SUPREME COURT OF INDIA while deciding the Criminal Appeal Nos.389 of 1998 with 387-388 of 1998 and 199 of 19999 on 06/08/2001 in re: ANIL RAI vs STATE OF BIHAR observed as follows:-
QUOTE:
The inordinate, unexplained and negligent delay in pronouncing the judgement is alleged to have actually negatived the right of appeal conferred upon the convict under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is submitted that such a delay is not only against the provisions of law but in fact infringes the right of personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Any procedure or course of action does not ensure the reasonable quick adjudication has been termed to be unjust. Such a course is stated to be contrary to the maxim actus curiae neminem gradadit, that an act of the Court shall prejudice none.
The intention of the legislature regarding pronouncement of judgements can be inferred from the provisions of the Code of Crimnal Procedure sub-section (1) of Sec.363 of the Code provides that the judgement in every trial in any criminal Court of original jurisdiction, shall be pronounced in open Court immediately after the conclusion of the trial or on some subsequent time for which due notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders. The words “some subsequent time” mentioned in Sec.353 contemplates the passing of the judgement without undue delay, as delay in the pronouncement of judgement is opposed to the principle of law. “Such subsequent time” can at the most be stretched to the period of six weeks and not beyond that time in any case.The pronouncement of judgement in the Civil case should not be permitted to go beyond two months.
It is true, that for the High Courts, no period for pronouncement of judgement is contemplated either under the Civil Procedure Code or the Criminal Procedure Code, but as the pronouncement of the judgement is a part of the justice dispensation system, it has to be without delay. In a country like ours where people consider the judges only second to God, efforts be made to strengthen that belief of the common man. Delay in disposal of the cases facilitates the people to raise eye-brows, sometimes genuinely which, if not checked, may shake the confidence of the people in the judicial system. A time has come when the judiciary itself has to assert for preserving its stature, respect and regard for the attainment of the rule of law. For the fault of a few, the glorious and glittering name of the judiciary cannot be permitted to be made ugly. It is the policy and purpose of law, to have speedy justice for which efforts are required to be made to come up to the expectation of the society of ensuring speedy, untainted and unpolluted justice.
UNQUOTE
[for full text of the judgement, please visit http://www.taxesinindia.com and click on the citation taxind_2001_sc_cra_389]
VENKATRAMAN RAGGHUPATHY, Web admin.
SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA while deciding the Civil Appeal Nos. 835-836 of 2002 on 05/02/2009 in re: VARSH PLASTICS PVT. LTD vs U.O.I. observed as follows:-
QUOTE:-
Section 151A of the [Customs] Act confers upon the Board the powers to issue orders, instructions and directions to the authorities for proper administration of the provisions of the Act. It also provides that all such authorities and all other persons employed in the execution of the provisions of the Act shall observe and follow such orders, instructions and directions of the Board. Proviso appended thereto states that no such orders, instructions or directions shall be issued (a) so as to require all such officers of Customs to make a particular assessment or to dispose of a particular case in a particular manner or (b) so as to interfere with the discretion of the Collector of Customs [Appeals] in exercise of his appellate functions. The proviso to Sec.151A makes it abudantly clear that the Customs officer who has to make a particular assessment is not bound by such orders or instructions or directions of the Board. An assessing authority under the Act being a quasi-judicial authority has to act independently in exercise of his quasi-judicial powers and functions. Sec.151A does not in any manner control or affect the independent exercise of quasi-judicial functions by the assessing authority.
UNQUOTE.
[for full text of the judgement, please visit http://www.taxesinindia.com and click on the citation taxind_2009_sc_ca_835_836]
VENKATRAMAN RAGGHUPATHY, Web admin.
SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS
Mindful of the entire procedure to be followed by the High Court while dealing with such appeals the Legislature has even gone to the extent of noticing minute matters like giving powers to the High Court to frame any other substantial question of law if it is so satisfied and which had not been framed in the Memorandum of Appeal. Not only that the Central Excise Act is a complete Act and a code in itself but even Sec.35B of the Act provides for complete procedure including limitation within which appeal has to be filed how it is to be entertained and the powers of the High Court in deciding such an appeal. Sec.35B (9) of the Act opens with very specific expression “save as otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, relating to appeals to the High Court shall as far as may be apply in the case of appeals under this Section. Thus the applicability of the provisions of Civil Procedure Code is restricted and thus procedural provisions are made applicable to the Act but only and subject to the condition that provisions of the Act shall override amd have preferential application. In Sec.35G thus there is no power even to the High Court to entertain an appeal filed after the expiry of 180 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. [contd.]
VENKATRAMAN RAGGHUPATHY, Web admin.
HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS, SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA while deciding Civil Appeal No.477 of 2009 on 13/01/2009 in re: R.B. RAMALINGAM vs R.B. BHUVANESWARI observed as follows:-
QUOTE: We hold that in each and every case the Court has to examine whether delay in filing the Special Leave Petition stands properly explained. This is the basic test which needs to be applied. The true guide is whether the petitioner has acted with reasonable deligence in the prosecution of his appeal petition. In exercise of discretion under Article 136 to decide whether delay should be condoned or not, this Court is not bound by considerations applicable to an appellate Court but none the less general principles which would weigh with the appellate Court in determining sufficient cause can be the guiding factor guidelines. Therefore, it cannot be stated as a proposition per se that the prosecution of review proceedings could not be a sufficient cause at all for purposes of Sec.5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
UNQUOTE. [for full text of the Supreme Court order please visit website www.taxesinindia.com and click on taxind_2009_sc_ca_477]
VENKATRAMAN RAGGHUPATHY, Web admin.
SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS while deciding the Writ Petitions Nos. 7169 & 7170 of 1998 and W.M.P Nos. 10978 & 10979 of 1998, on 30/06/2008 in re: CALCIUM (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD. vs CEGAT CHENNAI observed as follows:-
QUOTE:
It must be stated that even in case of Tribunals constituted under Articles 323A and 323B of the Constitution the Supreme Court in L. CHANDRAKUMAR vs U.O.I. 1997(92) ELT 318 SC = 1994(5) STC 539 has held that the power under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be taken away and parties are allowed to move the High Court inspite of a bar created under the Tribunal’s Act. It is admitted that the CEGAT is not a Tribunal constituted under the above provisions of the Constitution and therefore preliminary objection must fail.
UNQUOTE
[for full text of the judgement pl. visit www.taxesinindia.com and click on taxind_2008_hc_mad_wp_7169
VENKATRAMAN RAGGHUPATHY, Web admin.
HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS, SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS
THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM in W.P.(C) No.36138 of 2004(B) decided on 19/09/2008, in re: COMMR. OF INCOME TAX vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSION (IT & WT) held that when there is a decision of the Apex Court, no inferior Court or Tribunal can say that the issue is debatable issue for the reason that a Bench of two judges of the Apex Court has doubted the correctness of the decision of the Constitution Bench. Even assuming there is a final judgement of a two judge Bench of the Apex Court, the same has to be ignored and inferior Courts and Tribunals are bound to follow the decision of the Constitution Bench in view of the Law relating to precedents and also Article 141 of the Constitution of India. [for full text of the judgement please visit www.taxesinindia.com and click on taxind_2008_hc_ker_wpc_36138]==VENKATRAMAN RAGGHUPATHY, Web admin
HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY in deciding writ petition no. 74 of 2009 in re: HIREN ALUMINIUM LTD. vs U.O.I. observed that the Member in the C.B.E.C. had not given any reason as to why the petitioner is restratined from utilising the Cenvat credit for a period of 6 [six] months when the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise had recommended that the petitioner should be restrained from utilising the Cenvat credit for a period of 3 [three] months. The impugned decision PRIMA FACIE suffers from arbitrariness. [for full text of the judgement pl visit www.taxesinindia.com and click on taxind_2009_hc_bom_wp_74]==VENKATRAMAN RAGGHUPATHY, Web admin.
HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS
