Part No.II - Supreme Court of India

More documents

Recommendations

Info

PUSHPA @ LEELA & ORS. v. SHAKUNTALA & ORS. [AFTAB ALAM, J.] respect of the truck was taken out in his name he was indemnified and the claim will be shifted to the insurer, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. 15. Learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that even though the registered owner of the vehicle was Jitender Gupta, after the sale of the truck he had no control over it and the possession and control of the truck were in the hands of the transferee, Salig Ram. No liability can, therefore, be fastened on Jitender Gupta, the transferor of the truck. In support of this submission he relied upon a decision of this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Deepa Devi & Ors., (2008) 1 SCC 414. The facts of the case in Deepa Devi are entirely different. In that case the vehicle was requisitioned by the District Magistrate in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. In that circumstance, this Court observed that the owner of the vehicle cannot refuse to abide by the order of requisition of the vehicle by the Deputy Commissioner. While the vehicle remained under requisition, the owner did not exercise any control over it: the driver might still be the employee of the owner of the vehicle but he had to drive the vehicle according to the direction of the officer of the State, in whose charge the vehicle was given. Save and except the legal ownership, the registered owner of the vehicle had lost all control over the vehicle. The decision in Deepa Devi was rendered on the special facts of that case and it has no application to the facts of the case in hand. 16. In light of the discussion made above it is held that the compensation amount is equally realisable from respondent no.3, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and it is directed to make full payment of the compensation amount as determined by the Claims Tribunal to the appellants within two months from the date of this judgment. 17. Even though the claimants in the other case, the heirs and legal representatives of Nikku Ram, have not come to this 345 346 A B C D E F G H A B SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R. Court, we consider it appropriate to give the same direction in respect of their case. There is absolutely no difference in the case of Nikku Ram and Prem Chand. Nikku Ram, being a daily wage earner was given a compensation of Rs.2,42,000/-. It is quite possible that his heirs and legal representatives were unable to come to this Court simply for want of sufficient means. The insurance company must pay the compensation amount determined in case of Nikku Ram to his heirs and legal representatives in case the amount has so far not been realised from Salig Ram as directed by the Claims Tribunal. 18. The appeal is allowed but with no order as to costs. R.P. Appeal allowed.
J.] [2011] 1 S.C.R. 347 M/S. USHA RECTIFIER CORPN. (I) LTD. (PRESENTLY KNOWN AS M/S. USHA (I) LTD.) v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI (Civil Appeal no.6866 of 2000) JANUARY 13, 2011 [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] Central Excise Rules, 1944: rr.9 and 49, explanation – Captive consumption – Manufacture of testing equipment by assessee for testing its own final products – Testing equipment manufactured within the factory – Admission by assessee that the import of testing equipment was avoided to save foreign exchange and parts and components were purchased to develop the testing equipment – Demand of duty on testing equipment – Held: Duty payable on the testing equipment – It was admitted by the assessee that they had undertaken such manufacturing process of the testing equipments to avoid importing of such equipment – Such a statement confirmed the position that such testing equipments were saleable and marketable – Explanations to Rule 9 and 49 provides that excisable goods manufactured and consumed or utilized within the factory premises as such are deemed to have been removed from the premises immediately for such consumption or utilization and duty is leviable on such excisable goods. Central Excise Act, 1944: s.11A – Demand – Limitation – Suppression of relevant facts – Non-payment of duty on the testing equipment manufactured for the purpose of testing the final products – L-4 licence not obtained by the assessee nor the fact of manufacturing of the said equipment disclosed to the department – The said knowledge of manufacture acquired by the department only subsequently – Held: In view 347 A B C D E F G H A B C D E F G H 348 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R. of non-disclosure of such information by the assessee and suppression of relevant facts, the extended period of limitation was rightly invoked by the department. The appellant-assessee, a manufacturer of electronics equipments, manufactured a machinery in the nature of testing equipments costing Rs.31.27 lacs to test its final products. A show cause notice was issued on the assessee demanding duty on the plant and machinery including the testing equipments manufactured by them. After considering the reply of the assessee, the authorities confirmed the demand. The CEGAT dismissed the appeal filed by assessee. The instant appeal was filed challenging the order of the CEGAT. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The demand for payment of central excise duty in the instant case was made on the basis of statement made by the appellant-assessee in their balance sheet to the effect that there was an addition to plant and machinery including testing equipments worth Rs. 31.26 lacs which were made in the company by capitalisation of the expenditure on raw material, stores and spares and salary/wages and other benefits. The said statement and details were mentioned in Schedule ‘Q’ appended to notice of balance sheet and profit and loss account of the appellant for the year ending December, 1987. The said position was further corroborated by the Director’s report appearing in the Annual Report for the year ending December, 1988, wherein it was mentioned that during the year the company developed a large number of testing equipments on its own for using the same for the testing of semi-conductors manufactured by it. Once the appellant had themselves made admission in their own balance sheet, which was not rebutted and was further substantiated in the Director’s report, they could not later
Page 1 and 2: [2011] 1 S.C.R. 295 S.K. JHA COMMOD
Page 3 and 4: STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. v. BID
Page 15 and 16: RAJENDRA PRASAD GUPTA v. PRAKASH CH
Page 17 and 18: LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER ANDHRA PRA
Page 19 and 20: LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER ANDHRA PRA
Page 21 and 22: PUSHPA @ LEELA & ORS. v. SHAKUNTALA
Page 23 and 24: 339 340 PUSHPA @ LEELA & ORS. v. SH
Page 25: PUSHPA @ LEELA & ORS. v. SHAKUNTALA
Page 29 and 30: USHA RECTIFIER CORPN. (I) LTD. v. C
Page 31 and 32: [2011] 1 S.C.R. 355 ARUNDHATI ASHOK
Page 33 and 34: ARUNDHATI ASHOK WALAVALKAR v. STATE
Page 39 and 40: [2011] 1 S.C.R. 371 M/S. SARAF TRAD
Page 41 and 42: SARAF TRADING CORPORATION ETC. v. S
Page 47 and 48: [2011] 1 S.C.R. 387 B.S. KRISHNA MU
Page 49 and 50: R.L. KALATHIA & CO. v. STATE OF GUJ
Page 57 and 58: EVIDENCE: STATE OF U.P. v. CHHOTEYL
Page 59 and 60: STATE OF U.P. v. CHHOTEYLAL 3.2 In
Page 61 and 62: STATE OF U.P. v. CHHOTEYLAL 415 416
Page 63 and 64: STATE OF U.P. v. CHHOTEYLAL [R.M. L
Page 73 and 74: TGN KUMAR v. STATE OF KERALA AND OR
Page 75 and 76: TGN KUMAR v. STATE OF KERALA AND OR
Page 77 and 78:
TGN KUMAR v. STATE OF KERALA AND OR
Page 79 and 80:
TGN KUMAR v. STATE OF KERALA AND OR
Page 81 and 82:
OFFSHORE HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. v. BANG
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) v.
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
GURDIAL SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF PU
Page 135 and 136:
[2011] 1 S.C.R. 563 M/S. B.FINE ART
Page 137 and 138:
B.FINE ART AUCTIONEERS PVT. LTD. &
Page 139 and 140:
B.FINE ART AUCTIONEERS PVT. LTD. &
Page 141 and 142:
JITEN KUMAR SAHOO v. CHIEF GENERAL
Page 143 and 144:
[2011] 1 S.C.R. 579 PRAFULL GORADIA
Page 145 and 146:
PRAFULL GORADIA v. UNION OF INDIA i
show all

Part No.II - Supreme Court of India

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?