Facts:

The respondent imported a diesel engine set with an invoice showing a total price.

Customs Department assessed additional duty under T.I. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff, charging 8% ad valorem.

Respondent claimed the duty should be charged separately on the diesel engine and alternator, each benefiting from exemption notifications.

Issues:

Whether the assessment of additional duty on the entire set or on its individual components is applicable.

The applicability of Section 19 of the Customs Act in the assessment of additional duty under the Customs Tariff Act.

Held:

The Tribunal's application of Section 19 of the Customs Act is deemed inapplicable to the assessment of additional duty under the Customs Tariff Act.

The focus is on the imported set, not its components, for the purpose of assessing additional duty under Tariff Item 68.

The appeal is allowed, and the Tribunal's order is set aside, directing that the authorities below shall regulate the assessment of additional duty on the entire set.

Facts:

M/s. Diwan Sugar Mills, a partnership firm, owned a sugar factory.

The factory was initially leased out to M/s. Diwan Sugar and General Mills (pvt.) Ltd.

The government took over the factory first under the Defence of India Rules in 1965 and later under the Industrial Development & Regulation Act.

Eventually, the factory was acquired by the U.P. Government under the Uttar Pradesh Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971.

The owners filed a claim for compensation, specifically asserting a payment of Rs. 12 lakhs without deductions for the lessee's liabilities.

Issues:

The interpretation of Section 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971, especially concerning the compensation payable and any deductions to be made.

Held:

The Tribunal under the U.P. Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act rejected the claim for Rs. 12 lakhs without deductions.

The appellant contended that the compensation under Section 7(5) should not be subject to deductions specified in Section 7(6).

The court interpreted Section 7 and held that the compensation, including that mentioned in Section 7(5), is a composite sum.

Deductions under Section 7(6) apply to the entire compensation amount, not distinguishing compensation for the acquisition of the scheduled undertaking from other compensation.

The court emphasized that the Act requires all compensation to be utilized for discharging liabilities under Section 7(6) before depositing any remaining amount with the prescribed authority.

The court rejected the argument that deductions should only relate to the lessee, stating that Section 7(6)(a) could relate to debts or mortgages incurred by the owner.

Reference was made to East India Coal Company Limited Vs. East Bulliaree/kendwadih Colliery Co. (P.) Limited and Others, clarifying its inapplicability to the present case.

The appeal and writ petition were dismissed, and each party was directed to bear its own costs.

Facts:

The case involves a dispute where the High Court of Andhra Pradesh condoned the delay in filing an application under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The Trial Court had initially dismissed the respondent's application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, citing insufficient explanation for the delay.

Issues:

Whether the order of the Senior Civil Judge rejecting the application under Section 5 was appealable under the Arbitration Act, and if the High Court had the jurisdiction to condone the delay.

Held:

The Court concludes that the order of the Senior Civil Judge rejecting the application under Section 5 was appealable under the Arbitration Act, and Section 115 of the CPC did not apply. The judgment delves into the interplay of the Limitation Act and the Arbitration Act, emphasizing that the rejection of the application under Section 5 is tantamount to a refusal to set aside the award. The Court holds that the High Court had the jurisdiction to reappraise the evidence and condone the delay.

Decision: The appeal is dismissed, and there will be no order as to costs. The Court exercises its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and decides on the merits of the sufficiency of cause shown for the delay. The reasons given by the High Court for setting aside the Trial Court's order are considered valid.

FACTS:

Rajasthan Housing Board established under the Rajasthan Housing Board Act, 1970, builds houses and allots them based on various schemes.

Respondent registered for a house in the low-income group category, paid registration fee, and followed the outlined conditions.

Allegations of unfair trade practices by the Board, including delays in possession and increased costs.

Two separate complaints filed by respondents leading to appeals.

ISSUES:

Whether the Board engaged in restrictive trade practices under Section 2(o)(ii) of the Monopolies & Restrictive Trade Practices Act?

Whether the Board's actions constitute unfair trade practices under Section 36A(1)(i) and (vi) of the Monopolies & Restrictive Trade Practices Act?

HELD:

The finding that the Board engaged in restrictive trade practice is deemed illegal and erroneous. The Court interprets Section 2(o)(ii) and concludes that there is no evidence of the Board preventing or restricting competition, a prerequisite for a restrictive trade practice.

The Commission is justified in proceeding on the issue of unfair trade practices under Section 36A(1)(ii) and (ix). However, the Commission did not consider the terms and conditions of the agreements, and there is no proper finding based on necessary evidence.

Decision: The Commission must consider the terms and conditions to determine whether the Board engaged in unfair trade practices. The matters are remitted back to the Commission for disposal afresh after allowing both parties to present evidence.

REFERRED CASES:

Nirma Industries Ltd. Vs. Director General of Investigation and Registration, AIR 1997 SC 2382 : (1997) 89 CompCas 537 : (1997) 5 JT 481 : (1997) 4 SCALE 114 : (1997) 5 SCC 279 : (1997) 1 SCR 137 Supp : (1997) 95 TAXMAN 619 : (1997) 2 UJ 191 : (1997) AIRSCW 2291 : (1997) 4 Supreme 422

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, AIR 1979 SC 798 : (1979) 49 CompCas 419 : (1979) 2 SCC 529 : (1979) 2 SCR 1038

Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd., Bombay Vs. The Registrar of the Restrictive Trade Agreement, New Delhi, AIR 1977 SC 973 : (1977) 47 CompCas 520 : (1977) 2 SCC 55 : (1977) 2 SCR 685

Facts:

Harbans Lal, an employee of the State Bank of India, was suspended on 29th November 1990, pending a contemplated inquiry due to alleged misconduct.

In 1996, Lal filed a petition under Article 226 challenging the suspension order and seeking salary during the suspension period.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition but directed the completion of the disciplinary inquiry by 31st August 1996.

Disciplinary proceedings concluded with the authority stopping three increments and disallowing salary during the suspension period.

Lal appealed, resulting in a partial allowance, with two increments allowed to be stopped.

A second petition under Article 226 was filed, seeking full salary during the suspension period and other benefits as per Sastry Award.

Issues:

Whether the suspension of Harbans Lal before the issuance of a charge sheet, as per the Sastry Award and subsequent agreements, was legally justified.

Held:

The modified Clause 12(iii) of Paragraph 521(10)(b) of the Sastry Award allows for suspension when disciplinary action is proposed or contemplated, without the need for a charge sheet before suspension.

The High Court's view that suspension before the charge sheet was illegal was deemed unsustainable.

The legal position clarified that the bank had the right to suspend the employee when a departmental inquiry was contemplated.

The appeal was allowed, setting aside the judgment of the High Court.

Facts:

Respondent, M. Yogeshwar Raj, appointed in 1976 claiming to belong to a Scheduled Tribe.

Initial notice in 1998 raised concerns about a caste certificate, deemed forged, submitted by Raj.

Inquiry Committee found Raj not guilty, considering the original 1976 certificate as genuine.

Subsequent show cause notice in 1999 claimed the 1998 caste certificate as forged, raising doubts about Raj's residence records and the authenticity of the 1976 certificate.

Issues:

Validity of the show cause notice and the disciplinary proceedings.

High Court's jurisdiction to intervene at this stage.

Held:

The High Court's intervention was deemed premature, as the disciplinary authority had not reached a final decision on Raj's guilt.

The High Court should not have issued a Rule Nisi and stayed proceedings based on a prima facie finding.

Disciplinary Authority yet to decide on issues of caste and the explanation for the alleged forged certificate.

High Court's observations on Raj's caste and the interim order were deemed erroneous.

The challenge to the proceedings was considered premature, and the High Court should not have entertained the writ application at this stage.

Facts:

The respondent-landlord filed a petition for the eviction of the appellant-tenant under Section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.

Landlord claimed that the building was in a dilapidated condition, necessitating demolition and reconstruction.

Rent Controller, after inspection, found the building not in dilapidated condition, and the petition was dismissed.

Appellate authority upheld the findings, but the High Court in revision reassessed the evidence and allowed eviction.

Issues:

Whether the High Court had the jurisdiction to reassess evidence in a revisionary capacity.

Whether the building met the conditions for eviction under Section 14(1)(b).

Held:

The legal position under Section 14(1)(b) was that the building must be in a dilapidated condition requiring immediate demolition.

The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by reassessing evidence, contrary to findings by the Rent Controller and appellate authority.

The High Court should have considered other illustrative elements required for eviction under Section 14(1)(b) and, if needed, remanded the case to the appellate authority.

The judgment and order of the High Court were set aside, and the case was remanded to the appellate authority for a decision in accordance with the law.

Facts:

The respondent, a Stipendiary Engineer, was suspended by the Collector of Koraput, Orissa, due to disciplinary proceedings in contemplation.

The respondent challenged the suspension order before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, asserting that the Collector lacked the authority to suspend him during disciplinary inquiries.

Issues:

Whether the Collector, as the appointing authority, had the power to suspend the government servant under Rule 12 of the Orissa Civil Service Rules.

Held:

The court referred to Rule 12 of the Orissa Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1992, which empowers the appointing authority or any authority empowered by the Governor to suspend a government servant during disciplinary proceedings.

The Governor had delegated the power to suspend to the Collector of the district through an order dated 6.2.87.

The tribunal's view that the power of suspension could not be delegated to the Collector because the Collector could only impose minor punishments was rejected by the court.

The court held that the power to suspend, once delegated to the Collector, continued to be exercisable even after the delegation of power for minor punishments.

Consequently, the order of the tribunal was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.

Facts:

Appellant (Vaneet Jain) filed for eviction of tenant (Jagjit Singh) on the grounds of bona fide need for premises.

Appellant claimed unemployment, intent to start a business, and health concerns.

Rent Controller and appellate authority found the landlord's need bona fide.

High Court, in revision, disagreed, setting aside the previous decisions.

Issues:

Whether High Court can reassess evidence in revisional jurisdiction.

Validity of landlord's claim for eviction based on bona fide need.

Held:

Appellate authority found landlord's need genuine, considering unemployment and intent to start a business.

High Court's reassessment deemed impermissible, limited to legality and propriety.

Enrollment in Employment Exchange at Orissa does not invalidate the landlord's bona fide need.

High Court's conclusion, after reassessment, found not permissible under law.

Judgment under appeal set aside, allowing the landlord's appeal.