|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 227 Records
-
1991 (10) TMI 327 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ing through the case record and the nature of the prosecution case, I do not find the Magistrate has committed any error or any illegality in passing the impugned order inasmuch as in the case of forgery the document which is the subject matter of forgery has to be examined by the court for proper decision of the case. That apart, in the present case the prosecution though closed its evidence, the accused statement has not been recorded. Therefore, the question of prejudice to the petitioner does not arise at all. It is unfortunate, a case of this nature has been lying over almost for the last four years from the date of passing of the impugned order. 8. In the result, there is no merit in the revision which is accordingly dismissed since the lower court order is confirmed. The trial court shall make all endeavour to dispose of the case within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties. The lower court records be sent back forthwith. Revision dismissed.
-
1991 (10) TMI 326 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ing the circular. The infirmity pointed out that it was not issued in the name of the President, therefore, relates only about the form and not with regard to the substance. The circular of course, ought to have been issued in the name of the President as required under Article 148(5) of the Constitution, as it affects the service conditions of persons in the Audit and Accounts Department. But since the Government has approved the circular and the circular was in accordance with the declared policy of reservation, we do not want to restrain the Comptroller Auditor General from enforcing it. We are thus of the view that the impugned circular is valid and binding. The circular by its own provides for reservation. The authorities concerned must take that into account while affecting promotions under the rules. The result is that the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed. In the circumstances of the case, however, we make no order as to costs.
-
1991 (10) TMI 325 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ion in order to embrace different approaches to it or to bring out the essence of the question referred or proposed or to clarify some obscurity therein or to pin-point the real issue between the taxpayer and the department or for some identical reasons. However, under the purported exercise of the power to reframe the question, this Court has no jurisdiction to raise a new question of law not flowing from the question posed before it, the reason being that this Court under section 256 does not exercise original or appellate jurisdiction but exercises only advisory jurisdiction. If a plea was never raised in the application under section 256(1), it cannot be allowed to be raised by refraining the question before this Court, hardship to the assessee or the revenue notwithstanding. 14. On the facts found by the Tribunal, in our opinion, no question of law arises. 15. In the result, all the three applications are dismissed with costs, which we assess at ₹ 200 in each case.
-
1991 (10) TMI 324 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... is of some evidence which was in the possession of the disciplinary authority it already stood proved that the petitioner was guilty of the charge. As has been observed by the Supreme Court in Khem Chand's case (supra) that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to have bee??? done aptly applies to the facts of the present case. On this ground also, the whole enquiry proceedings are vitiated and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. It is not necessary for me to go into the question of quantum of punishment on account of the view I have taken on other points raised by the petitioner's counsel. 17. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is allowed and the order dated 2.5.1991 Annexure P-5 dismissing the petitioner from service is hereby quashed resultantly the petitioner would be reinstated forthwith in service from the date of dismissal order with all consequential benefits. However, there will be no order as to costs. 18. Petition allowed.
-
1991 (10) TMI 323 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rained from discussing them. None of the cases in which this Court has either interfered with the decision of the House or has refused to do so, related to a proceeding for removal of a Judge, and are clearly distinguishable in view of my opinion expressed above. I am also not dealing with the other points urged by Mr. Sibal, as I agree with him on the main issue of justiciability. I am avoiding to express any opinion on the controversy whether the Motion lapsed or not on the dissolution of the earlier House, as the issue is for the Lok Sabha to decide. 106. In view of the above findings this Court cannot pass any order whether permanent or temporary on the prayer that the respondent No. 3 should not be allowed to exercise his judicial powers. In the result all the writ petitions are dismissed. The prayer for transfer of Writ Petition No. 1061 of 1991 in Transfer Petition No. 278 of 1991 is allowed and that Writ Petition is also dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (10) TMI 322 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... proceedings under the Indian Stamp Act for the redressal of their grievance. To hold it otherwise, would amount to deprivation of a valuable opportunity to the petitioners to participate in the enquiry which the 1st respondent is obliged to hold. I therefore, have no hesitation in rejecting the argument of the-learned Government Pleader. 17. In view of the above discussion, I direct the 1st respondent to reconsider the question of valuation and form the necessary opinion afresh after holding an enquiry under Rule 3(3) keeping in view the observations in this judgment. It is only after such reconsideration, if the 1st respondent feels that the document shall be referred to the Collector under S.47-A of the Stamp Act, he shall make a reference afresh to the Collector. The reference made by his letter dated 13-8-1991 to the Collector is declared as illegal. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs. Advocate's fee ₹ 100/- in each. 18. Order accordingly.
-
1991 (10) TMI 321 - SIKKIM HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ore, during arguments, the Court asked the learned counsel to advance arguments on the question as to whether the winning party would like to have an order of costs and, if so, what, they consider, would be a reasonable amount for quantification of counsel fee. Both the learned counsel expressed their desire to postpone the argument on this point, till the conclusion of the arguments on merit. But at the end of the arguments on merit, this point got somehow omitted to be argued, perhaps, because no party wanted to press for costs. Certificate of counsel fee was also not filed by either of them. In the circumstances, this is a fit case for making no order as to costs. 35. These are the reasons for the order that I passed on 22-8-1991 which runs as under The revision is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, the application under Order VII Rule II of the Code of Civil Procedure is allowed and the plaint is rejected. There shall be no order as to costs. Reasons shall follow.
-
1991 (10) TMI 320 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ute of-a new plaint-or a new cause of action in place of what was originally there" is not sought and that even "very defective pleadings-may be permitted to be cured, so as to constitute a cause of action where there was none, provided necessary conditions, such as payment of either any additional court fees, which play be ..payable, or, of costs of the other side are coupled with." (7) The ouster of Order 6 rule 17 will throttle the very life line of Order 7 rule 11. Instead of promoting, it would defeat the ends of justice . I refuse to be a patty to such an approach. (8) Before dropping the curtain, a word or two on the two judgments from this court Both of them must betaken to be confined to their own facts and in any case, in both, applications for amendment were disallowed by the pout in exercise of its discretion. They must with respect be taken to say no more. (9) Order 6 role 17 is thus hold to be neither restricted nor controlled by Order 7 rule 11.
-
1991 (10) TMI 319 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ence this argument must also be rejected. 33. In the premises, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a). The order passed by respondent No. 7 dated 4th April, 1989, Exhibit F to the petition, to the extent that it declares respondent No. 8 as validly nominated for election to the post of the president of respondent No. 6, as well as election of respondent No. 8 to the post of the president of respondent No. 6 Bank pursuant to the election held on 23rd April 1989, is set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly with costs. 34. Dr. Naik, who appears for respondent No. 8, applies for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. In our view, no important question of law of public importance arises. Hence the application is rejected. 35. On the application of Dr. Naik, operation of this order is stayed for a period of eight weeks from today. He agrees to give 48 hours' notice to the petitioners of any application that may be moved before the Supreme Court. 36. Order accordingly.
-
1991 (10) TMI 318 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ce worth accepting to conclude that Avtar Singh was in exclusive possession as a tenant. The High Court rightly held that the finding of subletting or parting with possession of the premises in dispute was vitiated in law as it was primarily based on inadmissible evidence. Having found the finding vitiated, it was open to the High Court to re-examine and reappreciate the evidence on record. On reappraisal it disbelieved-the oral evidence. We do not find any error in such reappraisal. It is then sought to be contended that Gulzar Singh had other business and it implies that he is not in exclusive possession of the demised premises. We find no force in the contention. It may be that Gulzar Singh had other business but that does not lead to the conclusion that Gulzar singh is not in exclusive possession of the demised premises as tenant or that he sublet the premises to Avtar Singh. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
1991 (10) TMI 317 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ontention as the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy available to it by way of appeal before the Asstt. Commissioner. 3. In view of what has been stated above, the petition succeeds and is allowed in part. The truck in question, namely, truck No. U. P. 53-A/6266 is directed to be released immediately on the production of a certified copy of this order before the Sales Tax Officer, Dharaulim, district Ballia. The relief in regard to the goods being transported by that truck is, however, refused on the ground of alternative remedy. 4. A copy of this order may be given to the learned counsel on payment of requisite charges today.
-
1991 (10) TMI 316 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... P. Sales Tax Act. Learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent does not dispute that at this stage the truck could not legally be detained and seized. 3. In this view the petition is disposed of with the direction to the Sales Tax Officer, Bhipura, Check Post, Ghaziabad to release Truck No. U. P. 27-5007 immediately on production of a certified copy of this order before him. This order shall, however, not cover the goods which have also been seized with respect to which the petitioner may pursue his remedy in accordance with the provisions of U. P. Sales Tax Act before the Sales Tax Authorities themselves. 4. A copy of this order may be issued to the learned counsel by tomorrow on payment of usual charges.
-
1991 (10) TMI 315 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 111 and 49 of 1981. The decision in the said cases has nothing to do in this case and so questions (c) and (d) do not arise for consideration. 6. In question No. (e) the poser is this When is the sale completed ? Ordinarily it depends upon the intention of the parties. Admittedly, there was an agreement, entered into between the parties, which would decide the issue. That is not a part of the paper book before us and we are not in a position to advert to the nature of the agreement, entered into between the parties and as to when the sale has taken place according to the intention of parties. No material is placed before us to decide whether question No.(e) mentioned in paragraph 8 of the O. P. is a referable question of law. So the five questions formulated as questions (a) to (e) in paragraph 8 of the O. P., which alone were specified in the application filed before the Tribunal under s. 256 (1) of the Act, are not referable question of law. We dismiss the O. P. No. costs.
-
1991 (10) TMI 314 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of ₹ 50,000/- per month, first of such payment to be made on or before last day of each month. (3) Thereafter the defendant shall not be liable to deposit any further amount with the Court Receiver under this order. At that stage the parties shall be at liberty to apply to the Court for further directions. The Court may then discharge or continue the receiver with the agency of the defendant to use the machinery as agent of the receiver on reduced amount of compensation as deemed fit or pass some other appropriate order. 20. The Notice of Motion is finality disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 21. On application of Mr. Doctor, it is hereby directed that the Court Receiver shall not require the defendant to execute the agency agreement till 20th of November, 1991. 22. It is hereby clarified that this order shall not prevent the Board from performing its statutory functions under Act I of 1986 in accordance with law. 23. Issue of certified copy is expedited.
-
1991 (10) TMI 313 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sideration for holding that the building was vacated without sufficient cause. The courts below thus committed an error of law in applying second proviso to reject the application filed on behalf of the appellant. Even the finding on requirement of the appellant to occupy the building is not well founded. The inference drawn by the two courts below that the appellant being a rich man would not occupy the annexe or that he would use it occasionally is not well founded. It being undisputed that the appellant has no other building in the urban area and it having been found that he vacated the other building for sufficient reason there was no fetter on the right of appellant to seek eviction of the tenant. In the result this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The orders of all the courts below are set aside. The application of appellant shall stand allowed. He shall approach the Rent Control authorities for appropriate directions. Parties shall bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.
-
1991 (10) TMI 312 - COMPANY LAW BOARD
... ...
... ... ..... ) of Sub-section (3) of Section 22A of SCR Act. The petitioner-company's case is that since transfer of less than 50 shares under circumstances other than those enumerated in Article 47A of the articles of association is prohibited, the board of directors have rightly refused the registration of transfer of shares. Since there is a specific provision which seeks free transferability and registration of transfers of listed securities, according to us any provisions which puts any restriction on the free transferability of shares would be a negation of the expressed provisions of law and would be self-defeating. 10. In view of the foregoing, we hereby direct pursuant to the provisions of Sub-section (7)(a) of Section 22A of the SCR Act, that the transfer of shares involved in these four references, which are the subject-matter of this order, shall be registered by Kinetic Engineering Limited within ten days from the date of receipt of this order. 11. No orders as to costs.
-
1991 (10) TMI 311 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... side of the petitioner is Mahesh Kumar Chauhan v. Union of India (1990) 3 SCC 148 1990 SCC (Cri) 434 . In that case the Sponsoring Authority caused a delay of 17 days in forwarding the comments and there was no explanation as to why such a delay had occurred. Having regard to those facts, this Court held that the unexplained delay had vitiated the order of detention. 7. As we have already pointed out there was an inordinate delay of nearly 28 days in forwarding the comments by the Sponsoring Authority which delay stands unexplained in the instant case. 8. In these circumstances, we are constrained to hold that the undue and unexplained delay in the present case in the disposal of the representation of the detenue has rendered the impugned order invalid. 9. In the result the impugned order of detention is set aside and the detenue is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless the petitioner's detention is required for any other cause. 10. The writ petition is allowed.
-
1991 (10) TMI 310 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tion to the defendant. As far as the defendant is concerned, the plaintiff is his landlord and the owner of the premises for all purposes dealt with under the provisions of the Act. In view of what we have stated above, the High Court and the 1st appellate court were wrong in setting aside the decree of the trial court solely on the question of the appellant's title. The appellant's title was never an issue at any stage of the trial. There was no plea to that effect and no issue was, therefore, framed on the question. This being the position, the appellant's claim has to be decided on the basis of the pleadings, i.e., on the basis that he is the owner of the premises in question. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and that of the 1st appellate court and remand this case to the 1st appellate court for fresh disposal of the respond- enttenant's appeal on the merits. This appeal is accordingly allowed with costs of the appellant throughout.
-
1991 (10) TMI 309 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y were seized. Having regard to the fact that in the course of the arguments there was a lot of dispute with regard to the manner in which or the places from where the documents are alleged to have been seized or recovered, no such consequential orders are being made. It shall be open to the respective parties to apply to the trial Court for appropriate orders. As regards the documents in respect of which the learned Additional Sessions Judge has passed an order that the same be returned to the accused forthwith, the interim order passed by this Court will continue to operate in respect of those documents for a period of 6 (six) weeks. After the appeal period is over and if no other Court is by then seized of the matter, it shall be open to the parties to apply to the trial Court for appropriate orders in respect of those documents. Until that time, the documents which, I am informed, are in safe custody shall continue to be retained in that condition. 62. Order accordingly.
-
1991 (10) TMI 308 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cheme is not sound in law. It is seen that the appellant has been in possession as tenant for well over half a century and, therefore, it is injuriously affected by the scheme which has the effect of terminating his possession and this adversely affects its business in the demised premises. Since it is a running business over the years, the respondent is directed to provide an alternative premises by allotting a suitable shop within the city to the appellant; to put it in possession thereof and until then allow its occupation of demised shop. In case the appellant does not vacate or creates any obstruction in any form in the matter of possession, it would be open to the respondent to have the appellant ejected summarily. In this view we decline to interfere with the scheme. The appeal is accordingly allowed to the above extent and in other respects the decree of the Courts below is upheld. But in the circumstances parties are directed to bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.
........
|
