2010 SCCL.COM 84(Case No: Civil Appeal No(s). 2928 of 2008)
Tukaram S. Dighole Appellant(s) versus Manikrao Shivaji Kokate Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/5/2010.
Judge(s):  Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain and Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam.
Subject Index: Representation of the People Act, 1951 — Election petition — filed by the appellant, challenging the election of the respondent on the ground that the respondent had appealed to the electorate to vote on communal lines and in support of the allegation, a cassette containing speeches made by him and his agents, along with its transcript was produced — the Tribunal dismissed the election petition and held that the appellant has failed to prove that the respondent had indulged in any corrupt practices — appeal — whether the Tribunal was justified in discarding the cassette placed on record by the appellant to prove the allegation of appeal by the respondent to the voters to vote on communal ground, amounting to a corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123(3) of the Act? — Yes — appellant failed to produce the receipt stated to have been issued by the Election Commission's office — in the absence of any cogent evidence regarding the source and the manner of its acquisition, the authenticity of the cassette not proved and could not be read in evidence despite the fact that the cassette is a public document — appellant failed to lead any evidence to prove the authenticity of the cassette as well as the accuracy of the speeches purportedly made by the respondent — held no interference to the impugned orders of the Tribunal — appeal dismissed with costs of Rs. 20,000/-.

2010 SCCL.COM 83(Case No: Civil Appeal No(s). 1435 of 2003)
M/s Sanghvi Reconditioners Pvt. Ltd. Appellant(s) versus Union of India and others Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/5/2010.
Judge(s):  Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain and Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur.
Subject Index: Customs Act, 1962 — Section 127B — application for settlement of cases — appellant's ship repair unit searched by the officers of the Customs Commissionerate, resulting in the recovery of incriminating documents — Commissioner of Customs confirmed the demand of customs duty of Rs.68,78,106/- to the appellant besides penalty and interest — appellant filed an application with the Settlement Commission, disclosing and admitting a duty liability of Rs.20,98,786/-, however, the Settlement Commission, confirmed the order of adjudication by the Commissioner but waived penalty in excess of Rs.18 lakhs and granted total immunity to the appellant from prosecution — High Court confirmed the orders of the Settlement Commissioner and not permitted the appellant to urge the additional ground relating to the applicability of Sections 54 and 69 of the Act — appeal — sale of the imported components by the appellant to a third party under the cover of their own sales invoices stood proved on the basis of documentary evidence on record, disentitling them to the benefit of the exemption notification — held no material illegality to the orders of the Settlement Commissioner and of the High Court — appeal dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/-.

2010 SCCL.COM 82(Case No: Criminal Appeal No(s). 160 of 2006)
G.V. Siddaramesh Appellant(s) versus State of Karnataka Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/5/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 304-B and Section 498-A — dowry death — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3 and 4 — conviction and sentence under — for torture and harassment meted out to deceased by the appellant on account of non-fulfilment of dowry demand and ultimately the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself — High Court maintained the conviction orders and partly modified the sentence — appeal — post mortem report found the mark of hanging and there is the indication of an injury mark 8 inches long around the neck of the deceased with unexplained traces of scratches around the neck region — testimony of the PWs proved with no doubt that there was a demand for dowry prior to the death of the deceased — consistency in the testimony of the PW-2 and PW-3 that the deceased was indeed mentally disturbed, the day she committed suicide by hanging herself — held the ingredients of Section 304-B of IPC been satisfied, pointing towards the guilt of the appellant — conviction orders of the trial Court and of the High Court u/s 304-B, IPC confirmed but the sentenced reduced from life imprisonment to R.I. of 10 years while other conviction and sentence confirmed — appeal dismissed.

2010 SCCL.COM 79(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 5508 of 2003)
Ms. G. Vallikumari Appellants versus Andhra Education Society and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/2/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon'ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan.
Subject Index: Delhi School Education Act and Rules 1973 — Section 8(2), 12 and Rule 120 — appellant appointed as Upper Division Clerk (UDC) by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 — appellant reported for duty after three days of the expiry of leave period, but the management of respondent No.2 refused to accept her joining and initiated an inquiry against her on the charges of neglecting duties as UDC — on the recommendations of the disciplinary Committee, the Chairman of the Managing Committee passed order removing the appellant from service — Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the appellant mainly on the ground of violation of Section 8(2) of the Act and Rule 120(2) of the Rules and directed for reinstatement of the appellant with all consequential benefits — Division Bench held that Section 12 of the Act restricting the applicability of the Act to unaided minority institutions is ultra vires and set aside the order passed by the Tribunal — appeal — whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in setting aside the direction given by the Tribunal for reinstatement of the appellant with consequential benefits — no — held the order of punishment passed by the Chairman without complying with the mandate of the relevant statutory rule and the principles of natural justice — neither Tribunal nor the Division Bench dealt with the appellant's plea that the extreme penalty of removal from service imposed was not justified because she was not found guilty of any serious misconduct — directed to substitute the punishment of removal from service with the penalty of stoppage of three increments without cumulative effect and only 20% of back wages during the intervening period — impugned order of the High Court set aside — appeal allowed.

2010 SCCL.COM 78(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 254 of 2008)
State of U.P. and others Appellant(s) versus Saroj Kumar Sinha Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/2/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar.
Subject Index: Reinstatement in service — respondent posted as Executive Engineer at PWD was served with the chargesheet for some serious allegations of misconduct — despite of the pre-emptory direction of the High Court restraining the appellant from taking any final decision with regard to the proposed removal of the respondent from service, the appellant-Government passed the order of removal of the respondent and directed recovery of Rs.1,29,600/- from him — High Court held that the entire proceedings conducted in complete violation of principles of natural justice and total disregard of fair play and directed the appellant to reinstate the respondent with all consequential benefits — appeal — no oral evidence examined and no documents been proved to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents — the respondent not only been denied access to documents sought to be relied upon against him, but also been condemned unheard as the enquiry officer failed to fix any date for conduct of the enquiry — held no interference to the judgement of the High Court — appeal dismissed.

2010 SCCL.COM 76(Case No: Crl. M.P. No. 1503 of 2010 & Crl. M.P. No. 1504 of 2010 In Criminal Appeal No. 2357 of 2009)
Shilpa Aggarwal Appellant versus Aviral Mittal and another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/2/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph.
Subject Index: Custody and Guardianship of the minor child — this Court directed the Respondent-husband to provide the initial expenses for the travel and staying arrangements for the appellant-wife and her minor daughter in the U.K. for atleast a month to attend and contest the proceedings of custody case initiated by the Respondent No. 1 husband before the Court of Justice, Family Division, U.K. — appeal disposed.

2010 SCCL.COM 72(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 1198 of 2010 With C.A. No. 1199/2010 @ S.L.P.(C) No. 30284/2009, C.A. No. 1200/2010 @ S.L.P.(C) No. 30285/2009, C.A. No. 1201/2010 @ S.L.P.(C) No. 30286/2009, C.A. No. 1202/2010 @ S.L.P.(C) No. 30287/2009, and C.A. No. 1203/2010 @ S.L.P.(C) No. 30288/2009)
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and another Appellants/Petitioners versus M/s. Hotel Blue Moon Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/2/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia and Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu.
Subject Index: Income Tax Act, 1961 — Chapter XIV-B, Section 143(2) — Appellate Court while affirming the decisions of the CIT(A) held that non-issue of notice under Section 143(2) is only a procedural irregularity — High Court set aside the orders of the Tribunal and held that the provisions of Sections 142 and 143(2) and (3) will have mandatory application where the assessing officer in repudiation of return filed in response to a notice issued under Section 158 BC(a) proceeds to make an inquiry — appeal — whether service of notice on the assessee under Section 143(2) within the prescribed period of time is a pre-requisite for framing the block assessment under Chapter XIV-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961? — Yes — held that where the assessing officer in repudiation of the return filed under Section 158 BC(a) proceeds to make an enquiry, he has necessarily to follow the provisions of Section 142, sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 143 — no interference to the impugned orders of the High Court — appeal dismissed — no costs.

2010 SCCL.COM 80(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 1133-1135 of 2010)
Rakhi Ray and others Appellants versus The High Court of Delhi and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/1/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Deepak Verma and Hon'ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan.
Subject Index: Delhi Higher Judicial Services Rules, 1970 — 13 vacancies in the General Category were filled according to the merit list, however, 2 posts for SCs candidates and 4 posts for STs candidates could not be filled up for non availability of suitable candidates — High Court observed that only 3 vacancies came into existence subsequent to the Advertisement and directed to appoint 2 candidates from General Category and 1 candidate from SC category for such vacancies — appeals filed for seeking directions to the respondents for offering appointment to the appellants also — held that filling up of vacancies over the notified vacancies amounts to filling up of future vacancies and thus, not permissible in law — the directions of the High Court to fill up two vacancies over and above the vacancies notified not challenged — as 13 vacancies of the General Category been advertised and filled up, the selection process so far as the General Category candidates stood exhausted, thus, no scope of any further appointment — appeals dismissed.

2010 SCCL.COM 77(Case No: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 57 of 2008 With Writ Petition (Civil) No. 66 of 2008)
Ramesh Kumar Petitioner versus High Court of Delhi and another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/1/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Deepak Verma and Hon'ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan.
Subject Index: Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970 — Rule 10 — 2 petitions filed by the petitioners for seeking directions to the respondents to offer appointment to the petitioners on the posts in the cadre of District Judge as all the three vacancies reserved for Scheduled Castes candidates could not be filled up — whether the Rules enabled the High Court to fix the minimum Bench Marks for interview? — Yes — held that in case, no procedure is prescribed by the rules and there is no other impediment in law, the competent authority while laying down the norms for selection may prescribe for the tests and further specify the minimum Bench Marks for written test as well as for viva-voce, therefore, in absence of any statutory requirement of securing minimum marks in interview, the High Court ought to have followed the same principle — out of the requirement of 45% marks for appointment, petitioner No. 1 secured 46.25% marks in aggregate, thus petition allowed while petitioner No. 2 failed to secure the required marks in aggregate and his petition dismissed — no costs.

2010 SCCL.COM 75(Case No: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 28488 of 2008 With SLP (C) No. 29248 of 2008)
Navin Kumar Jha Petitioner versus Lt. Governor and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/1/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Deepak Verma and Hon'ble Dr. Justice B.S. Chauhan.
Subject Index: Delhi Higher Judicial Services Rules, 1970 — as per the judgement of this Court in CA Nos. 14852-14854 of 2008, petition dismissed.

2010 SCCL.COM 74(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 1095 of 2010)
Shantiniketan Hindi Primary School Appellant(s) versus Pal Hariram Ramavtar and others Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/1/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan.
Subject Index: Bombay Primary Education Rules, 1949 — respondent Nos. 1 to 4 employed as teachers in Appellant-school — their services were terminated on the ground that they had absented from duties without informing the Management — respondents filed application before the Tribunal claiming parity of pay and allowances as per government rules applicable to the untrained teachers — Tribunal quashed the termination orders and directed reinstatement of respondents in their services with full salary and other benefits — High Court affirmed the orders of the Tribunal — appeal — Management not followed proper procedure under clause 13 and 18 of Schedule 'F' of Rules, 1949 before terminating the services of the respondents — held no interference to the orders of the Tribunal — considering the financial difficulties of the appellant school, directed them to give only 50% of the salary and other benefits applicable to the untrained teachers as per Government Rules to the respondents 1-4 from the date of appointment till their re-instatement — appeal disposed.

2010 SCCL.COM 73(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 1096 of 2010)
Union of India Appellant versus R.K. Chopra Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/1/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan.
Subject Index: Central Civil Services (Revision Pay) Rules, 1997 — Fundamental Rules (FR) 53 — respondent/Government servant approached the Tribunal for entitlement of subsistence allowance based on the revised pay scale which came into force while he was under suspension from service — respondent was later dismissed from service since he was convicted by the Criminal Court — Tribunal held that the respondent not be entitled to any arrears on account of revised subsistence allowance till the date of suspension and further ordered that he would be entitled to arrears of revision of subsistence allowance when he was dismissed from service — High Court affirmed the orders of the Tribunal — appeal — the Revised Pay Rules, came into force when the respondent was under suspension — held that the benefit of revision of pay and the subsistence allowances will accrue to him, only after reinstatement depending on the fact whether the period of suspension is treated as duty or not. As respondent was dismissed from service therefore the question of the benefit of the revised pay and the subsistence allowance thereon on the basis of Revised Pay Rules did not accrue to him — impugned orders of the Tribunal and of the High Court holding the respondent entitled to the benefit of Revised Pay Rules set aside — appeal allowed.

2010 SCCL.COM 71(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 1091 of 2010)
Cantonment Board, Meerut and another Appellants versus K.P. Singh and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/1/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar and Hon'ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma.
Subject Index: Tender Invitation — for levying toll tax upon the entry of the commercial motor vehicles within the territorial limits of Meerut Cantonment — respondent Nos. 1 and 2 offered the highest bid of Rs. 1,02,000/- per day which was approved by the appellant — respondent No. 5 filed writ petition claiming the appellant to start fresh auction or tender for collecting toll tax and also prayed that till the finalization of fresh auction, respondent No.5 should be allowed to pay at the rate of 1,25,000/- per day for the collection of toll tax — respondent Nos. 1 and 2 suo motu made an offer to pay Rs.1,31,000/- per day for the right to collect toll tax. The High Court as an interim order directed respondent Nos.1 and 2 to deposit Rs.1,31,000/- per day to levy and collect the toll tax during the interregnum — writ petition not pressed by the respondent No. 5 and thus, the petition was dismissed — High Court held that since the petition was dismissed, the interim order, would merge with the final order and on the principles of 'actus curiae neminem gravabit' directed refund in favour of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 of the excess amount of Rs. 29,000/- per day till the end of the contract — appeal — held that it was on account of the voluntary act of respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the Court was persuaded to pass the order allowing respondent Nos.1 and 2 to collect the toll tax — no prejudice been caused to the respondents, therefore, held the Cantonment Board not liable to refund anything in favour of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 — impugned orders of the High Court set aside — appeal allowed with costs of Rs. 50,000/-.

2010 SCCL.COM 70(Case No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 891-893 of 2007)
State of Madhya Pradesh Appellant versus Balram Mihani and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/1/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Chapter VII-A (Sections 105A-105L) — to initiate proceedings under — applications filed by the petitioner for attachment and forfeiture of the properties of the respondents, which were allowed by the trial Court — Division Bench by the impugned order quashed the proceedings and held that the provisions of Chapter VII-A not applicable to local offences complained of — appeal — this Court observed that the applications filed were only in respect of the local offences — the properties not shown to be connected with crimes mentioned in the Objects and Reasons of the amending Act — no connection established between crimes mentioned and the properties — held the Chapter-VII-A related to specified offences and nothing to do with the local offences or the properties — impugned orders of the High Court affirmed — appeal dismissed.

2010 SCCL.COM 69(Case No: I.A. No. 4 in Civil Appeal No. 671 of 2006 With I.A. No.4 in Civil Appeal Nos. 672 and 673 of 2006 Civil Appeal No. 655 of 2006)
Industrial Development Corpn. Orissa Ltd. Applicant(s)/Appellant(s) versus M/s Visa Steel Ltd. and others Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 2/1/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu.
Subject Index: Extension of time for complying with the directions of the Court — in compliance to the directions of this Court, the concerned bidders/respondents submitted their revised financial bids within time — as per the report of the Committee, decision of the State Government and details furnished, this Court extended the time for compliance — application accepted and disposed accordingly.

2010 SCCL.COM 68(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 212 of 2010)
Satni Bai Appellant versus State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/29/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 — punishment of murder — conviction under — trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment for killing her own son with an axe — Division Bench of the High Court affirmed the orders of the trial Court — appeal — no inherent contradictions found in the testimony of the witnesses — blood stained axe and saree of the accused/appellant proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was standing with the blood stained axe near the dead body of the deceased — the post mortem report coupled with the testimony of the witnesses presented a very clear and cogent chain of the events unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the appellant — held no interference to the conviction/sentence orders of the High Court — appeal dismissed.

2010 SCCL.COM 66(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 3148 and 3149 of 2002)
Tamil Nadu Housing Board Appellant versus L. Chandrasekaran (Dead) by LRs. and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/29/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1997 — Section 48-B — issue of utilization of the acquired land by the appellant-Board — respondent submitted a representation to the State Government for reconveyance of the acquired land to him in terms of Section 48-B — representation rejected by the State Government — respondent filed petition for direction to the State Government to release his land because the same had not been utilized for the purpose enumerated in the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act — Single Judge dismissed the petition and held that in terms of Section 48-B of the Act, the Government is empowered to decide whether the acquired land is no longer required for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any other public purpose and the decision cannot be nullified by the Court unless it is shown to be totally arbitrary or malafide — Division Bench not found illegality in the orders of the learned Single Judge but directed the appellant-Board to reconvey the land to the respondents subject to their depositing the amount of compensation together with interest — appeal — whether the decision taken by the State Government not to transfer the acquired land to the respondents is vitiated by arbitrariness or is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution — no — report sent by the appellant-Board to the State Government showed that the purpose for which the land was acquired is still subsisting — held the direction given by the Division Bench to the appellant-Board to reconvey the acquired land to the respondents is per se against the Section 48-B of the Act in terms of which only the Government can transfer the acquired land if it is satisfied that the same is not required for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any other public purpose — impugned judgement of the Division Bench set aside and of the learned Single Judge restored — appeal allowed with costs.

2010 SCCL.COM 65(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 996-997 of 2010)
M/s Godrej Sara Lee Limited Appellant versus Reckitt Benckiser Australia Pty. Ltd. and another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/29/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph.
Subject Index: Designs Act, 1911 — Section 51A — Designs Act, 2000 — Section 19(1) — cancellation of registration — determination of jurisdiction — respondent No. 1 and appellant filed suits alleging infringement of their Registered Designs — Controller of Patents & Designs, Kolkata cancelled 2 registered designs belonging to the respondent No. 1 to which he filed appeal before Delhi High Court — on question of determination of jurisdiction, Delhi High Court held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against the order passed by the Controller — appeal — not disputed that all the appeals from any order of the Controller under Section 19 of the 2000 Act lie to the High Court u/s 51A(1)(a) of 1911 Act — the cause of action for the cancellation of the registered design of the appellant happened in the State of West Bengal — this Court held that it is the Calcutta High Court which will have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal under Section 19 of the 2000 Act — impugned order of the Delhi High Court set aside and the proceedings thereof quashed — appeals allowed — no cost.

2010 SCCL.COM 64(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1248 of 2008)
Ram Singh @ Chhaju Appellant versus State of Himachal Pradesh Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/28/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 376 — rape — accused committed forcible rape on the victim — trial Court found that the prosecution not been able to prove that the offence committed by the accused, thus, acquitted him of the charge — High Court set aside the acquittal order of the trial Court, convicted the accused u/s 376, IPC and sentenced him to R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- — appeal — no contradiction observed by the High Court in the testimony of the victim and her son (PW-7) — Investigation report showed that at the site of incident, grass and plants of some crop were found damaged and ruffled — the testimony of the victim was found in corroboration to the medical evidence — held no interference to the conviction/sentence orders of the High Court — appeal dismissed.

2010 SCCL.COM 60(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 203 of 2010)
Poonam Chand Jain and another Appellant(s) versus Fazru Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/28/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 420/120-B/426 — cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property/criminal conspiracy/mischief — respondent/complainant filed the complaint before the Magistrate against the appellants for executing sale deeds of different plots of land of 60 acres and fraudulently registered them on their names — complaint dismissed by the Magistrate — High Court affirmed the orders of the Magistrate — another complaint filed by the respondent on virtually the same facts — High Court directed the appellants to appear before the trial Court — appeal — whether after an order of dismissal of complaint has attains finality, the complainant can file another complaint on almost identical facts without disclosing in the second complaint the fact of either filing of the first complaint or its dismissal — no — this Court found the core of both the complaints almost identical. Nothing been disclosed in the second complaint which is substantially new and not disclosed in first complaint, thus held that the second complaint cannot be entertained — the orders passed by the High Court quashed and set aside — appeal allowed — no costs.

2009 SCCL.COM 63(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1180 of 2005 With Criminal Appeal Nos. 1181, 1204 and 1205 and 2005)
Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan and another Appellant(s) versus State of Madhya Pradesh Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/28/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 302/120-B — Arms Act — Sections 25(1)(a)(b) and 27 — conviction under — on the basis of circumstantial evidences, the trial Court sentenced A-4 and A-5 to death penalty for murdering the deceased by 3 fire-shots from a close range — High Court affirmed the conviction/sentence orders of the trial Court — appeal — held no reliance to the identification by PW-4 in the T.I. Parade on account of grave doubts about the presence of PW-4 at the place of occurrence — further held T.I. Parade not a substantive evidence — contradiction between the versions of witnesses identifying the A-4 and the persons conducted the T.I. Parade — no explanation by the prosecution for delay of 1 month in T.I. Parade of A-5 — no evidence that PW-3 had any physical contact or confrontation with A-4 and A-5 — nowhere alleged by the prosecution that there was any altercation between the deceased and the accused persons at the scene of occurrence, thus no relevancy of the evidence of Finger expert on the car — held that the circumstantial evidence against A-4 and A-5 not constituted complete chain in consistence with their guilt and incompatible with their innocence — conviction/sentence orders of the High Court set aside — appeal allowed — acquittal on benefit of doubt.

2010 SCCL.COM 59(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 4400 of 2007)
State of Tamil Nadu and another Appellants versus A.Manickam Pillai Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/27/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur.
Subject Index: Grant of Freedom Fighters' pension — Government Order (G.O.) issued by the State Government revealed that freedom fighter certificates could be issued by approved certifiers and which were held as sufficient evidence for the grant of pension — respondent produced two certificate, one of an unapproved certifier and the other of an approved certifier who declared that the certificate issued by the unapproved certifier were correct — matter had been recommended by two Collectors and the District Level Screening Committee, thus, sufficient compliance with the Government Order — held no interference to the order of the High Court granting respondent's pension — appeal dismissed — no costs.

2010 SCCL.COM 58(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 192 of 2010)
P. Vijayan Appellant(s) versus State of Kerala and another Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/27/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 227 — discharge petition — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 read with Section 34 — charged under — for fake encounter of Naxalite Varghese — as per the extra-judicial confession of accused No. 1, CBI registered FIR and filed chargesheet against, A-1, A-2 and A-3/appellant for an offence u/s 302 read with Section 34, IPC — trial Judge dismissed the discharge petition of A-3/appellant and ordered for framing charge — High Court affirmed the order passed by the Trial Court — whether the appellant established sufficient ground for discharge under Section 227 of the CrPC — whether the Trial Judge as well as the High Court committed any error in rejecting the claim of the appellant — this Court held that the admissibility or acceptability of the extra judicial confession in the form of counter affidavit made by the first accused (deceased) before the High Court in the earlier proceedings are all matters to be considered at the time of trial and require sufficient scrutiny at the hands of the Trial Judge — no interference to the orders of the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court — criminal appeal dismissed.

2010 SCCL.COM 54(Case No: I.A. Nos. 8-10 of 2009 In Civil Appeal Nos. 3460-3462 of 2004)
The Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa and another Applicant(s)/Appellant(s) versus M/s. Funskool (India) Ltd. and another Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/25/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam.
Subject Index: Central Excise and Tariff Act, 1985 — classification of items — this Court held that 3 out of 34 items dealt, namely, Snake and Ladder, Monopoly and Scrabble/Upwords stand classifiable under CH 95.04 of Central Excise and Tariff Act, 1985 which referred to "Articles for funfair, table or parlour games, including pintables, billiards, special tables for casino games and automatic bowling alley equipment" — matter remitted back to the Tribunal to examine as to whether each of the remaining 31 items would stand covered by CSH 9504.90 or by CSH 9503.00 which referred to "other toys; reduced-size models; puzzles of all kinds" — appeal allowed — no costs.

2010 SCCL.COM 61(Case No: Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No. 6289 of 2008)
Satyanarayana Sultania and another Petitioners versus State of Chhatisgarh Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/22/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph.
Subject Index: Madhya Pradesh Essential Commodities (Exhibition of Price and Price Control) Order, 1997 — clause 6(2) — confiscation proceedings — Licensing Order, 1991 — clause 11 — Food Inspector seized the 100 bags of paddy being transported by the driver of the truck belonging to the petitioner No. 2 — Collector ordered for confiscation of the seized paddy — Appellate Court and the High Court confirmed the order passed by the Collector and Licensing Authority — appeal — held it to be incumbent on the part of the transporter to carry along with the consignment the documents containing the receipt or invoice as also the name of the customer and Licence Number, if any, the date of transaction and the quantity of paddy sold, to prove the authenticity of the transaction entered into by the licence holder in respect of the said consignment, thus necessary for the said documents to accompany the consignment of paddy being transported — no interference to the orders of the High Court — petition dismissed.

2010 SCCL.COM 57(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 819-851 of 2010)
State of Karnataka and others Appellants versus Gadilingappa and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/22/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar and Hon'ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma.
Subject Index: Regularization of service — respondents appointed as Primary School Teachers on honorary basis, however, not possessed the minimum prescribed qualification for the post of a teacher — respondents rendered long continuous service without any break, thus claimed regularization of their services — Tribunal rejected the applications of the respondents — Division Bench set aside the orders of the Tribunal and allowed the writ petitions of the respondents — appeal — this Court held that since the respondents did not possess the minimum prescribed qualification and their appointment was in contravention of the Cadre and recruitment Rules, thus their appointments were illegal — impugned orders of the High Court set aside — appeal allowed.

2010 SCCL.COM 55(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 795-798 of 2010 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 9785-9788 of 2004] With Civil Appeal Nos. 799-805 of 2010 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 10208-10214 of 2004] With Civil Appeal Nos. 806-810 of 2010 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 10249-10253 of 2004] With Civil Appeal Nos. 811-813 of 2010 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 10307-10309 of 2004] With Civil Appeal Nos. 814-817 of 2010 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 10375-10378 of 2004] With Civil Appeal No. 818 of 2010 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 10626 of 2004])
State of Karnataka and others Appellant(s) versus Ganapathi Chaya Naik and others Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/22/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar and Hon'ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma.
Subject Index: Regularization of services — respondents were appointed on daily wages and had been in continuous service for more than ten years since the day of their initial appointment, thus claimed regularization of their service — Tribunal allowed the claim of the respondents — High Court upheld the directions given by the Tribunal to the appellants to consider the cases of the respondents for regularization of their service — appeal — respondents not been recruited as per the Recruitment Rules — this Court held that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules — orders of the High Court as also of the Tribunal set aside — appeal allowed.

2010 SCCL.COM 53(Case No: Arbitration Petition No. 10 of 2009)
Trimex International FZE Ltd. Dubai Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) versus Vedanta Aluminium Ltd., India Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/22/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam.
Subject Index: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(6) — to invoke arbitration clause — Indian Contract Act, 1872 — Section 4 — purchase order — the petitioner submitted a commercial offer through e-mail for the supply of Bauxite to the respondent — on the basis of the acceptance of the offer by the respondent through e-mail, the petitioner entered into a formal Bauxite Sales Agreement with Bauxite supplier in Australia and also entered into a binding Charter Party Agreement with the ship owner — the respondent requested the petitioner to hold the next consignment until further notice — petitioner terminated the contract and served a notice of claim-cum-arbitration on the respondent — respondent rejected the arbitration notice on the ground of no concluded contract between the parties — hence the petition — the acceptance conveyed by the respondent through e-mail satisfied the requirement of 'communication' u/s 4 of the Act, 1872 — held that once the contract is concluded orally or in writing, the mere fact that a formal contract has to be prepared and initialed by the parties would not affect either the acceptance of the contract so entered into or implementation thereof — arbitration petition allowed — the former Judge of this Court appointed as an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties — no costs.

2010 SCCL.COM 51(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 852 of 2010)
Sri Jeyaram Educational Trust and others Appellants versus A.G.Syed Mohideen and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/22/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan.
Subject Index: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Section 92 — Tamil Nadu Civil Courts Act, 1873 — filing of suit for breach of any express or constructive Trust created for public purposes — respondent filed suit before the District Judge against the appellants seeking direction to repay all the amounts spent in contrary to the terms of the supplementary deed of Trust — appellants filed memo that the District Court not having jurisdiction to entertain any suit u/s 92 of CPC — whether a District Court in the State of Tamil Nadu, does not have jurisdiction to try a suit under section 92 of the Code — by a notification issued in exercise of power under section 92(1), the Governor of Madras invested all courts of Subordinate Judges in the State of Madras with jurisdiction under the Code in respect of suits relating to Trusts created for public purposes of a charitable and religious nature — this Court held that the District Courts and Sub-ordinate Courts will have concurrent jurisdiction and the pecuniary limits mentioned in section 12 of the Civil Courts Act, do not apply to suits under section 92 of the Code — appeal dismissed.

2010 SCCL.COM 52(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 786 of 2010 With Civil Appeals Nos. 787, 788, 789, 790, 791 and 792 of 2010)
C.I.T. Mumbai Appellant(s) versus M/s. Emptee Poly-Yarn Pvt. Ltd. Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/20/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia and Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu.
Subject Index: Income Tax Act, 1961 — whether twisting and texturising of partially oriented yarn ('POY') amounts to 'manufacture' in terms of Section 80IA of the Act, 1961 — Yes — this Court held POY a semi-finished yarn which cannot be used directly to manufacture fabric. It is the thermo mechanical process embedded in twisting and texturising when applied to a partially oriented yarn which makes the process a manufacture — appeals filed by the Department dismissed — no costs.

2010 SCCL.COM 50(Case No: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 21686 of 2006)
Mahesh Ratilal Shah Petitioner versus Union of India and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/19/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph.
Subject Index: Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 — petitioner contended that the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) and its Members had intentionally and deliberately cheated him by giving him delivery of 1,56,100 forged share certificates — writ petition filed by the petitioner for various ancillary and interim reliefs — no material been produced by the petitioner for issuing directions for de-recognition of the BSE or to declare its Rules, Bye-laws and Regulations to be illegal, void and ultra vires — High Court dismissed the petition — appeal — whether in the absence of publication of the Rules and Bye-laws of the Bombay Stock Exchange, which had been framed prior to its recognition in 1956 under the 1956 Act, its activities could be said to be without authority — no — whether it can be said, that in listing the shares of M/s. Presto Finance Ltd. on the Stock Exchange, the Bombay Stock Exchange had acted in a manner which failed to ensure fair dealing and to protect the investors — no — held that since the said Rules and Bye-laws had been in existence from long before the enactment of 1956 Act the same did not require publication in terms of Section 4 of the 1956 Act — petitioner not proved any malafides or irregularity on the part of the BSE with regard to the listing and subsequent de-listing of the scrip of the M/s Presto Finance Ltd. — held no interference to the orders of the High Court — petition dismissed with no costs.

2010 SCCL.COM 49(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 2501 of 2002 In I.A. Nos. 47 and 48)
Union of India and another Appellant versus Raja Mohammed Amir Mohammad Khan Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/19/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph.
Subject Index: Enemy Property Act, 1968 — a copy of the Custodian Ledger Account discovered that a sum of Rs.1,77,38,828.11 stood credited to the account of the applicant — applicant requested the Custodian to remit the amount to which Custodian indicated that no amount was admissible to the applicant by way of refund — appeal — held that for the rents and profits collected prior to the date of order of status quo, the applicant would be required to file a suit to recover the same. Since the amount recorded in the Custodian's ledger as being credited to the Estate of Raja of Mahmudabad represents the collections made from the estate prior to the order of status-quo passed on 5th April, 2002, the Respondent has been given leave to recover the same by filing a suit — I.A. Nos. 47 and 48 filed by the applicant dismissed — no costs.

2010 SCCL.COM 47(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 1134-1135 of 2002)
State of Uttaranchal Appellant versus Balwant Singh Chaufal and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/18/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Hon'ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma.
Subject Index: Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 165 and 217 — appointment and conditions of the office of a Judge of a High Court — appointment of Mr. L.P. Nathani was challenged in a PIL on the ground of ineligibility as he attained the age of 62 years much before of his appointment as the Advocate General of Uttarakhand — Division Bench observed that the Constitution contains a specific provision about the duration of the appointment of the Advocate General in the third clause of Article 165 which says that the Advocate General shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor, hence the provision does not limit the duration of his appointment by reference to any particular age — this Court held a clear case of the abuse of process of Court in the name of PIL and a serious attempt to demean an important constitution office — further held that the petitioner ought to have refrained from filing a frivolous petition — directed to quash the proceedings and also directed to the respondent to pay Rs. 1 lacs as costs in the name of Registrar General of the High Court of Uttarakhand — appeal allowed.

2010 SCCL.COM 45(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 2009-2011 of 2003 With Civil Appeal No. 2520 of 2008)
Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Appellant(s) versus M/s. Kelvinator of India Limited Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/18/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia, Mr. Justice Aftab Alam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Swatanter Kumar.
Subject Index: Income Tax Act, 1961 — Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 — Section 147 — Income escaping assessment — enactment of — whether the concept of "change of opinion" stands obliterated with effect from 1st April, 1989, i.e., after substitution of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 — held the Assessing Officer has no power to review; he has the power to re-assess. But if the concept of "change of opinion" is removed, then, in the garb of re-opening the assessment, review would take place. Hence, after 1st April, 1989, Assessing Officer has power to re-open, provided there is "tangible material" to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment — Parliament by the Amending Act, 1989 re-introduced the expression "reason to believe" and deleted the word "opinion" on the ground that it would vest arbitrary powers in the Assessing Officer — appeals dismissed — no costs.

2010 SCCL.COM 43(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 2090 of 2007)
Union of India and another Appellants versus Kartick Chandra Mondal and another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/15/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal and Hon'ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma.
Subject Index: Re-engagement and regularization of service — respondents engaged as casual labours without going through the regular process of recruitment being sponsored by the Employment Exchange — after two years, they were dis-engaged on the ground that their names were not sponsored by the Employment Exchange — respondents filed application before the Tribunal for re-engagement and regularization of services which was granted on the ground that 10 other similarly placed causal workers were regularized — Tribunal directed the appellants to absorb the respondents in any suitable post commensurate with their qualifications — whether direction to absorb the respondents could have been issued by the CAT and the Calcutta High Court — held the Office Memorandum issued by way of relaxation of the condition of recruitment of casual workers to be prospective in nature and not retrospective — no official orders passed by the competent authority for recruitment/absorption/regularisation of services of casual workers in Group 'D' post — held that if an appointment is made illegally or irregularly, the same cannot be the basis of further appointment — orders passed by the Tribunal and the High Court set aside — appeal allowed — no costs.

2010 SCCL.COM 41(Case No: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 17 of 2007)
Kaka @ Tilak Raj (Minor) Tr. Father and another Appellants/Petitioners versus State of H.P. and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/15/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal.
Subject Index: Illegal detention, inhuman treatment, merciless beating to the petitioners by the respondents No. 2 to 7 — petition filed by the petitioners for quashing criminal proceedings and ordering fresh enquiry by the CBI or District Judge and for awarding reasonable and sufficient compensation in favour of petitioner No. 1 and 2 — held not a case of custodial violation, thus, show cause notices issued to the respondents dropped — petition dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to pursue their remedies before the Criminal Courts.

2010 SCCL.COM 37(Case No: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 60 of 2009)
Ms. Nisha Priya Bhatia Appellant/Petitioner versus Union of India and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/15/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal.
Subject Index: Sexual intimidation of the petitioner by her senior colleagues in office and denial of her service dues — the allegations made by the petitioner been enquired into by several independent bodies but no merit been found in the allegations levelled by her — record showed that the allegations made by the petitioner been examined by the National Human Rights Commission and the National Commission for Women and they too had not granted her any relief — petition dismissed being without merit.

2010 SCCL.COM 35(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1057 of 2002)
Darshan Singh Appellant versus State of Punjab and another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/15/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar Ganguly (Vacation Bench).
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 96, 97 and 100 — right to private defence — dispute regarding partition of land between both the parties which led to the unfortunate incident resulting death of the deceased when appellant fired from his licensed gun — the factum of the incident not been denied by the accused and claimed right of private defence — trial Court held the presence of both eye-witnesses PW7 and PW8 at the time of alleged occurrence highly doubtful as no pellet recovered from the injuries of these witnesses and thus, the possibility of these injuries on their person having been fabricated at a later stage cannot be ruled out — trial Court further held that the possibility of the injuries having been caused to deceased by the appellant in exercise of private defence cannot ruled out, thus, benefit given to the accused and acquitted him of all the charges — High Court reversed the trial Court's judgement of acquittal and convicted the accused — appeal — this Court opined that when a shot was fired from a 12-bore gun and if no pellet was recovered, then the trial court rightly concluded that the injuries were not caused by a fire arm — held that as per the facts of the case, the appellant had the serious apprehension of death or at least the grievous hurt when he exercised his right of private defence to save himself. The role attributed to the appellant fully covered by his right of private defence — impugned judgement of the High Court set aside and that of the trial Court restored — appeal allowed — acquittal.

2010 SCCL.COM 42(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 229 of 2010)
Ramesh Kumar Appellant(s) versus State of Haryana Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/13/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu.
Subject Index: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 25F — conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen — instead of regularization of services, the appellant's services as Mali terminated without notice or retrenchment compensation — appellant made reference before the Labour Court — Labour Court concluded that the workman worked with the Department for a period of more than 240 days preceding the date of termination, thus directed reinstatement with continuity of service with 50 per cent back-wages from the date of termination — High Court set aside the award of the Labour Court granting reinstatement and back wages to the appellant — appeal — whether the High Court justified in setting aside the award of the Labour Court when the appellant had established that he was in continuous service for a period of 240 days in a calendar year, particularly, when similarly placed workmen were regularized by the Government — records clearly showed that the appellant worked for 3 years without break during his service tenure — no reason given of his termination, thus, appellant's termination in contravention of the provisions of Section 25F — impugned order of the High Court set aside and that of the Labour Court restored — appeal allowed — no costs.

2010 SCCL.COM 39(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 235 of 2010 With Civil Appeal No. 238 of 2010 @ SLP(C) No. 5143 of 2009 And Civil Appeal No. 239 of 2010 @ SLP(C) No. 6847 of 2008)
Commissioner of Income Tax-V, New Delhi Appellant(s) versus M/s. Oracle Software India Ltd. Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/13/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia, Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar.
Subject Index: Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 80IA(1) read with Section 80IA(12)(b) — deduction in respect of profits and gain from industrial undertakings — whether the process by which a blank Compact Disc (CD) is transformed into software loaded disc constitutes "manufacture or processing of goods" in terms of Section 80IA(1) read with Section 80IA(12)(b), of the Income Tax Act, 1961? — Yes —by the duplicating process undertaken by the assessee, the recordable media unfit for any specific use gets converted into the programme embedded in the Master Media and, thus, blank CD gets converted into recorded CD by the intricate process. Therefore, processing of blank CDs, dedicating them to a specific use, constitutes a manufacture in terms of Section 80IA (12)(b) read with Section 33B of the Income Tax Act — held the marketed copies are goods and the process by which they become goods would certainly fall within the ambit of Section 80IA(12)(b) read with Section 33B — appeal dismissed — no costs.

2010 SCCL.COM 31(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 125 of 2009)
Vijay Kumar Arora Appellant versus State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/13/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 302 — punishment of murder — trial Court on the basis of circumstantial evidences, convicted and sentenced appellant to R.I. for life and fine of Rs. 2,000/- for setting ablaze his wife and burnt her to death — High Court affirmed the conviction/sentence orders of the trial Court — appeal — no suicidal note written by the deceased was found after she received burn injuries — no other article lying nearby was damaged due to the burns — the evidence of prosecution witnesses established beyond pale of doubt that when the deceased was removed to the hospital, her clothes and her body were smelling of kerosene — the CFSL report on the record shows that kerosene oil stove was found in normal working order — as per the panchnama report, a gas cylinder and a gas stove were available in the kitchen. Therefore, the use of kerosene stove by the deceased highly improbable and doubtful — held that the facts of the case indicate that kerosene oil stove was planted at the site in a fake attempt to hide the homicidal death, thus, prosecution proved beyond pale of doubt that the deceased had died a homicidal death and not an accidental death on account of bringing unsufficient dowry and appellant having extra-marital affairs — held no interference to the orders of the Trial Court or the High Court in convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC for committing murder of his wife — appeal dismissed.

2010 SCCL.COM 38(Case No: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 6 of 2007 With Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 115 of 2007 With Contempt Petition (Crl.) No. 8 of 2007 in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 6 of 2007)
Rubabbuddin Sheikh Petitioner/Appellant versus State of Gujarat and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/12/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam.
Subject Index: Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 154 — petition filed for seeking direction for investigation by the CBI to the alleged abduction, fake encounter of petitioner's brother by the Gujarat Police Authorities and a writ of habeas Corpus to produce Kausarbi (the sister-in-law of the petitioner) — Action Taken Report No. 3 brought to the notice that the body of Kausarbi was disposed of by burning it in village — charge sheet been filed in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate against 13 accused for Criminal Conspiracy, abduction, wrongful confinement, murder etc. — large and various discrepancies in reports and the investigation conducted by the police authorities of the State of Gujarat — strong suspicion that a deliberate attempt was made to destroy a human witness — this Court observed that although the charge sheet was submitted but considering the nature of crime that has been allegedly committed not by any third party but by the police personnel of the State of Gujarat, the investigation concluded in the present case cannot be said to be satisfactorily held — further held that it cannot be said that after the charge sheet is submitted, the court is not empowered, in an appropriate case, to hand over the investigation to an independent agency like CBI — directed the police Authorities of the State to handover the records of the case to the CBI Authorities to take up the investigation and complete the same within 6 months.

2010 SCCL.COM 32(Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 484-491 of 2006 With Civil Appeal Nos. 209 of 2010 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21123 OF 2005), 210-211 of 2010 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21124-25 OF 2005), 212 of 2010 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21129 OF 2005), 213 of 2010 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21131 OF 2005), 214 of 2010 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 23887 OF 2005), 215 of 2010 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2535 OF 2006), 216 of 2010 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 3274 OF 2006) and 217 of 2010 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6325 OF 2008))
Union of India, etc. Appellant versus Rakesh Kumar and others, etc. Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/12/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Chief Justice, Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal.
Subject Index: PESA Act, 1996 — Section 4(g) — Jharkhand Panchayat Raj Act (JPRA) Act, 2001 — Sections 21(B), 40(B) and 55(B) — Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 243 -M(4)(b) — writ petitions were filed to challenge the constitutional validity of section 4(g) of the PESA Act and certain provisions of JPRA Act — High Court held the second proviso to Section 4(g) of the PESA Act, 1996 as well as Sections 21 (B), 40 (B) and 55 (B) of the JPRA Act, 2001 to be unconstitutional cent percent as reserving the offices of Chairpersons of Panchayat is excessive, unreasonable and against the principles of equality — whether it is Constitutionally permissible to provide reservations in favour of SCs, STs and OBCs that together amount to eighty percent of the seats in the Panchayati Raj Institutions located in Scheduled Areas of the State of Jharkhand? — held that in Panchayats located in Scheduled Areas, the exclusive representation of Scheduled Tribes in the Chairperson positions of the same bodies is constitutionally permissible as total reservations exceeding 50% of the seats in Panchayats located in Scheduled Areas are permissible on account of the exceptional treatment mandated under Article 243-M(4)(b) — in Scheduled Areas where the extent of the population belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes exceeds 30% of the total population, the upper ceiling of 80% will become operative — held the proviso to Section 4(g) of PESA Act and Sections 21(B), 40(B) and 55(B) of Jharkhand Panchayat Reservation Act, 2001 to be constitutionally valid — appeals allowed.

2010 SCCL.COM 29(Case No: Criminal Appeal No(s). 836 of 2005)
Aftab Ahmad Anasari Appellant(s) versus State of Uttaranchal Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/12/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 302, 376 and 201 — rape, murder and causing disappearance of evidence — trial Court convicted the appellant for commission of rape and murder of a minor girl aged 5 years and imposed penalty of death sentence under Section 302 R.I. for life under Section 376 with fine of Rs. 10,000 and R.I. for 7 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- u/s 201, IPC — High Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant but modified the death penalty for the sentence to R.I. for life — appeal — not disputed that the deceased was subjected to rape and died a homicidal death — testimony of the PW2 satisfactorily proved that the appellant was found fleeing from near the place where the dead body was found lying — prosecution proved that the frock and underwear, recovered from the house of DW1 pursuant to the voluntary disclosure statement made by the appellant, belonged to the deceased — this Court found the extra judicial confession made by the appellant before the Investigating Officer (PW5) and referred to by the prosecution witness as reliable — held the chain of circumstantial evidence complete and conclusive in establishing the guilt of the appellant — appeal dismissed.

2010 SCCL.COM 24(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 222 of 2010)
Sharda Kailash Mittal Appellant(s) versus State of M.P. and others Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/12/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Chief Justice and Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam.
Subject Index: M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 — Section 41-A — removal of President, Vice-President or Chairman of a Committee — appellant was elected as President of Nagar Palika — respondent leveled charges against the appellant - (i) that she has caused monetary loss to the Panchayat by publishing advertisements for more than Rs.1500/-; (ii) that the appellant had struck off her signature from the minutes which has been accepted by the respondent; (iii) that she had shown undue haste in appointing the Chief Municipal Officer and compelled him to make various payments to the tune of Rs. 8,12,783/- — State Government under Section 41-A of the Act removed the appellant from the post of the Chairman — learned Single Judge and the Division Bench affirmed the removal orders of the appellant — appeal — no charge of causing financial loss to the Nagar Palika could be established — State Government failed to appreciate that the decisions for publication of advertisements, calling for tenders and payment of salaries were made by the entire council and the President-appellant could not be singled out for those decisions taken by the Council — held that the actions of the appellant, even if proved, only amount to irregularities, and not grave forms of illegalities, which may allow the State Government to invoke its extreme power under Section 41-A — removal orders of the State Government and consequential orders of the learned High Court set aside — held that disqualification of the appellant expunged and the appellant free to contest the elections in future — appeal allowed — no costs.

2010 SCCL.COM 23(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 2786 of 2007)
Chaitanya Prakash and another Appellants versus H. Omkarappa Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/12/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar and Hon'ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma.
Subject Index: Termination from services — respondent appointed as Executive Director on specific terms and conditions — High Court held the order of termination passed by the appellants against respondent was stigmatic, and therefore, directed that the respondent herein would be allowed to continue in his service — appeal — whether the impugned order passed by the appellants against the respondent terminating his service during the period of probation was an order of termination simpliciter due to unsatisfactory service or "stigmatic" due to misconduct — the performance of the respondent was not found to be satisfactory during the probation period of his service and his probation was extended by another three months — communications on the record communicating to the respondent that the appellants were not satisfied with the performance of the respondent and despite such communications the service was found to be unsatisfactory — held that the respondent was time and again informed during the probation period about his deficiencies and was given ample opportunities to improve them, therefore, the respondent's termination was due to unsuitability of the respondent and not a case of punishment for misconduct — impugned order of the High Court set aside — order of the appellant restored — appeal allowed — no costs.

2010 SCCL.COM 56(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 282 of 2010)
Joseph Kantharaj and another Appellants versus Attharunnisa Begum S. Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/11/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran and Hon'ble Mr. K.S. Radhakrishnan.
Subject Index: Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 — Section 27(2)(r) — eviction petition — respondent filed eviction petition against the appellants while suit for specific performance remained in pending — trial Court held that in the absence of any lease deed or acknowledgement of tenancy or receipt in regard to payment of rent, the dispute relating to relationship required to be settled by the Civil Court, thus deferred the eviction proceedings till the disposal of suit for specific performance — High Court set aside the orders of the trial Court and granted eviction petition of the respondent — appeal — no acknowledgment in writing by the appellant that he is the tenant after the date of agreement of sale — no receipt or document produced to establish that any rent was paid by the first appellant to the respondent — impugned order of the High Court set aside and that of the trial Court restored — appeal allowed.

2010 SCCL.COM 36(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 140 of 2010)
Parasnath Tiwari and another Appellants versus Central Reserve Police Force and another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/11/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar and Hon'ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma.
Subject Index: Enhancement of quantum of compensation — appellant's son working with CRPF as Constable died accidentally while in service at Mizoram — the appellant, his wife and other family members been denied proper information consequent to which they suffered mental agony and financial difficulties for a long period — High Court directed for payment of compensation of Rs. 1 lakhs to the appellants for the loss suffered by them — appeal for enhancement of compensation — no submission made against the order of the High Court denying liberalised pension, hence not interfered with — directed the respondent to pay Rs. 2 lakhs to the appellants within 6 weeks failing to which, the balance amount shall earn interest @ 12% p.a. till the date of payment — appeal disposed.

2010 SCCL.COM 34(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 1337 of 2003 With Civil Appeal No. 154 of 2010 @ SLP(C) No. 22176 of 2009 Transferred Case No. 5 of 2005 and 6 of 2005)
M/s Southern Technologies Ltd. Appellant(s) versus Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/11/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam.
Subject Index: Income Tax Act, 1961 — Sections 2(24) and 36(1)(vii) — income and statutory deductions — RBI Directions 1998 — NPA provisions in the Balance sheet of an NBFC — "whether the Department is entitled to treat the "Provision for NPA", which in terms of RBI Directions 1998 is debited to the P&L Account, as "income" under Section 2(24) while computing the profits and gains of the business under Sections 28 to 43D of the IT Act?" — Yes — 1998 Directions are only Disclosure Norms and have nothing to do with computation of Total Taxable Income or with the accounting treatment — if an assessee debits "provision for doubtful debt" to the P&L Account and makes a corresponding credit to the "current liabilities and provisions" of the balance sheet, then it would constitute a provision for doubtful debt, and the assessee would not be entitled to deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) — held that a provision for NPA debited to P&L Account under the 1998 Directions is only a notional expense and, therefore, there would be add back to that extent in the computation of total income under the IT Act. If a provision for doubtful debt is expressly excluded from Section 36(1)(vii) then such a provision cannot claim deduction under Section 37 of the IT Act even on the basis of "real income theory" — appeals filed by the NBFCs dismissed — no costs.

2010 SCCL.COM 30(Case No: Transfer Petition (Civil) Nos. 740-741 of 2008)
M/s Vinedale Distilleries Ltd. and another Petitioners versus Dena Bank and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/11/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir, Mr. Justice Aftab Alam and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar.
Subject Index: Transfer Petition — Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 — Securitization Act, 2002 — Section 17 — matter filed under the provisions of — held that since all the other proceedings relating to the management and control of the Petitioner Company are being heard by the Delhi High Court, thus, reasonable to transfer the proceedings from DRT, Hyderabad to DRT Delhi — Transfer petition allowed — no cost.

2010 SCCL.COM 25(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 634 of 2006 With Civil Appeal Nos. 635, 636, 637 and 639 of 2006)
Navin Jindal Appellant(s) versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/11/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia, Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Verma.
Subject Index: Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 48(2) — statutory deduction — determination of the nature of loss — quantum of loss not disputed — whether Rs.2,43,750/- was a short-term capital loss, as contended on behalf of the assessee(s), or whether the said loss was a long-term loss, as contended on behalf of the Revenue? — held that for determining whether the gains/loss of renunciation of right to subscribe is a short-term or long-term gains/loss, the crucial date is the date on which such right to subscribe for additional shares/debentures comes into existence and the date of renunciation [transfer] of such right — further held the computation of income under the head "Capital gains", by the assessee is correct therefore, the loss suffered by the assessee of Rs. 2,43,750/- was short-term loss — appeal filed by the assessee allowed — no costs.

2010 SCCL.COM 21(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 192 of 2010)
Shyam Gopal Bindal and others Appellant(s) versus Land Acquisition Officer and another Respondent(s)
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/11/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar.
Subject Index: Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order 41 Rule 27 — application to adduce additional records — appellants claimed to be owners in possession of the suit land — Urban Improvement Trust (UTI) disclosed that the land in question had been acquired and the appellants with other co-owners were asked to receive the compensation — predecessors of the appellants filed suit for seeking an injunction and declaration but not produced any oral and documentary evidence to prove the disputed property as their personal property, thus, suit of the plaintiff dismissed — appellants filed appeal and an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to adduce additional evidence which was rejected by the Appellate Court and the High Court — appeal — the original plaintiff passed away during the pendency of the civil suit, thus, held that the opportunity to produce documents on record available to the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff — orders of the Appellate Court and of the High Court set aside — appeal and application for additional evidence allowed — matter remanded back to the trial Court for fresh decision.

2010 SCCL.COM 18(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 1418 of 2004)
Bengai Mandal @ Begai Mandal Appellant versus State of Bihar Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/11/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar and Hon'ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 302, 326, 452 read with 34 — trial Court convicted appellant and sentenced him to imprisonment for life for throwing acid over the deceased which caused blisters and rashes on her body and later led to her death — High Court upheld the decisions of the trial Court — appeal — evidences of the prosecution witnesses in corroboration to the dying declaration given by the deceased — dying declaration on record clearly established that the appellant was present at the time and scene of the offence — held that in absence of any active role played by the appellant or overt act being done by the appellant, it cannot be said that the appellant had accompanied the accused no.1 to the house of the deceased with a common intention to murder the deceased, thus, the appellant acquitted from charge u/s 302 but convicted u/s 326 for intending to cause injury and disfigurement of the deceased — appellant underwent RI for 7 years, thus, quantum of sentence reduced to the period already undergone — appeal partly allowed.

2010 SCCL.COM 15(Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 2010 With Criminal Appeal Nos. 73, 74, 75, 76, 77 and 78 of 2010)
M/s. Mandvi Co-op Bank Ltd. Appellant versus Nimesh S. Thakore Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 1/11/2010.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Hon'ble Dr. Justice Aftab Alam.
Subject Index: Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 145 — evidence of affidavit — dishonoured cheque trial — whether the right of the accused is limited to cross-examination of any person giving evidence on affidavit or is it open to the accused to insist that notwithstanding the evidence earlier given on affidavit, on coming to the court the complainant or his witness should first give deposition in examination-in-chief before being cross-examined by him? — whether the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 145 of the Act would apply to proceedings that were pending on February 6, 2003, the date on which those provisions were inserted in the Act? — Yes — whether the right to give evidence on affidavit as provided to the complainant under section 145(1) of the Act is also available to the accused? — No — accused fully protected u/s 145(2) of the Act, 1881 — held that the affidavit of the person so summoned is already on the record is obviously in the nature of examination-in-chief. Hence, on being summoned on the application made by the accused the deponent of the affidavit (the complainant or any of his witnesses) can only be subjected to cross-examination as to the facts stated in the affidavit — this Court observed that the High Court not justified in holding that there was no express bar in law against the accused giving his evidence on affidavit as it is not permissible for the court to make additions in the law and to read into it something that is just not there. Further held that in case of dishonoured cheque, there may be likelihood the defence would lead other kinds of evidences to rebut the presumption that the issuance of the cheque was not in the discharge of any debt or liability, therefore, wrong to equate the defence evidence with the complainant's evidence and to extend the same option to the accused as well — impugned order of the High Court allowing the accused to tender his evidence on affidavit set aside — remaining 6 appeals dismissed — no costs.