Back
(2010) 13 Supreme Court Cases 733
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.C. LAHOTI, CJI., G.P. MATHUR AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.
ASSOCIATION OF SYNTHETIC FIBRE INDUSTRIES -Appellant
Versus
APOLLO TYRES LIMITED AND OTHERS -Respondents
Civil Appeals Nos. 5171-72 of 2005
Decided on : August 22,2005
Facts of the case:
During pendency of statutory appeal High Court interfered in the matter.
Finding of the Court:
Interference by High Court was not called for.
Result:
Writ petition before High Court directed to be dismissed.
ORDER
1. All the parties are present in the Court. Heard. Leave granted.
2. The statutory remedy of appeal under Section 9-C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 against the notification issued under Section 9-A(1) read with Rules 18 and 20 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 has been preferred. The Tribunal is already seized of the hearing. During the pendency of the appeal, any interference by the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction was not called for as alternate efficacious remedy by way of appeal was available to the appellant.
3. It is stated at the Bar that the appeal is coming up for hearing before the Tribunal today itself.
4. The appeals are allowed. The impugned order dated 12-7-2005 passed by the High Court is set aside. The writ petition filed by Respondent 1 before the High Court is directed to be dismissed. Needless to say, as already indicated in the interim order of this Court dated 12-8-2005 the Tribunal will e be at liberty to pass such interim orders as it deems fit to make in its discretion and in accordance with law.
5. No order as to the 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
