|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 158 Records
-
1980 (12) TMI 204 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... icer in regard to the discharge of his judicial functions, it thereby substantially interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of justice which is a facet of the broad concept of the administration of justice , and as such, is punishable under Section 13. 22. We agree with the High Court that the contempt of court committed by the appellant is serious and gross as he has recklessly imputed mala fides and lack of good faith to the judicial officer who had decided the cases against him. The imputations leveled were per se scandalous and actuated by bad faith. The appellant did not even pretend to give any reason for the alleged malicious attitude on the part of the judicial officer, either in the notice or in the counter affidavit. Even in this Court he has not relented. He has not adopted, even obliquely, an attitude of contrition or a pretence of remorse. 23. For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss this appeal and maintain the conviction and sentence of the appellant.
-
1980 (12) TMI 203 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... firm. Nor are there other materials to infer that it was for the firm. For these reasons we hold that the court below was not justified in passing a decree against all the defendants. In the circumstances of the case a decree can be passed only against the executants of the notes. 17. Exts. A1 to A4 were executed by the 1st defendant alone and Ext. A5 was executed by the 1st and 2nd defendants. There will be a decree against the 1st defendant for the amounts covered by Exts. A1 to A4, and a decree against the 1st and 2nd defendants for the amount covered by Ext. A5. In the result we set aside the decree passed by the trial court against the 2nd defendant for the amounts covered by Exts, A1 to A4 and against the 3rd defendant for the amounts covered by Exts. A1 to A5. 18. The appeal against the plaintiff by the 1st defendant fails. The 3rd defendant succeeds in the appeal. The 2nd defendant succeeds in part. There is only one appeal. We direct the parties to suffer the costs.
-
1980 (12) TMI 202 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ate their case before the authority in all the four cases. The Government will then give its decision and reasons therefore. We hasten to add that the administrative authorities have not to write judgments as do courts of law. They should only indicate the actual facts on which the action is proposed to be taken or on which the decision is based. In a word, what is the good justification for its action. As was said in J. M. A. Industries case (AIR 1980 Delhi 200) "It is this tendency of administrative authorities of informing the petitioners only of the conclusion and not the reasons for the conclusion which create dissatisfaction and which compels the affected persons to challenge the orders of the Government in courts." (P. 205). 15. In the result the impugned orders in all the four cases are quashed. The matters are remanded to the authority who will redecide them in the light of the observations made in the judgment. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
-
1980 (12) TMI 201 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , for any of the courts competent to take cognizance of and to try an offence and the courts competent to grant bails to grant anticipatory bail for a specified period only. I, therefore) reject the contention of the State of Punjab with regard to the jurisdiction of this court. I also do not see any reason or circumstances why this court should only grant interim bail in these case and direct the petitioners to approach the courts in Punjab. (5) Consequently, I accept these petitions (Crl. Misc. (Main) Nos. 523 and 527 of 1980), and direct that in the event of arrest the petitioners shall be released provided each one of them furnishes personal bond in the amount of Rs. 5000.00 and surety in the like amount. The condition of the direction shall be that they shall make themselves available for interrogation as and when required by the police of Punjab in accordance with law and shall not in any manner tamper with the witnesses or persons acquainted with the facts of the case.
-
1980 (12) TMI 200 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ment take on receipt of the petitions of the blinded prisoners forwarded by the Inspector General of Prisons as also on the matter being brought to their attention by the Inspector General of Prisons as observed by him in his inspection note. We should like the State Government to inform us clearly and precisely as to what steps they took after 30th July, 1980 to bring the guilty to book and to stop recurrence of such atrocities. We want to have this information because we should like to satisfy ourselves whether the Windings which took place in October 1980 could have been prevented by the State Government by taking appropriate steps on receipt of information in regard to the complaint of the blinded prisoners from the Inspector General of Prisons. 10. We would direct the State Government to furnish us full and detailed particulars in this behalf before the next hearing of the writ petition. 11. The writ petition will now be taken up for further hearing on 6th January, 1981.
-
1980 (12) TMI 199 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... uct an amount of ₹ 29,774, presumably on the basis that the interest amount came to ₹ 87714. This process of calculation is wholly wrong. The plaintiff having already deducted the amount on account of the one third share, from the entire suit claim, of Durgaprasad Shreeram, a partner of the defendant firm, a further deduction in interest amount cannot be allowed. That amount, therefore was rightly claimed. 36. The result, therefore, would be that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree in the sum of ₹ 3,43,794 together with costs and future interest at 4% per annum from the date of suit till realisation. The appeal, therefore, succeeds and has to be allowed. Appellant will get costs from respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Dhabe, however, did not press his appeal so far as respondent No. 4 was concerned. Appeal against her is dismissed. Since there was no appearance on behalf of respondent No. 4, there will be no order as to costs of respondent No. 4. Appeal allowed.
-
1980 (12) TMI 198 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... been improved. Where a person inherits assets as well as liabilities and later discharges the liabilities, can he be said to have made an addition to the assets as such? The answer can be only in the negative. In the light of what we have stated above, we are not inclined to accept the assessees' contention that the removal of any burden, encumbrance or obligation on the asset will amount to an addition to the asset as such. Nor are we inclined to hold that any expenditure resulting in any addition to the value of the asset has to be treated as the cost of making any addition to the asset as such. In the view we have taken, no exception could be taken to the decision in CIT v. V. Indira 1979 119 ITR 837 (Mad.). It neither conflicts with the decision in CIT v. Bengal Assam Investors Ltd. 1969 72 ITR 319 (Cal.) nor does it require reconsideration. In the light of the above discussion, we have to answer the questions in these cases in the negative and against the assessees.
-
1980 (12) TMI 197 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tled to succeed. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, in the order under revision, seems to have taken the view that even though the decree was that of a Court of competent jurisdiction and it covered the matter completely, yet he still had the discretion to follow the same or not. He seems to have chosen to go beyond the concurrent judgments of the Civil Courts on the point and, in fact, launched on conjectures as to what would have been the result if certain evidence was brought to their notice. In essence, he seems to have again sat on judgment over and above the judgments rendered by the Civil Courts themselves. That, in my view, he was not entitled to do. The order under revision has, therefore, to be set aside and in accordance with the Judgments and decrees of the Civil Courts, the earlier grant of maintenance under Section 125 of the new Code, has to be necessarily cancelled. The revision petition is allowed. Satya Parkash Goyal, J. 14. I agree.
-
1980 (12) TMI 196 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ce register. But, here, the entry can only be made by the order of the Superintendent of Police who is prohibited from delegating his authority under Rule 23.5. Further it is necessary that the Superintendent of Police must entertain a reasonable belief that persons whose names are to be entered in Part II are habitual offenders or receivers of stolen property. While it may not be necessary to supply the grounds of belief to the persons whose names are entered in the surveillance register it may become necessary in some cases to satisfy the Court when an entry is challenged that there are grounds to entertain such reasonable belief. In fact in the present case we sent for the relevant records and we have satisfied ourselves that there were sufficient grounds for the Superintendent of Police to entertain a reasonable belief. In the result we reject both the appeals subject to our observations regarding the mode of surveillance. There is no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
1980 (12) TMI 195 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rary to the interpretation of the word 'compensation ' as placed by the aforesaid two division bench judgments if thus court and the F.B . judgment of Bom ,High Court does not lay down correct law and must be overruled . Before parting with this questiuon , we must note that Mr Vin for the climant also fair concerned to this legal situation and stated that in view of the aforesaid Division Bench judgments of this court the view of the learned Single Judge cannot be relied upon by him Under these circumstances , the second subsidery submission raised by Mr. Vin must be repelled and it must be held that the learned trial Judge was not justified in not deducting one - third premium from the solatium amount of compensation which he granted to this claimants and it must be held that slicing down of one-third premium will have to be made from the total additional compensation which can be awardable to the claiment after including therein 15 solatium. 22. Order accordingly.
-
1980 (12) TMI 194 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e appellant's relations with the members of his family. After mentioning that he had beaten his mother and brother and that his wife was living separately from him, the High Court concluded "In our opinion, such a person could neither be an asset to his wife and children nor entitled to live in the society." Unfaithful husbands, unchaste wives and unruly children are not for that reason to be sentenced to death if they commit murders unconnected with the state of their equation with their family and friends. The passing of the sentence of death must elicit the greatest concern and solicitude of the Judge because, that is one sentence which cannot be recalled. For reasons aforesaid, we allow the appeal and set aside the judgments of the High Court and the Sessions Court. The sentence of death as also the sentence of seven years' imprisonment imposed upon the appellant is set aside. We acquit the appellant and direct that he shall be released. Appeal allowed.
-
1980 (12) TMI 193 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he administration of justice, if action is taken on a motion by some other agency. Such a course of action would give considerable assurance to the individual charged and the public at large. Indeed, some High Courts have already made rules for the association of the Advocate-General in some categories of cases at least.....the Advocate-General may, also, move the Court not only on his own motion but also at the instance of the court concerned." In the peculiar circumstances of the instant case, we do not think that the High Court has acted improperly or illegally in taking suo motu cognizance, on the petition of the respondent-advocate. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal and send the case back to the High Court for further proceedings in accordance with law. As a matter of caution, we would add that nothing in this judgment shall be construed as an observation relating to the merits of the allegation levelled by Shri V. C. Misra against the appellant. Appeal dismissed.
-
1980 (12) TMI 192 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... eceipt of the petitions of the blinded prisoners forwarded by the Inspector General of Prisons as also on the matter being brought to their attention by the Inspector General of Prisons as observed by him in his inspection note. We should like the State Government to inform us clearly and precisely as to what steps they took after 30th July, 1980 to bring the guilty to book and to stop recurrence of such atrocities. We want to have this information because we should like to satisfy ourselves whether the blindings which took place in October 1980 could have been prevented by the State Government by taking appropriate steps on receipt of information in regard to the complaint of the blinded prisoners from the Inspector General of Prisons. We would direct the State Government to furnish us full and detailed particulars in this behalf before the next hearing of the writ petition. The writ petition will now be taken up for further hearing on 6th January, 1981. Petition adjourned.
-
1980 (12) TMI 191 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... with the National Highways to justify imposition of a tax of a compensatory and regulatory nature. He invited our attention to the budget of the Haryana Government to show that no expenditure was incurred in connection with the development, construction, improvement and maintenance of National Highways in the State of Haryana. There is no substance in the submission. We have pointed out in our judgment that the State Government incurs expenditure in connection with National Highways not by directly constructing or maintaining National Highways but by facilitating the transport of goods and passengers along the National Highways in various other ways such as lighting, traffic control, amenities for passengers, halting places for buses and trucks etc. etc. And not by eastern windows only, When daylight comes, comes in the light; In front the sun climbs slow, how slowly But westward, look, the land is bright The petition is therefore, dismissed. Appeals and Petitions dismissed.
-
1980 (12) TMI 190 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ufacturers coming under Explanation II should be extended to the petitioners also. Therefore these writ appeals and the writ petitions have to be allowed. 15. There will be a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to give the benefit of Notification No. 99 of 1980 without reference to the first and the second provisos to the Notification. However, it is made clear that this order will be applicable only to those petitioners who have filed the writ petitions. This order also is subject to the further conditions that the Government is at liberty to reject the concession in cases where the respondents to these writ petitions come to the conclusion on materials that such and such a petitioner is not a bona fide unit, in the sense, that it was either non-existent or fictitious unit, or that it is a subsidiary of the mechanised sector unit. There will be an order accordingly in these writ petitions. In form the writ appeals are also allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1980 (12) TMI 189 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... Handbook No. 11 - B.S. 1051 - 1953, Pages 15 and 16. The above publications support their claim for addition of the following moisture regain values - Wool-16%, Terene (Polyester) - 0.4%; Rayon-11%. 5. Government find considerable force and accept the petitioners’ contention that the rate of duty leviable on the yarn should be based on the percentage fibre contents in the yarn as traded and not in oven-dry yarn, i.e. after adding the appropriate moisture regain values to the oven-dry weights. Central Excise duty must be levied on goods as they are traded and not on what they become during the course of laboratory testing. 6. In view of the above, Government set aside the Board’s order-in-appeal and direct the Collector to re-adjudicate the cases in accordance with law, on the basis of the fibre contents calculated by adding the moisture regain values to the oven-dry weight results recorded in the Quality Control Registers of the petitioners.
-
1980 (12) TMI 188 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... L-4 licence on 24-11-1977. Govt. however, observe that the petitioners had applied for a licence on 12-10-1977. In the circumstances Government are of the view that the petitioners should not be denied proforma credit in respect of the said consignment as provided under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, especially in view of the fact that the delay in grant of the licence occurred from the department’s side. 4. In view of the above Government consider it a fit case for condoning the delay in the grant of the licence to the petitioners so as to entitle them to the benefit of Rule 56A. Government accordingly set aside the order in appeal and allow the revision application.
-
1980 (12) TMI 187 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... sits from the crank case and gear box after draining out the old oil, namely, the old and used lubricant. The oil has strong solvent properties and is at the same time a lubricant, so that no danger arises if traces are left after flushing of the oil was for the purpose of flushing at the time of replacement of used lubricant by a fresh librint and the oil was never used when the car is running. The petitioners have also enclosed a certificate given by Shri S.N. Mehta, Deputy Purchase Manager of Premier Automobiles Ltd. who has certified that Salt Flushing Oil was required in the crank gear and gear box and that its lubricating function is secondary. 3. Government accept the petitioners contention that Salt Flushing Oil is primarily used for purposes of flushing and not as a lubricant and does not therefore merit classification under Item 11B, Central Excise Tariff. 4. Government accordingly set aside the impugned order in appeal and allow the revision application.
-
1980 (12) TMI 186 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... s, which were charged to duty under Item 68, Central Excise Tariff due to a mistaken interpetation of the scope of Item 68, Central Excise Tariff, were made out of acrylic fibre which had already borne the burden of duty under item 18 of the Central Excise Tariff. Since it is now an admitted fact that both the fibre and the tops are classifiable under Item 18, Central Excise Tariff, any further collection of duty on the fibre which had already paid duty under Item 18, Central Excise Tariff, in their subsequent form of tops is, thus clearly tantamount to payment of duty twice on the same goods. It is for this reason that the duty collected second time is not hit by the limitation under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules and therefore, the refund of duty claim should be rightly governed by the provisions of the Limitation Act. 7. In view of the above, Government set aside the order-in-appeal and allow the revision application with consequential relief to the petitioners.
-
1980 (12) TMI 185 - CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE & CUSTOMS
... ...
... ... ..... h them. For instance, the argument about the U.K. purchasers’ requirements may have necessitated reference to the U.K. regulations on the subject, evidence of contractual conditions entered into by the appellants with their buyers and so on. The other point urged may also need being enquired into in a manner deserving of their merits. 13. These are matters of detail which the Board as an appellate authority is not expected to go into. 14. However, on a consideration of the totality of the circumstances, facts and submissions made in the case, the Board feels that sufficient opportunity has not been given to the appellants to present their case and defend themselves, particularly in view of the very large amount of revenue involved. 15. In the circumstances the Board finds that the two matters under appeal should be remanded to the Collector for de novo consideration and passing speaking orders after taking their defence into account. Ordered accordingly.
........
|
