|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 233 Records
-
1987 (10) TMI 388 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... xtract work from him. Since the State Government has not done the needful, it has become necessary for the Court to interfere. Ordinarily in a case of this type, the Court would have no role to play. 5. We direct the respondent-Government of Tamil Nadu to give an appropriate posting to the appellant within one month from today and once he is given such posting, he must be assigned normal official work to be discharged by him as contemplated under the rules and procedure in respect of the post the appellant is assigned. We hope and trust that the appellant shall be given a proper assignment commensurate to his position in the service and the State Government in its action would exhibit no bias or mala fides. We make it clear that we have not examined the correctness of such allegations as we are sure, given an opportunity, the State Government would exhibit ideal conduct as an employer and establish by its conduct that the allegations were baseless. We make no order for costs.
-
1987 (10) TMI 387 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y to cause any harm, danger or alarm or feeling of insecurity among the general public or any section thereof or a grave or wide spread danger to life, property or public health. Evidence is clear that the petitioner is carrying on activities as a bootlegger, and to facilitate his activities be created an atmosphere of terror and because of that, armed police party and SRP were required to be posted in that locality. Even witness Jivabhai had to leave the place and go to another place for residing. The detaining authority was, therefore, rightly subjectively satisfied that the activities of the petitioner as bootlegger affected public order. 25. No other point is urged before us. The detention order dated January 31, 1987 passed by the District Magistrate, Bhavnagar, the detaining authority, against the petitioner, does not suffer from any vice and, therefore, should be upheld and the petition should be dismissed. 26. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Rule discharged.
-
1987 (10) TMI 386 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... true that Section 196 states that no cognizance can be taken and even after cognizance having been taken if facts come to light that the acts complained of were done in the discharge of the official duties then the trial may have to be stayed unless sanction is obtained. But at the same time it has to be emphasised that criminal trials should not be stayed in all cases at the preliminary stage because that will cause great damage to the evidence. 7. In that view of the matter we are of the opinion that the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, in the facts of this case, was proper and the High Court was right in not interfering with the same. We, therefore, dismiss this petition. 8. We, however, direct that the trial should proceed as expeditiously as possible. We further record that if necessary the question of sanction under Section 197 of the Cr. P.C. may be agitated after some evidence have been noted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
-
1987 (10) TMI 385 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... defence as it is not for this company court but it is for the courts where the prosecutions have already been lodged, which have to consider the same. Therefore, I am not expressing any opinion regarding the merits of those cases which are yet to be decided on merits after recording evidence thereon. That apart, there appears nothing on record to indicate that prosecutions have been lodged against the petitioner also with a view to only harass him as alleged by him because it cannot be disputed that the petitioner being a director of the company is also an occupier. Therefore, he is at liberty to take whatever defences are available to him before those courts and consequently I do not find any valid ground to allow this petition, as the judgment of the Delhi High Court, on which learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance, has only made certain observations regarding such directors. 16. In the result, this petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
1987 (10) TMI 384 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ir rights are intact despite the alienation by the widow, the declaratory decree does recognise the rights of the reversioners to the property after the death of the limited owner though the right to enjoy for a limited period remains in the done. Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, had no application to the property. It was held that it was not in the possession of the widow at the time of the death. We are of the opinion that the ratio of the said decision cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. Since in this case after the purported gift, it was held that the gift was legally valid, Mst. Bushehari remained the owner of the property in question, therefore, was competent to dispose it of when she made the Will. 9. In that view of the matter and in the facts and circumstances of this case the appeal must be allowed. The judgment and order of the High Court are set aside. In the facts and circumstances of the case the parties will pay their own costs.
-
1987 (10) TMI 383 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ce by the assessee or the Income-tax Officer. In the instant case, as indicated above, a mistake apparent from the record had been committed by the Tribunal. This mistake was brought to its notice within four years from the date of the order by the assessee and was rectified by the Tribunal by making necessary amendments in the earlier order. The case, therefore, squarely fell within the purview of rectification of mistakes as contemplated by Section 254(2) of the Act and it was not a case where the Tribunal could be said to have reviewed its earlier order. 6. In view of the foregoing discussion, our answer to the question referred to us is that the decision of the Tribunal in Misc. Application No. 6 (Jab) of 1982, dated September 2, 1982, will not amount to a review of its order dated December 8, 1981, but it was an order of rectification of mistake which is permissible under Section 254(2) of the Act. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.
-
1987 (10) TMI 382 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... thereby was not covered by the term mill stores', it soon got the certificate of registration amended, in that the amended certificate of registration enabled the assessee to import all kinds of machinery. It goes to show that there was no mens rea on the part of the assessee. When the assessee can get the certificate of registration amended soon after the controversy arose whether or not 'mill stores' embraced the machinery imported thereby, the assessee could have done the same thing to obviate the controversy had it known from before that the certificate of registration did not refer to the import of machinery. 10. For the reasons, it has to be held that the Tribunal was in error in confirming the penalty levied by the Sales Tax Officer in part. 11. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed, the Tribunal's order dated 7-8-1986 is set aside and the order of the A.C. (J) cancelling the entire penalty is restored. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (10) TMI 381 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ew the basic concept that notice should not only be done but it should appear to have been done has facing a trial by itself as an ordeal. A Head Constable is certainly not a Sub-Inspector or Inspector police and in the instant case PW 1 Amanulla Khan was admittedly not Station House Officer of G.R.P. Police Station, Ajmer. I have also quoted his statement in extenso where he has admitted that he had gone to the police station after ten minutes of the search of which he had no jurisdiction express or implied. Even the SHO. PW 6 Ram Chandra had no jurisdiction vested in him on November 21, 1985 and as such very foundation of the case is without proper authority of law. I need not go into other points raised as this alone is sufficient to dispose of this case. 22. For the discussion made above I accept this appeal, set aside the judgment, dated February 17, 1987, passed by Sessions Judge, Ajmer. He is acquitted of all the charges. He is in jail and shall be released forthwith.
-
1987 (10) TMI 380 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is to be added to the value of the building arrived at by having followed the rent capitalisation method, is not res integro. So far as this Court is concerned, a similar question came up for hearing before this Court very recently in CWT, Kanpur vs. Ram Saran Kajriwal (1987) 64 CTR (All) 32 (1987) 168 ITR 485(All) and then this Court took the view that the reversionary value will not be added to the value of the building determined on rent capitalisation method. 5. We do not see any good reason to take a contrary view and following the rule laid down in Ram Saran Kajriwal we uphold the order of the Tribunal which has held that reversionary value will not be added. 6. For the reasons, the identical question referred to us in all the References is decided against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. 7. Let the records be sent to the Tribunal to pass the order conformably to our judgment. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, there would be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (10) TMI 379 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r a payment which under the provisions of clause (3) of Section 17 is a profit in lieu of salary, his Income is assessed at a rate of higher than that it would otherwise have been assessed, the Income Tax Officer shall on an application made to him in this behalf grant such relief as may be prescribed. The prescribed relief is set out in Rule 21-A of the Income Tax Rules. The appellant is entitled to relief under Section 89 because compensation herein awarded includes salary which has been in arrear for 18 years as also the compensation in lieu of reinstatement and the relief should be given as provided by Section 89 of the Income Tax Act read with Rule 21-A of the Income Tax Rules. The appellant indisputably is entitled to the same. If any application is necessary to be made, the appellant may submit the same to the competent authority and the Commission shall assist the appellant for obtaining the relief." 26. Rules made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1987 (10) TMI 378 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... are surprised that an advocate practising in this Court with considerable experience has choosen to act in such an irresponsible manner. The writ petition, in our opinion, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. We, accordingly, dismiss the writ petition. We direct the Registry to draw up an appropriate proceeding for contempt and issue notice to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause in person on 9.11.1987 as to why he may not be proceeded under the Contempt of Court Act. At page 41 of his petition, the petitioner has stated.- "This is a public interest litigation in the interest of independence of judiciary and social justice .. " We are of the view that the petition is an act against public interest. The petitioner has certainly over-stepped the limit of self-restraint, so much necessary in a public interest litigation. We direct the Registry not to entertain any application by way of public interest litigation by the petitioner in future. Petition dismissed
-
1987 (10) TMI 377 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... any further additional burden of executive work. It is also not desirable in the interests of justice that such matters be assigned to the Judicial Magistrate for the additional reason that ultimately when criminal complaints are filed for the offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act, such complaints are also filed before the Judicial Magistrates. If they are assigned such work, those Magistrates who have done work under Sections 110(1B) cannot try such cases and hence there will be embarrassment which would require transfer of such cases to other Magistrates. 5. In view of the above discussion the view taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and accepted by the learned Sessions Judge is correct and, therefore, the Assistant Collector of Customs should make such application before the Executive Magistrate. In result I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Courts below. The Misc. Criminal Application therefore, fails and stands dismissed.
-
1987 (10) TMI 376 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... iority list, Annexure-P/1 to the writ petition, and all subsequent seniority lists of SPs in the CBI in which the petitioner has been shown junior to the respondents Nos. S to 7. Further, let a writ in the nature of mandamus issue commanding the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to allot to the petitioner his proper seniority in the post of SP, CBI, by counting his service with effect from 14-6-1976, that is, the date on which he was regularly promoted to the post of Deputy Commandant in the BSF and to issue a fresh seniority list showing him senior to the respondents Nos. 5 to 7. The writ petition is allowed and the rule is made absolute to the extent indicated above. We, however, make it clear that in Writ Petition No. 1021 of 1986 the issue as to the date of birth of the petitioner is left open and the petitioner would be at liberty to challenge any order, if adverse to him, on that issue. There will, however, be no order as to costs in any of the writ petitions. Petitions allowed
-
1987 (10) TMI 375 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he lands from acquisition sustained. Learned counsel for the respondent company contended that at the time the land was initially acquired under section 4 there had been a proposal that the Government should grant in favour of the company some land contiguous to S. No. 40, Hissas Nos. 2 & 3, in exchange for the land sought to be acquired and that the appellants should be directed to give or sell some land to the petitioner. We are unable to follow how any such proposal, even if made originally, could survive in view of the acquisition proceedings having been dropped. However, we express no opinion in this regard and leave it to the company, if so advised, to pursue the matter with the Government. For the reasons discussed above, the civil appeal is allowed and the orders of the High Court dated 9.11.1983 and 6.8.1985 are set aside. The Rule issued by the High Court stands discharged. However, in the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.
-
1987 (10) TMI 374 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... m v. State of Himachal Pradesh, A.I.R. 1983 SC 454 this Court held "It is equally true that the penalty imposed must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct and that any penalty disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The point to note, and emphasise is that all powers have legal limits. In the present case the punishment is so strikingly disproportionate as to call for and justify interference. It cannot be allowed to remain uncorrected in judicial review. 10. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed, the order of the High Court set aside, the writ petition preferred in the High Court allowed and the impugned proceedings of the Summary Court-Martial dated March 30, 1985, and the consequent order and sentence are quashed. The appellant is entitled to and shall be reinstated with all monetary and service benefits. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.
-
1987 (10) TMI 373 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the law applicable to the determination of that issue. However, where the question is one purely of law and it relates to the jurisdiction of the Court or a decision of the Court sanctioning something which is illegal, by resort to the rule of res judicata a party affected by the decision will not be precluded from challenging the validity of the order under the rule of res judicata, for a rule of procedure cannot supersede the law of the land. 5. In the present case it was purely a question of law with regard to the interpretation of Section 60(g) as to whether the gratuity is liable to attachment or not after the death of the employee and thus it went to the jurisdiction of the court regarding its power to attach the amount or not to attach the amount and any wrong decision of law cannot operate as res judicata. So, I hold that this appeal has no merit. I dismiss the appeal but in view of the legal question involved, I leave the parties to bear their own costs throughout.
-
1987 (10) TMI 372 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... begin to run under Article 136 of the Limitation Act of 1963 until the decree is so drawn up. That being so, as indicated at the very outset, we would accordingly hold that the execution in this case was not barred by time and we would allow the revision. 22. The revision accordingly succeeds, the impugned order is set aside and the executing Court is directed to proceed with the execution in accordance with law. The records of the case, if any, to go down at once along with a copy of this judgment. In the circumstances and in view of the questions involved, we make no order as to costs. We would like to note that the learned counsel for both the parties have rendered admirable assistance to us and we would like to place on record our appreciation of the services rendered both by Mr. S. P. Roy Chowdhury, the learned counsel for the petitioners and by Mr. Ashoke Chakraborty, the learned counsel for the opposite parties. Mitra, J. 23. I agree. Ajit Kumar Nayak, J. 24.I agree.
-
1987 (10) TMI 371 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... two rounds is not liable to be sustained. I, therefore, set aside the Tribunal's order on this point only and direct it to reconsider the same afresh and determine the turnover accordingly. 10. The last point urged was that the assessment could not have been confirmed by the Sales Tax Tribunal under Section 18 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act as there was no reconstitution or change in the proprietorship in the assessment year in dispute. I find this point was never urged before any of the tax authorities nor does it arise out of the Tribunal's order. It cannot, therefore, be allowed to be raised for the first time before this Court. 11. For what has been stated above, this revision petition is allowed in part. The Tribunal is directed to restore the appeal to its original number and redetermine the turnover in accordance with the observations made in this judgment and in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case the parties are directed to bear their own costs.
-
1987 (10) TMI 370 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... her points also which were contested before me by the counsel for the assessee, such as the correct period required for completing one full round, having regard to the capacity of the brick kiln, time required for producing one lac of bricks etc. 15. Since the order of the Sales-tax Tribunal is being set aside, as discussed above, I do not consider it necessary to enter into the merits of other questions It will be open to the assessee to raise before the Sales-tax Tribunal all these points and such other points that may be available to it under law, who will decide them afresh. 16 With these observations, the order of the Sales-tax Tribunal insofar it relates to the appeal filed by the assessee before it, is set aside. The Tribunal will restore the assessee's appeal to its original number and will decide it afresh in the light of the observations made in this order and in accordance with law. 17. The revision succeeds and is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (10) TMI 369 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ring the concessional rate equal to class 85-B (Special) has been completely watered down in the second part of the letter. It has been expressly stated that the rate may need be reviewed when the traffic actually begins to move. The company was put to notice that it has to again approach the Railway Administration. The Railway authorities now states that they have reviewed the whole matter and found no justification to offer a concessional freight rate for Naptha, since fertilizers are deliberately given a low classification in the tariff. From the tenor of Ex. S the Railways are entitled to state so, and it does not amount to resiling from the earlier assurance. No question of estoppel arises in favour of appellant out of the representation made in Ex. CS. We, therefore, agree with the conclusion of the Tribunal but not for all the reasons stated. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances. however, we make no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.
........
|
