Reported in : 2003(157)ELT5(MP)
.....29-11-2002 (annexure p-13) passed by commissioner, customs and central excise, indore. in order to appreciate the issue involved and urged, few facts need mention in brief.2. petitioner - a limited company is engaged in the business of manufacture of various types of 'miscellaneous fluids' and patent proprietary medicines.3. dispute arose between the petitioner and the central excise department in relation to excisability of certain products manufactured by the petitioner. this led to issuance of show cause notice, dated 7-6-2002 by the respondent no. 2 commissioner central excise to petitioner. the petitioner was asked to reply.4. it appears that the case was fixed for proceedings before the commissioner on 20-9-2002. the petitioner sought adjournment on 20-9-2002, inter alia on the ground of non-availability of their counsel who was to come from out side (delhi). it is not in dispute that learned commissioner did not pass any order on the adjournment request made by the petitioner on 20-9-2002 the same day and it further appears that eventually the learned commissioner passed the final order, dated 25-9-2002 (annexure p-9) on the aforesaid show cause notice against the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2003ACJ2081; AIR2003MP205; 2003(4)MPLJ306
.....and has filed this appeal challenging the legality and validity of the same.5. the respondents have filed a reply to the memo of appeal. this in fact appears to be a cross-objection, though the same has, been styled as reply. in this reply, which we are treating as a cross-objection, the respondents have submitted that they are entitled to a claim of rs. 4 lac and they have also prayed for enhancing the claim from rs. 2 lac to 4 in view of substitution of rs. 4 lac in place of rs. 2 lac in the schedule of the railway accidents and untoward incidents compensation rules, 1990, with effect from 1-11-97 by gsr 620 (e), dated 25th october, 1997.6. we have heard the learned counsel for the parties.7. shri s. k. mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-railways has summarised his attack on the impugned order as under :--1. that, the provisions regarding untoward incident were inserted in railway act by amending act and they are in force with effect from august 1, 1994, therefore, the present case is not covered by the amended provisions as the incident occurred prior thereto, on july 14, 1992. 2. that, the application was barred by limitation; 3. the claim was not.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2003CriLJ1964; 2003(1)MPLJ578
.....of tampering with witnesses; the history of the case as well as of its investigation and other relevant grounds which, in view of so many variable factors, cannot be exhaustively set out.6. in the light of the provisions of bail and dictum of the supreme court and the ratio in gurucharan's case (supra) it is shocking to the judicial conscious, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, where positive direct evidence is available against the non-applicant for commission of cold blooded murder, he was let off by the learned additional sessions judge on impertinent ground. as a matter of fact, order of learned court below is not disclosing any valid and germane reasons for releasing such accused. though under section 439(1), cr.p.c. unfettered powers have been given to the high court and sessions court but the same are required to be exercised judicially and not arbitrarily. recently, the supreme court in case of suresh kumar somabhai rana v. ashok kumar haraklal mittal 2002 (2) mpwn 134 has cancelled bail granted to accused for the offence under sections 302, 149, ipc by the high court whereas the same was refused by the sessions court (this decision reproduced in toto).....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2003(51)BLJR470; [2003(1)JCR534(Jhr)]
.....of refusal there is no postal seal. if the post man has not been examined to substantiate the service of summons on refusal. despite all these facts the court below has erroneously recorded a finding that summons suit was served upon the appellants.10. the court below also recorded a finding that the appellants have knowledge about the suit and therefore, ex parte cannot be set aside. from the evidence adduced by the parties in the said proceeding it does not appear that the defendants-appellants have admitted that they had knowledge about the hearing of the suit. the court below also has not recorded a finding that the defendants-appellant hadknowledge about the hearing of the suit. the court below simply proceeded on the basis that since the appellant had knowledge of the institution of the suit therefore ex parte cannot be set aside.11. proviso to order ix. rule 13, cpc very clearly provides that merely because of irregularity in the service of summons an ex parte decree can not set aside if it is proved that the defendants have knowledge about the date of hearing of the suit. recently the apex court in the case of sushil kumar sabharwal v. gurpreet singh and ors., air.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : [2003(2)JCR48(Jhr)]
.....finding of facts that the defendants are not defaulter. in that view of the matter the high court, in second appeal, cannot disturb such findings of fact.3. notwithstanding the settled law referred to hereinabove i would like to go into the facts of the case. the plaintiffs filed the suit alleging that the defendants are the, habitual defaulters and have adopted a novel method to show remittance by money order and in collusion with the postal peon used to get endorsement of refusal on the money order coupons so the same amount may be kept in circulation. it is therefore clear that the plaintiffs themselves admit that the defendants are in the habit of remitting rent by money order. the defendants proved the money order coupons to show that rent was continuously remitted by money order. it is well settled that tender of rent is not a condition precedent for remittance. it is equally well settled that it is not necessary to call the postal peon and other authorities of the post office for the purpose of proving the money order coupons. money order receipts are public documents which is the conclusive evidence of remittance of rent by money order. the lower appellate court has very.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : [2003(2)JCR193(Jhr)]
.....that notwithstanding the so called alleged non approval of his appointment or notwithstanding even any alleged irregularity in his appointment, the fact is that he had served for 36 long years and because of the finality in law of the aforesaid judgment of the writ court, the writ petitioner is entitled to receive his retrial benefits.4. we, however, do not find ourselves in agreement with the view of the learned single judge that the special secretary, government of bihar, or the chief secretary, government of bihar in law were answerable to the contempt charge. the writ petitioner was an employee of the khadi gramodyog board. it is the board which is liable to pay the retrial dues to the writ petitioner. a direction was also issued by the writ court aimed at the board to pay the dues, whether the district officer was to pay or the chief executive officer was liable to pay.5. we, accordingly, while setting aside the aforesaid part of the impugned order which held the special secretary or the chief secretary to the government of bihar liable to pay, direct that the khadi gramodyog board, gandhi maidan, patna shall pay to the writ petitioner all the retiral dues to him as per the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : [2003(4)JCR378(Jhr)]
.....by the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents.5. in the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner is directed to file a representation before the concerned general manager-cum-chief engineer within a period of 15 days from the date of this order and the general manager will pass a reasoned order on the following three points within a period of one month from the date of filing of the representation after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner :whether the petitioner is entitled to exemptions under the proviso of clause ka of the new industrial policy, 1995, annexure 4, with reference to the date of production as given in the letter (supra)? (ii) whether the bills could have been raised without giving exemptions? and (iii) whether the bills could have been raised before the expiry of 12 months from the date of production? till the order is passed by the general manager concerned, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner for payment of the impugned bills.with the aforesaid observations/directions, this writ petition is disposed of.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2003(II)OLR42
.....settlement shows that the family properties are joint in nature.the aforesaid decree was challenged by defendants 1. 2. 5 and 6. the appellate court relied upon the plea of defendants 3 and 4 taken in their written statement that there was no partition between satya and baji and ultimately held that the defendants 3 and 4 filed their written statement at a belated stage and no issue was framed on the question of partition between satya and baji. it was further held that as there was no issue as regards the previous partition, none of the parties could lead any evidence in that direction. as the question of partition between satya and baji has not been decided by the trial court, the appellate curt set aside the judgment, and decree and directed for rehearing of the suit on the question of partition between satya and baji and allotment of suit plot no. 582 measuring an area of ac. 0.62 decimals in favour of baji. the appellate court while making the aforesaid direction for rehearing estopped the plaintiff from participating in the hearing on the fresh issue.6. according to the counsel for the appellant, the plaintiff- appellant will suffer irreparable loss if the hearing of the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : 2003(I)OLR419
.....court can exercise its jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution of india and still issue a direction for revaluation. for that, specific facts indicating irregularities or improprieties in valuation which would compel us to exercise our jurisdiction should be pleaded and a prima facie case is to be made out. the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that we must first direct production of the answer papers and thereafter see whether there are compelling reasons for ordering a revaluation. counsel seeks support for this submission from a decision of this court in arundhati sahoo v. board of secondary education, orissa and anr. : 1996 (i) o.l.r. 512. in that decision, after referring to the decision of the supreme court in council of higher secondary education, orissa v. jasodhara padhi (civil appeal no. 1362 of 1990 disposed of on 28.2.1990) and some of the other decisions of this court, the court asked itself the question whether there were any compelling circumstances justifying the production of the answer papers. their lordships found materials based on which they held that it was proper to direct the production of the answer papers. on their production, the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTReported in : (2003)133PLR676
.....been considered in accordance with the applicable rules. the discretion vested in the respondents aas not been exercised arbitrarily. therefore, in fact the impugned order has been passed after taking into consideration all the necessary facts and circumstances. therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.4. we have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.5. a perusal of the rules clearly shows that a government employee can be retired from service on medical ground under rule 5.11 of the civil services rule on a medical certificate being given by the competent authority to the effect. rule 5.11 is as under:-'rule 5.11: the invalid pension is awarded on his retirement from public service to government employee who by bodily or mental infirmity is permanently incapacitated for the public service or for the particular branch of it to which he belongs.'6. on a government employee being directed to be retired as medically unfit, the case of the employee is to be considered for appointment of an alternative post under rule 5.12. this rule is as under-'rule 5.12: in the case of partial incapacity (vide alternative certificate in rule 5.26) a.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT