sabharwal far the Appellants. 'tc

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

G DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. .. -~

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court

H 336

- PEDDI ASHOK KUMAR & ORS. v. PEDDI SUDARSHAN 337

RAO

permitting construction of the second floor, by modification of A the interim order dated 3.11.2006, by which status quo was directed to be maintained. The High Court felt that there was no material to show that the building will not withstand the second floor and that there was inconvenience on the part of the applicant before the High Court to accommodate his sons.

B The High Court in the aforesaid premises modified the interim order dated 3.11.2006 and permitted construction of the second floor.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants assailed the c correctness of the impugned order. There was no material before the High Court to show that any plan had been submitted or there was any sanction to construct the second floor.

:' Specific stand was taken that the building would not withstand raising of the second floor. The High Court felt that it was for D the appellant before the High Court to show that the building withstand the second floor. No material was placed by the applicant before the High Court to show that either there was any sanction for construction of the second floor or that the factual situation was that construction of the second floor would not cause damage to the building. Merely because there was E some purported inconvenience indicated by the applicant that .... could not have been ground to permit construction of the second floor.

4. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order F of the High Court dated 20.10.2008 and direct that status quo as was earlier directed by the order dated 3.11.2006 shall continue to be operative till disposal of the matter by the High Court. _..,,.. •

5. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

RP Appeal disposed of.