|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 168 Records
-
1985 (11) TMI 242 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ets belonged to the Trust and challenging the right of the complainants in asking them to return those properties, if the complainants are still certain of their rights as beneficiaries under the trust and in that capacity they have a right to call upon A.I and A.3 to A.6 to return the liquid assets, they shall have to take recourse to the Civil Courts and cannot vindicate their right in a Criminal Court by initiating criminal proceedings. Having regard to the contentions between the complainants on the one hand and the accused on the other, it seems to me that the dispute between them is of a civil nature. POINT No 3 15. In view of my finding on Point Nos. 1 and 2, I feel it unnecessary to express any opinion on this point for the disposal of this Petition. 16. In the result, for the reasons stated above, the Petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and the proceedings initiated on the complaint filed by the complainants are dropped. The complaint stands dismissed.
-
1985 (11) TMI 241 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... present Appeal by Special Leave must abate because what the Appellant was seeking in this Appeal was to enforce his right to sue for damages for defamation. This right did not survive his death and accordingly the Appeal abated automatically on his death and his legal representatives acquired no right in law to be brought on the record in his place and stead. For the above reasons, the Appeal is dismissed as having abated. The Civil Miscellaneous Petitions, namely, Civil Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 43065 of 1985 and 43066 of 1985 are also dismissed as being not maintainable. There will be no order as to the costs of the Appeal and the Civil Miscellaneous Petitions. The amount deposited by the Appellant as security for the Respondent's costs will be refunded to the petitioners in the Civil Miscellaneous Petitions for themselves and on behalf of the two other heirs and legal representatives of the Appellant mentioned in the Civil Miscellaneous Petitions. Appeal dismissed.
-
1985 (11) TMI 240 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... liberty, but suitably and adequately compensated, he must be. That we have the right to award monetary compensation by way of exemplary costs 01 otherwise is now established by the decisions of this court in Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar and Anr. 1983CriLJ1644 and Sebestian M. Hongray v. Union of India AIR1984 SC 1026. When a person comes to us with the complaint that he has been arrested and imprisoned with mischievous or malicious intent and that his constitutional and legal rights were invaded, the mischief or malice and the invasion may not be washed away or wished away by his being set free. In appropriate cases we have the jurisdiction to compensate the victim by awarding suitable monetary compensation. We consider this an appropriate case. We direct the first respondent, the State of Jammu and Kashmir to pay to Shri Bhim Singh a sum of ₹ 50,000/- within two months from today. The amount will be deposited with the Registrar of this court and paid to Shri Bhim Singh.
-
1985 (11) TMI 239 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... made by the Defendants, the Defendants are ordered to deliver up the same unto the plaintiffs. The Defendants are directed to file an affidavit disclosing the number of labels in their possession and power, as also the dies jigs tools and fixture used by the Defendants, their servants or agents, in manufacturing and preparation of the same, within two weeks from today; and deliver up all the aforesaid infringing articles within four weeks from today. 149. The plaintiffs shall have the costs of the suit. 150. In view of the observations regarding the gas burner body design I direct that a copy of the judgment along with a photo copy of page 415, Vol. IX of 1969 Edition Encyclopedia Britannica, be sent to the India's Standards Institute and the Consumer Protection Cell of the Delhi Administration. This is being done to ensure that the gas burner body design, if it needs alteration can be altered and proper standards laid down therefore in interest of consumer's safety.
-
1985 (11) TMI 238 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he second part of Para 3 of the affidavit. Though grammatically the contention of Mr. Gupte is supportable, we think that on the facts of this case the meaning is clear that it was Mr. Dwivedi who was authorised to consider the reports and who took the decision. It is true that the practice of filing affidavits in a regular form, which is cyclostyled and in which the necessary particulars are filled in, may not be a happy one and we hope that this practice will be soon discontinued. Normally on facts there cannot be a standard form of affidavit, though it could be urged on behalf of the Central Government that what is required to be brought to the notice of the Court in matters of this type is only limited information and this could be done by preparing a standard form to be used in different cases. 19. In the result, we find that neither the order of detention nor the continued detention of the petitioner is illegal. Accordingly, rule is discharged. 20. Ordered accordingly.
-
1985 (11) TMI 237 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o charge interest with yearly rests. 22. Before we part with this case, we should make it clear that the conclusion that we have reached is only. in the light of the circulars/directives of the Reserve Bank of India. The said circulars/directives have not been considered by this Court in Bank of India v. Raosaheb Krishnarao, (1980) 2 Kant U 495. That case proceeded solely on the basis of the customary practice of Banks. But, Banks in India are now governed by the Banking Regulation Act and the circulars/ directives issued thereunder. 23. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. 24. Mr. Govinda Bhat, learned counsel for the appellant, seeks a Certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court. 25. In our opinion, this case does not involve any substantial question of law of general importance which needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. 26. Certificate prayed for is, therefore, refused. 27. Appeal dismissed.
-
1985 (11) TMI 236 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... involves the future of 235 employees and their families and the loss of revenue to the Government. These allegations had not been gone into fully by the learned Judge and merely on the view that P.W. 1 is the Managing Director of the company, and therefore there is no material change in the management or control of the company. If the resolutions which are challenged are to be given effect to, certainly, the control of the company would go to the respondents' group and there could also be a material change in the management. In the circumstances, we are unable to share the view of the learned Judge that the application is not maintainable under S. 397 or 398 of the Act. Suffice to say that these allegations deserve to be gone into on merits with reference to the evidence and the petitions could not be disposed of summarily. For the foregoing reasons we allow the appeal, set aside the order of the learned Judge and remand the matter for fresh disposal on merits. No costs.
-
1985 (11) TMI 235 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rained from calling the three Annual General Meeting under the notices impugned herein. 44. It will be open to the defendant, No. 1 and its directors to take steps for calling General Meetings or Annual General Meeting in accordance with law as they may be advised. The members of the defendant No. 1 would be at liberty to apply to the Central Government for direction for calling of Annual General Meetings of the defendant No. 1, if necessary. It is made clear that other disputes raised in the suit, in particular, those relating to transfer or registration of shares have not been adjudicated by us in any manner. All interim orders passed by the Appeal Court are vacated except that the directors who have been acting during the pendency of the appeal pursuant to the orders of the appeal court may continue as such subject to a fresh co-option or ratification by the Board. 45. All parties to act on a operative portion of this judgment. Costs in the suit. S.C. Sen, J. 46. I agree.
-
1985 (11) TMI 234 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... It has also been found by the Tribunal that it was only a week thereafter that part payments were received from the Electricity Board and the assessee-respondent without much delay deposited the tax due along with the interest thereon and in view of the aforesaid fact the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was reasonable cause shown by the assessee-respondent and the imposition of penalty was not justified. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are the findings based on materials on the record. In my opinion, the Tribunal did not commit any error in accepting the explanation offered by the assessee. Once the explanation offered by the assessee is accepted by the Tribunal the imposition of penalty under Section 15-A (1) (a) does not arise. In view of the aforesaid fact the order passed by the tribunal does not suffer from any error of law and is liable to be maintained. 5. In the result the revisions fail and are rejected. However, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1985 (11) TMI 233 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ly hope that, at least, now Sri Hegde will take an attitude which would not alienate him from his Bankers further and which will rescue and rehabilitate the industry from this impasse even at the post winding-up order stage. 57. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we find no substance in the appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, rejected. ORDER ON THE ORAL APPLICATION UNDER Article 134 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR GRANT OF A CERTIFICATE OF FITNESS TO APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT FROM THE ORDER WHICH IS NOW PRONOUNCED. At the conclusion of the pronouncement of this Order by dictation in Court, Sri Shekhar Shetty made an oral application under Article 134-A for grant of a Certificate of Fitness to appeal to the Supreme Court from the order. In our opinion, this appeal does not involve substantial question or questions of law of general importance needing to be decided by the Supreme Court. We accordingly refuse the Certificate sought for and reject the oral application.
-
1985 (11) TMI 232 - CEGAT BOMBAY
... ...
... ... ..... that burden is not relevant for the purposes of these two appeals. Neither the appellants had claimed ownership of the goods nor did they contend that the goods seized are not the goods of foreign origin nor did they contend that they were licitly imported into India. 19. There is no merit in the contention of Shri Kapadia that the burden has been wrongly cast on the appellants. The department had discharged the initial burden rested on it. In respect of the plea of alibi the burden has been rightly cast on the appellants and that they have failed to discharge that burden. 20. I have considered afresh the entire evidence. The infirmities in the order of the Board do not affect its final conclusion. 21. On consideration of all the aspects I see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Additional Collector and confirmed by the Board in so far as imposition of penalties on to appellants. 22. In the result these appeals fail and they are rejected.
-
1985 (11) TMI 231 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... llants could lay their hands on certain notifications and certain other documents to show that was a minor adjustment and could be rectified. Therefore, the appellants filed a review petition along with those documents which has been enumerated in the earlier part of the judgment. The court described those papers as irrelevant for the purpose of construction of the proviso to Building Regulation No. 3. But in our opinion those documents would go a long way to solve the problem. For the foregoing discussion, the appeals must succeed. They are accordingly allowed, the judgment and order dated 14th November, 1983 of the Division Bench of the High Court are set aside, and the judgment and order dated 23rd November 1982 of the learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissing the writ petition are restored. The special leave petition filed by Prabhat Mandal and others is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, however, the parties shall bear their own costs. Appeals allowed.
-
1985 (11) TMI 230 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... positive conduct on the part of the creditor, cessation may result even from outside agency, e.g., when the assessee is absolved of a liability by a judicial pronouncement or by statute. Since there is neither remission by a positive conduct on the part of the assessee or the creditors nor a cessation and as it was found as a fact that the payments were being made out of these liabilities, though belatedly, I am unable to agree that there was a cessation of the liability or remission thereof so as to bring these sums within the ambit of section 41(1). I, therefore, express my agreement with the view expressed by the learned Accountant Member. Before I close the matter, I would like to add that from the order of the learned Accountant Member which was not particuarly refuted, it would appear that this was no more a case where details of the outstanding liabilities were not available. 5. The matter will now go back to the original Bench for disposal according to majority view.
-
1985 (11) TMI 229 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ial on record only, in terms of Section. 129-C (7) of the Act. Indeed, if one may say so, the power to make a further enquiry, conferred on the Tribunal is of wider amplitude than the power to make such enquiry in Section. 128-A (3), seeing that the Tribunal is invested with the powers of a Civil Court-including the power of dismissal of an appeal or striking out the defence in a case of wilful or obstinate or contumacious disregard of the directions of the Tribunal in regard to any of the matters specified in Section. 129-C (7) or inordinate or inexcusable delay in compliance with such directions resulting in substantial or serious prejudice to the opposite party AIR 1978 SC 1436-M/s. Babbar Sewing Machine Co. v. Triloknath Mahajan . The Collector (Appeals) is not invested with any such power. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the appeals are maintainable. Let the applications for dispensing with the deposit in both the appeals be posted for an early hearing.
-
1985 (11) TMI 228 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the constitutional right a citizen has against his detention under a law relating to preventive detention. While Article 22(5) contemplates the making of a representation against the order of detention to the detaining authority, which has to be referred by the appropriate Government to the Advisory Board constituted Under Section 8(a) of the Act, Parliament has, in his wisdom, enacted Section 11 and conferred an additional safeguard against arbitrary executive action. We must also add that this is not a case of repeated representations to the Central Government as was the case in Slate of U.P. v. Zavad Zama Khan 1984 AIR SC 1094. In that case, it was held that where an earlier representation to the Central Government had been properly disposed of, the fact that the second representation to the Central Government was not so disposed of would not entitle the detenu to be released. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the appellant is directed to be set at liberty forthwith.
-
1985 (11) TMI 227 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... urchase of the gold by the plaintiff at Bombay which according to him was latter on entrusted to the defendants, no liability would arise from the document in question even if it is held that such a document had been brought into existence in the peculiar circumstances of the case. The genuineness of the transaction referred to in that document cannot be believed. Neither the Trial Court nor the High Court has given due consideration to the material aspects, referred to above by us and the judgments therefore stand vitiated. 12. In view of the above conclusion, it is not necessary for us to consider the question of the bar of limitation pleaded by the defendants on the basis of Articles 30 and 31 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the High Court of Rajasthan as well as the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and dismiss the suit. The parties shall however bear their own costs throughout.
-
1985 (11) TMI 226 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sported them to Bombay for the purpose of sale. What is contended is that the sale should have been effected in Kerala and in so far as it was not done, the assessee has violated the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 8 thereby attracting the penal provisions of section 10(d). 4.. The Tribunal has, in our view, correctly stated that, in the absence of a specific provision under the Act or the Rules requiring that the goods purchased by the assessee outside Kerala on the strength of C form should be sold within the State of Kerala itself, the penal provision is not attracted. We agree with this conclusion. In the circumstances, we see no merit in the contention of the State on the question of penalty. 5.. The State has raised certain other contentions which, in our view, do not require to be dealt with in the present proceeding as they do not arise from the order of the Tribunal. The tax revision case is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1985 (11) TMI 225 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ween Hamza and the assessee was so close and intimate that without evidence it was not reasonable on the part of the Tribunal to have brushed aside the concurrent findings of the authorities. It was on clear and cogent evidence that the authorities came to the conclusion that even if Hamza existed, he was only a name-lender, the transactions in his name were the transactions of the assessee, and it was the assessee who could be credited with the turnover realised in the name of Hamza. 6.. We are indeed surprised that notwithstanding the observation of this Court in the earlier judgment under which the matter was remanded for reconsideration by the Tribunal, the Tribunal reaffirmed its earlier findings without any evidence whatsoever. The finding of the Tribunal, in our view, is totally perverse and absolutely unsustainable. The tax revision case is accordingly allowed and the Revenue is entitled to its costs in the present proceeding. Counsel s fee Rs. 500. Petition allowed.
-
1985 (11) TMI 224 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... h is payable on tractor, namely, 4 per cent is not payable on the tractor-trolley, for, a tractor-trolley is not spare part of the tractor. The upshot of the above discussion is (1) that the word trailer does not include tractor-trolley (2) that the tractor-trolleys are not agricultural implements and, thus are not exempt under section 4(1) of the Act (3) that the tractor-trolleys do not fall within the expression all varieties of trailers by whatever names known used in entry No. 7 of Notification No. F. 4(64)/FD/Gr. IV/77-56 dated September 6, 1977 (4) that the tractor-trolleys are not taxable at the rate of 4 per cent and the sale or purchase tax leviable on the tractor-trolleys is in accordance with entry No. 19 of Table 17, which is 7 per cent. The reference, which has been treated as a revision under section 15 of the Act as substituted by the Amendment Act, is disposed of as indicated above. We leave the parties to bear their own costs. Reference answered accordingly.
-
1985 (11) TMI 223 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ore the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) was barred by time. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the assessee, lastly submitted that an application for condonation of delay was also filed before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) and the same was illegally rejected. I have perused the order passed by the Tribunal and it has recorded a categorical finding that the assessee intentionally delayed the filing of appeal and as such it was not entitled to the benefit of section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. Granting of relief under section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act is a discretionary matter. It is true that the discretion has to be exercised judicially and not arbitrarily but in the circumstances of the case the exercise of power under section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act on the basis of a positive finding does not appear to be arbitrary. In the result the revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Application dismissed.
........
|
