Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. AHMADI, C.J.I. AND S.P. KURDUKAR, J
SHRIRAM FERTILIZERS & CHEMICALS AND OTHER -Appellants;
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS -Respondents.
Civil Appeals No. 1953 of 1986 with No. 1954 of 1986
Decided on March 11, 1997
ORDER
CA No. 1953 of 1986
1. In this appeal the assessee raises two claims, namely, (1) one under Notification No. 198 of 1976 dated 16-6-1976, and (2) the claim of interest on credit, Le., credit sales. So far as the first issue is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant fairly states that it is covered against the assessee by our decision in Modi Rubber Ltd. v. Union of India1 and, therefore, the assessee is not entitled to any relief under that head. So far as the second contention is concerned, we think that the assessee would be entitled to relief in view of this Courts decision in Govt. of India v. MRF Ltd. 1 However, so far as the question of granting relief under that head is concerned, the matter will have to go back to the Assistant Collector, who will determine the issue after allowing the appellant to place on record such material in support thereof as is in their power, possession and custody. The appeal will stand allowed to that limited extent only with no order as to costs.
CA No. 1954 of 1986
2. The issue arising in this case for determination is answered by this Court in the decision - Modi Rubber Ltd. v. Union of India1. The learned counsel for the appellant states that the matter is covered against the appellant by the said decision and, therefore, nothing survives in the appeal. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal, but make no order as to costs.
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
