Facts:

Holostick India Ltd. manufactures security holograms using coated metallised film, embossing, adhesive coating, and release coating processes. The Department classified the holograms under Tariff entry 39.19, while the appellant argued for classification under Tariff entry 49.01.

Issues:

The proper classification of security holograms under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Specifically,

Whether they should be classified under Tariff entry 39.19 (self-adhesive plastic products) or Tariff entry 49.01 (printed products of the printing industry).

Held:

The court ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that security holograms should be classified under Tariff entry 49.01. The primary use of the holograms was for security purposes, with printing being incidental. This interpretation was supported by the HSN Explanatory Notes. The court set aside the decision of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and allowed the appeals. The appellant was entitled to a refund of the excise duty paid during the appeal process.

Facts:

Vir Rubber Products P. Ltd. (the appellant) manufactures goods under its own brand name "VIR" and also undertakes job orders from automobile companies like Hindustan Motors, Kinetic Honda, etc.

Goods supplied to automobile companies bear their respective brand names, while the appellant claims exemption under Notification No. 1/93 for its own branded goods.

The Department includes the value of goods supplied to automobile companies under their brand names in calculating the total turnover, exceeding the threshold for availing the exemption.

The appellant contends that only goods manufactured under its own brand name "VIR" should be considered for turnover calculation for exemption purposes.

Issues:

Whether goods supplied to automobile companies under their brand names should be included in calculating the turnover for availing exemption under Notification No. 1/93.

Interpretation of the term "brand name" or "trade name" as mentioned in the notification.

Held:

The court examines the definition of "brand name" or "trade name" as provided in the notification and concludes that goods bearing another person's brand name are not eligible for exemption, regardless of whether the brand owner is also an SSI unit.

The court overturns the decision of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) and other authorities, ruling in favor of the appellant.

The court directs that only goods manufactured under the appellant's own brand name "VIR" should be considered for turnover calculation, entitling the appellant to the exemption under Notification No. 1/93 for the relevant year.

Facts:

Hari Kishan Verma, an employee of Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. (formerly Punjab State Electricity Board), was compulsorily retired upon reaching the age of 55.

Verma challenged the retirement order in the High Court, claiming it was punitive and stigmatic.

The High Court, relying on a previous Supreme Court case (R.K. Panjetha v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd.), quashed the retirement order.

Issues:

Whether the retirement order was punitive and stigmatic.

Whether past adverse entries lose significance after promotion.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the retirement order was not punitive or stigmatic. Compulsory retirement is a routine procedure based on an assessment of an employee's suitability after reaching a certain age. The Court emphasized that past adverse entries remain relevant when considering compulsory retirement, as the employer must assess the employee's entire service record. The appeal was allowed, overturning the High Court's decision. Verma was entitled to the benefits of compulsory retirement.

Facts:

The appellant (P.R. Yelumalai) entered into an agreement of sale with the respondent (N.M. Ravi) for a property. Despite a decree by the Trial Court for specific performance of the contract, directing the appellant to deposit the balance sale consideration within a stipulated time, the appellant failed to comply.

Issues:

The appellant's failure to deposit the balance sale consideration within the specified time frame and the subsequent legal proceedings.

Held:

The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, affirming that the suit stood dismissed due to non-compliance with the decree. The appellant's arguments regarding extension of time, implied grant of extension, and notice of deposit were rejected by the Court. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed, and the appeal filed by the respondent was allowed, with no order as to costs.

Facts:

The Umrāla Gram Panchayat, established under the Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1993, employed workers as safai kamdars (sanitation workers) on a daily wage basis.

The workers, having served for many years, demanded permanency and the associated benefits.

The matter was referred to the Labour Court, which ruled in favor of the workers, directing the Gram Panchayat to grant them permanent status and benefits.

The Gram Panchayat appealed to the High Court, which upheld the Labour Court's decision.

The Gram Panchayat further appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether the workers were entitled to permanent status and benefits.

Whether the actions of the Gram Panchayat constituted unfair labor practice.

Held:

The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the lower courts and directed the Gram Panchayat to grant permanent status and benefits to the workers. The court held that the workers were entitled to equal treatment as permanent employees under the Industrial Disputes Act. The court emphasized that the Gram Panchayat's failure to provide proper benefits amounted to unfair labor practice. The court cited relevant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and previous case law to support its decision.

Facts:

The case involves an appeal against the acquittal of three accused persons by the High Court while maintaining the conviction of the main accused, Shyamu, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code along with Section 25 of the Arms Act.

The incident occurred in the context of ongoing enmity and litigation between the families of the deceased and the accused. The complainant, Ranbeer Singh, and his son, Pooran Singh (the deceased), were irrigating their field when the accused approached them and made threatening remarks. Subsequently, Pooran Singh was held by three of the accused while Shyamu shot him.

Issues:

Whether the acquittal of the three accused by the High Court under Section 34 of the IPC was justified given the circumstances of the case.

Held:

The Division Bench of the Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's acquittal of the three accused respondents. They found sufficient evidence to infer a shared intention among all the accused, including the three respondents. Factors such as the carrying of a weapon and the exhortation made by the accused indicated their wrongful intentions. Therefore, the High Court's decision to acquit the three accused was overturned.

The Supreme Court reinstated the judgment and order of the Sessions Court, which had convicted the main accused, Shyamu, and the three other accused under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act.

Additionally, the Supreme Court granted six weeks' time for the respondents to surrender, considering a request related to a family event.

Decided on : 27-03-2015

Arms Act, 1959 - Section 25

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 302, Section 34

Acquittal—Appeal by Complainant against the impugned judgment and order passed by High Court. In the impugned judgment the High Court had allowed the appeal of three accused persons and acquitted them while maintaining the conviction of the main accused. The present appeal before us has been filed by the complainant against the acquittal of the three accused by the High Court. The Sessions Court after trial had convicted the main accused Shyamu Under Section 302, Indian Penal Code along with Section 25 of the Arms Act while it convicted the other three accused persons—There is indeed enough material to infer the common and shared intention of the present accused-Respondents with that of main accused.—There was no justifiable reason for the 4 accused persons to go 100-150 yards inside the field of the complainant. Second, the fact that they carried a weapon being 315 bore country-made pistol with them clearly shows that they had all the wrong intentions. Nowhere in the case of defence has this come out that the present three accused-Respondents were not aware of the fact that Shyamu carried the weapon.—That the High Court erred in acquitting the present accused-Respondents.

Counsel for Appearing Parties

Manoj Swarup, Lalita Kohli and Abhishek Swarup, Advocates for Manoj Swarup and Co., for the Appellant; Ajay Veer Singh Jain, Ajay Kumar Jain, U.R. Bokaida, Advs. for Irshad Hanif, Adv., Rajesh Kumar Maurya, Mukesh Verma and Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Advocate

Final Result : Allowed

Facts:

The case revolves around the re-amalgamation of a separate cadre for electronic data processing responsibilities with the existing ministerial cadre within the Customs and Central Excise Department.

Issues:

The controversy surrounding the reconstitution of cadres and the promulgation of rules regarding seniority and promotion.

The dispute specifically involves the alteration of chances of promotion and whether such alterations were arbitrary or justified.

Held and Decision:

The Supreme Court held that chances of promotion do not constitute conditions of service.

However, alterations in promotion chances may warrant judicial interference if done arbitrarily or based on perverse/mala fide considerations.

The court found that the merger of posts and determination of seniority based on pay scales were justified under the TA Rules, 2003, and STA Rules, 2003.

Posts in equivalent pay scales were placed at the same level, with superiority given to posts with higher pay scales in terms of seniority.

Consequently, the court allowed the appeals filed by those who transitioned to the new cadre from the ministerial cadre, directing the authorities to implement the relevant rules without further delay.

Facts:

The case concerns the determination of inter se seniority among Sub-Inspectors of Police in Andhra Pradesh. The dispute arose regarding whether seniority should be based on the merit list at the time of selection or on the aggregate marks obtained by each probationer at the final examination after training.

Issues:

The Court was to determine the basis for establishing inter se seniority among Sub-Inspectors of Police.

Held:

The Court held that seniority should be determined based on the aggregate marks obtained by each probationer at the final examination after training, rather than the merit list at the time of selection. This decision affirmed that even those who were deputed for training later were entitled to have their seniority determined along with those initially selected. The delay in deputing candidates for training did not affect their entitlement to seniority.

Decision: Consequently, the Court dismissed the case, affirming the decision of determining seniority based on final examination marks after training.

Facts:

The case revolves around the termination of a tube-well operator, who was considered a temporary employee. The worker was provided one month's wages in lieu of notice upon termination. The industrial tribunal ruled the termination illegal, ordering the reinstatement of the worker without granting any back wages. The worker was subsequently offered a position as a fisherman by the state but declined the offer.

Issues:

Whether the termination of the worker's employment was legal under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.

Whether the worker was entitled to back wages.

Whether the denial of livelihood to the worker violated constitutional rights.

Held:

The termination of the worker's employment was deemed illegal by the courts due to non-compliance with the relevant provisions of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The industrial tribunal and the High Court rightly set aside the termination and awarded reinstatement (Para 1.2, 1.3).

The worker was found entitled to back wages. The denial of back wages by the industrial tribunal and the limited award by the High Court were deemed unjustified. The Supreme Court exercised its power under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to award back wages to the worker, even though a separate petition was not filed for the same (Para 1.4, 1.5).

The denial of livelihood to the worker for over four decades was considered a violation of constitutional rights, particularly Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The prolonged litigation deprived the worker and his family of their livelihood, thereby denying them their constitutional rights (Para 1.6).

Decision: The Supreme Court directed the state to pay 50% of the back wages to the worker from the date of termination to the date of the industrial tribunal's award. Additionally, the High Court's decision to award full back wages for the period 24.02.1997 to 31.01.2005 was upheld.