|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 200 Records
-
1981 (3) TMI 272 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he said security shall continue to be in force till the final disposal of the notice of motion, and in the event of the notice of motion and the preliminary issue are disposed of at one and the same time by a common order, then the said security shall remain in force till the passing of that order. The order directing the 1st defendant about payment of cash amount and also furnishing bank guarantee is rescinded with the result that the 1st defendant is at liberty to withdraw the cash amount of Rs. 45,000/- so far deposited by him in the trial court and the bank guarantee furnished by him also stand lifted. It is, however, directed and made clear that the 1st defendant shall get the liberty to withdraw the said amount of Rs. 54,000/- so far deposited by him only after furnishing the solvent security for Rs. 35,000/- as stipulated earlier. There will be no order as to costs. In view of the above order and direction, the civil application does not survive. 23. Order accordingly.
-
1981 (3) TMI 271 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he fact that the third appellant had also participated with the fourth appellant in the preparation of the letter, it is difficult for us to accept the contention that the letters Exs. P. 5 and P. 6 had been written by the fourth appellant acting for himself alone and not acting for and on behalf of all the partners of the firm as laid down in Chanahalu Siva Reddi v. Official Receiver, Bellary, 166 Ind Cas 80 AIR 1937 Mad 13. We are of opinion that though the letters Exs. P. 5 and P. 6 have been signed only by the fourth appellant, it must be taken that the suspension of payments indicated therein was an expression made by all the partners of the firm. In view of such a conclusion, it follows that the main ground of attack of the appellants must also fail. 10. For all the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the appeal is devoid of merits and should, therefore, fail. Accordingly, it will stand dismissed; but in the circumstances, we make no order as to costs. 11. Appeal dismissed.
-
1981 (3) TMI 270 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... AIR 1961 Raj 87, was cited before him and he did not accept the reasoning in Tikam Chand's case as correct. Jagat Narayan J. who decided Tikam Chand's case had himself explained subsequently in Hanuman v. Fattu, 1967 Raj LW 466 AIR 1967 Raj 235) that his reasoning in Tikam Chand's case was not correct. If counsel concerned appearing before the learned single Judge of the Delhi High Court had cited before him Mool Chand's case and Kanhaiyalal's case, instead of citing Tikam Chand's case, it is possible that the judgment in Suraj Ram Khurana's case might have been different. 11. For all these reasons, I hold that the hundis in question are bills of exchange payable on demand as defined in Section 2(3) of the Stamp Act, 1899 and that as such they are not chargeable with duty. The impugned orders passed by the trial Court must therefore be affirmed. These petitions of revision fail and are hereby dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
-
1981 (3) TMI 269 - ITAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... capital asset. In the case of the former, there was some capital outlay; in the case of the latter, there was no capital outlay. For the lack of capital outlay, the capital asset can not become a revenue item, unless it is shown that capital asset was received as part of the consideration on revenue account, which again takes us to the starting point, namely, that there ought to be in the course of these export transactions some sort of under-invoicing or under-statement by which the assessee has received the machine to take up for the balance of the sale proceeds. We have repeated this point only to emphasise that unless this factor is proved, we find no possibility of treating the value of the machine received to be on revenue account. We, therefore, hold that the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not correct and we reverse it. 5. This para not being relevant for the issue in the synopsis, has not been reproduced here. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1981 (3) TMI 268 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e does suffer from in consistencies here and discrepancies there but that is a shortcoming from which no criminal case is free. The main thing to be seen is whether those inconsistencies, etc., go to the root of the matter or pertain to insignificant aspects thereof. In the former case, the defence may be justified in seeking advantage of the incongruities obtaining in the evidence. In the latter, however, no such benefit may be available to it. That is a salutary method of appreciation of evidence in criminal cases which does not appear to have been followed by the learned Sessions Judge; and that is the reason why he landed himself into wrong conclusions, as has been pointed out by the High Court. 12. We need discuss the matter no further. Suffice it to say that we find ourselves at one with every reason given by the High Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal and recording the conviction of the two appellants. The appeal before us accordingly fails and is dismissed.
-
1981 (3) TMI 267 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... olute or be set aside -- Where no application is made under Rule 89. Rule 90 or Rule 91. or where such application is made and disallowed, the Court shall make an order confirming the sale, and thereupon the sale shall become absolute." It is clear that after having ordered the auction of the properties and after auction-sale having been held the Court has no option but to confirm it where no objection has been filed. It is thus apparent that since no objection had been filed by any one in respect of the properties Nos. 102 to 109 as well as the ice factory, the court was liable to confirm their sale. 32. In the result, the revisions sue-ceed and are allowed in part. Properties Nos. 110 to 128 of item No. 11 of the memorandum are released from sale proceedings in favour of the respective objectors. The execution Court below is directed to proceed to confirm the sale of the rest of the properties in accordance with law. The parties may bear their own costs here and below.
-
1981 (3) TMI 266 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rocess. I am satisfied that the chit fund transaction is in, its essence a transaction of a kind which a banking company can legitimately undertake within the governing provisions of the Banking Regulation Act 1949. The petitioner, cannot, therefore, seek to take his liability in the chit fund transaction out of saving of S. 3 (h)(B) of Act, 16 of 1976. 4. For the reasons stated above the order of the court below is confirmed and this civil revision petition is dismissed. 5. In a way the dismissal of this revision in this manner really forecloses the determination of the issues which have been raised by the petitioner in his written statement in the suit, to such an extent that the trial of the suit is going to be very tame fair. But this kind of disposal of this application has been fairly invited by the petitioner himself. He alone is to be blamed for it. With this observation, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1981 (3) TMI 265 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... destine trade was appellant no. 1, who is now dead. The three other appellants being his sons were merely assisting him. We are told that appellant no. 2, Rizwan, has already served 81/2 months of imprisonment and appellants 3 and 4, Usman and Taufik, six months of imprisonment each. In our view ends of justice will be met if the sentences of imprisonment are reduced to the periods already undergone by the three living appellants. In addition to the sentence of imprisonment there was a fine of ₹ 1000/- each for the offence under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and also sentence of fine against the appellants underSection 5(3) (b) of the Explosives Act and under Section 30 of the Arms Act. In our opinion, ends of justice will be met if the fine under Section 5 of the Explosives Substances Act is remitted in case of all the appellants, including appellant No. 1, Fakhruddin. With the above modification in the sentence the appeals are dismissed. Appeals dismissed.
-
1981 (3) TMI 264 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ial to show that anything happened which prevented the letters written by the wife of the petitioner reaching him. Under these circumstances. the conclusion is irresistible that the respondent received all the letters written by the wife of the petitioner and that there letters clearly establish the subsistence of an agreement for adjustment of the rent as well as electricity charges front out of the interest payable by him to the wide of the petitioner even after February, 1977 and therefore, there cannot be any wilful default in the payment of rents for the period between March, 1977 and March, 1978, as claimed the respondent In view of this conclusion, the order of the appellate authority directing the eviction of the petitioner cannot be sustained and has therefore to be sat aside. The result is. the civil revision petition is allowed and the application for eviction filed by the respondent in IL R. C. No. 1029 of 1978 will stand dismissed. No costs. 8. Revision allowed.
-
1981 (3) TMI 263 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... iate proceeding. In the present proceeding, the auction-purchaser who is an outsider and was not a party to the suit resulting in the compromise decree in execution of which the property was put up for sale, is not entitled to recover physical possession from the appellants in view of the provisions contained in Order XXI, Rule 95, and the auction-purchaser must be held to be entitled to symbolic possession in terms of the provisions contained in Order XXI, Rule 96 in respect of the portions in occupation of the appellants. 16. We, accordingly, allow this appeal. We set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court directing physical possession of the portions in the occupation of the appellants to be made over to the auction-purchaser Gian Chand Jain, We direct that symbolic possession of the portions in occupation of the appellants is to be made over to the auction-purchaser Gian Chand Jain. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we make no order as to costs.
-
1981 (3) TMI 262 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nted out certain differences between the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act and the National Security Act which according to him make delay inevitable in the consideration of representations in cases of detention under the National Security Act. We think that the differences pointed out are irrelevant. The constitutional mandate brooks no unreasonable delay in the consideration of a representation. In the cases before us, in Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 293 of 1981 and 392 of 1981 no explanation was offered by the detaining authority for the delay in the consideration of representations B and in Criminal Writ Petition No. 391 of 1981, administrative red tape was the only explanation offered. We are satisfied that in all the three cases there was unreasonable delay in the consideration of the representations and the detenus are, therefore, entitled to be released. They will be released forthwith. The Writ Petitions are allowed. o p /o p
-
1981 (3) TMI 261 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Supreme Court had dismissed the leave petition. The facts were thus materially different from the facts of the present appeal. Besides, this Court has taken a different view in the recent case of Workmen of Cochin Port Trust (supra), After having analysed the various cases cited, we are of the view that permission to withdraw a leave petition cannot be equated with an order of its dismissal. We also come to the conclusion that in the circumstances of the case the High Court has not exercised a proper and sound discretion in dismissing the writ petition in limine on the sole ground that the application for special leave on the same facts and grounds had been withdrawn unconditionally. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order and the order of the learned Single Judge dated 9th November, 1972 in writ petition No. 583 of 1972 and send the case back to him for considering the writ petition on merits. There is, however, no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.
-
1981 (3) TMI 260 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to another. As I have earlier noted, very wide power and jurisdiction have been conferred on this Court in the interest of justice for transferring any appeal, suit or proceeding from one State to another under S. 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the instant case, the petitioner has applied for transfer of the suit pending in the District at Udaipur in the State of Rajasthan to the appropriate Court at Eluru in the State of Andhra Pradesh. I am, therefore, of the opinion that this Court enjoys the power and jurisdiction to entertain this application under S. 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure and S. 21 and S. 21A of the Hindu Marriage Act do not, in any way, exclude, affect or curtail the power conferred on this Court under S. 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I may incidentally add that the present section 25 in the Code of Civil Procedure came into force after S. 21 and 21A have been incorporated in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. V.D.K. Preliminary objection rejected.
-
1981 (3) TMI 259 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the order under revision without giving a notice to the petitioners and that, therefore, the prohibition contained in Section 115, C. P. C., against entertaining any revision where an appeal is provided, would not apply. But, whatever may be the merits of that matter where an order is one passed totally without jurisdiction and is, therefore, for that reason a nullity, it will have no application to a case like the pre-rent one where the order is act a nullity but is only irregular. Accordingly, I hold that this revision petition should fait merely for the reason that it is not maintainable under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure forbidding the entertaining of any revision against an order or decree, which is appealable either to the High Court or to any Court subordinate to it. 8. In view of my conclusion on the maintainability of this Civil Revision Petition, no other question need be considered. 9. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed with costs.
-
1981 (3) TMI 258 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... that he was permanently allocated to the Union Territory of Chandigarh. In C. W. P. No.1064 of 1973 in para 5, the position taken by him was "By another order, passed on the same day, viz. Aug. 31, 1968, the petitioner was finally allocated to the State of Punjab." In para 6 of that petition, reiterating that position, he stated that "even though the petitioner had been finally allocated to the State of Punjab, yet on account of the orders at Annexure P. 2, passed by the Central Government, he was to continue working in the Union Territory of Chandigarh." Even according to his own assertion in the previous petition, he was not allocated to the Union Territory of Chandigarh. On that basis he has no cause to challenging his reversion to the State of Punjab. 38. For the forgoing reasons the present petition is barred on the principle of res judicata as the earlier petition was got dismissed by him as withdrawn. No. order as to costs. 39. Petition dismissed.
-
1981 (3) TMI 257 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... arded to the appellant would be at the rate of ₹ 10 per sq. yard. This Court in the case of Tribeni Devi v. Collector of Ranchi has observed that where an area is not fully developed, a deduction of 1/3rd can be made. In this connection this Court observed as follows In order to develop that area at least the value of l/3rd of the land will have to be deducted for roads, drainage and other amenities. 3. For these reasons, therefore, we are satisfied that the judgment of the High Court was clearly wrong and did not follow the correct principles in determining the proper compensation to which the appellant was entitled for the land in dispute. We, therefore, allow this appeal and enhance the compensation from ₹ 2 per sq. yard to ₹ 10 per sq. yard. The appellant will be entitled to the proportionate increase in the interest and solatium as a result of the enhanced compensation awarded by us. In the circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to costs
-
1981 (3) TMI 256 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... h the detenu was detained because the identical grounds were undoubtedly considered by the approving authority. This contention is therefore rejected. (2) IT was then submitted that although the grounds of detention were served on the detenu immediately after the arrest, yet copies of documents which were mentioned in the order of detention and on which reliance was placed by the detaining authority were not supplied to the petitioner pari passu the grounds of detention. It has doubtless been held by this Court in several cases that a mere service of the grounds of detention is not a compliance of the mandatory provisions of Article 22(5) unless the grounds are accompanied with the documents which are referred to or relied on in the grounds of detention. In view on this serious lacuna, the continued detention of the petitioner becomes void. We therefore allow this petition and set aside the continued detention of the petitioner and direct the detenu to be released forthwith.
-
1981 (3) TMI 255 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ith equanimity upon such delays when the liberty of a person is concerned. Calling comments from other departments, seeking the opinion of Secretary after Secretary and allowing the representation to lie without being attended to is not the type of action which the State is expected to take in a matter of such vital import. We would emphasise that it is the duty of the State to proceed to determine representations of the character above mentioned with the utmost expedition, which means that the matter must be taken up for consideration as soon as such a representation is received and dealt with continuously (unless it is absolutely necessary to wait for some assistance in connection with it) until a final decision is taken and communicated to the detenu. This not having been done in the present case we have no option but to declare the detention unconstitutional. We order accordingly, allow the appeal and direct that the appellant be set at liberty forthwith. Appeal allowed.
-
1981 (3) TMI 254 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . Another method to prevent the abuse of the privilege of production of gur or rab by producing khandsari in a clandestine fashion may be to insert a condition in the licences of the manufacturers of khandsari sugar that if they produce khandsari during the period of the ban their licences would be cancelled. The result is that all the contentions raised by the petitioners except the one raised by Mr. Gupta that the introduction of the word 'vertical' was violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution are rejected. The word 'vertical' must be considered to have been deleted from the impugned notification. Since the impugned notification has already spent its force. no relief can be given even to the petitioners represented by Mr. Gupta. But, in future the Government will bear in mind the infirmity pointed out. The petitions, along with the Civil Appeal, are accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances without any order as to costs. Petitions and Appeal dismissed.
-
1981 (3) TMI 253 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Kanpur, with regard to the import licence dated 12th December, 1968 could not provide the basis for reason to believe that the turnover of the assessee has escaped assessment. The Assessing Authority had no material to be prima facie satisfied that any part of the turnover had escaped assessment. 8.The assessment order shows that the assessment was reopened because some information was received by the Sales Tax Officer after completion of the regular assessment. In a similar situation a Bench of this Court in The General Electric Company of India. Ltd. v. The Sales Tax Officer, Sector IV, Kanpur, (1974) 33 STC 108 held that Section 21 is not meant for that purpose. We respectfully agree with the principle laid down in that case. The assessment under Section 21 appears to be based on no relevant material and deserves to be quashed. 9. In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed with costs. The impugned order and the notice of demand dated 19th March, 1976 are quashed.
........
|
