SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ranganath Misra, CJI., Kuldip Singh, J.
Oil, Natural Gas Commission
Versus
Collector Of Central Excise
Case No., 1 , 2 , 2058 , 2059 of 1988
Date of Decision, 9/11/91
Advocates Appeared: Dutta B., Jain Sushil Kumar, Joshi R.K.
(1) THESE are applications for restoration of civil nos. 2058-59 of 1988 which on 3/02/1989 were permitted to be withdrawn at the request of the appellants.
(2) THE withdrawal was on the basis of the instructions issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas vide their letter dated 3/10/1988. Later on 28/09/1989 the Chairman of the ONGC was intimated to the following effect:
"PLEASE refer to our DO letter No. DBC/Acctts/l 11/9/87 dated 24/06/1989 regarding excise duty on lean gas supplied to consumers ex-Uran. The suggestion made by you has been examined and in view of the fact that the CBEC is not prepared to withdraw the demand and refer the matter to arbitration, ONGC may approach the Supreme court for appropriate relief."
On the basis of the later instructions, these applications are said to have been filed.
(3) THIS court has on more than one occasion pointed out that Public Sector Undertakings of central government and the Union of India should not fight their litigations in court by spending money on fees of counsel, court fees, procedural expenses and wasting public time. courts are maintained for appropriate litigations. courts time is not to be con sumed by litigations which are carried on either side at public expenses from the source. Notwithstanding these observations repeated on a number of occasions, the present cases appear to be an instance of total callousness. The letter of 3/10/1988, indicated that the Cabinet secretary was looking into the matter. That has not obviously been followed up. As an instance of wasting public time and energy this matter involves a principle to be examined at the highest level.
(4) THE Cabinet secretary is called upon to handle this matter personally and report to this court within four weeks as to why this litigation is being conducted when the two sides are a public sector undertaking and the Union of India. The report of the Cabinet secretary should be supported by an affidavit of a responsible officer. The matter be placed again before us on 11/10/1991.
COURT Masters
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.