|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 594 Records
-
2001 (1) TMI 1026 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... restriction that in the developed building two flats measuring about 1500 sq. ft. in the position mentioned and which is common in both the Will, shall not be distributed and shall be kept in the custody of the Administrator pendente lite until further orders by this Court. 14. At this stage both the parties have joined in praying for expeditious hearing of the suit. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, let there be an order of expeditious hearing of the suit. 15. Since the property appears to be allotted to the applicant in both the Wills, the applicant is appointed Administrator pendente lite subject to the control and direction of this Court. There will be a cross-order for discovery of documents within 2 (two) weeks from date and inspection 2 (two) weeks thereafter and the suit will appear in the appropriate list after 4 (four) weeks. All parties are to act on a xerox signed copy of this dictated order on the usual undertaking. 16. Application allowed
-
2001 (1) TMI 1025 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ndoned. Heard. We do not find any merit in this appeal. It is dismissed.
-
2001 (1) TMI 1024 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of this case. In the present case, as we have recorded above, it has been found that the quality including potentiality of land between Exh. 16 and the present one are similar. No evidence has been led on behalf of the State to find difference between the two. In view of this, the inference drawn by the High Court for reducing the compensation by Rs. 10/- per sq. mtr. cannot be sustained. 13. For the aforesaid reason, we find, so far the appeals by the claimants has merit. The judgment and order of the High Court to the extent it reduced the compensation rate by Rs. 10/- per sq. mtr. is set aside and the findings recorded by the Referring Court is upheld. On the other hand, in view of the findings recorded hereinbefore for the same reasons the appeal filed by the State has no merit and are hereby dismissed, cost on the parties. 14. The interim order is hereby discharged. The state will now proceed to pay the compensation to the claimants expeditiously in terms of this order.
-
2001 (1) TMI 1023 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... er against the second Respondent. 22. The Notice of Motion shall be heard on its merits in accordance with law and in the light of this judgment. 23. It is contended by the Respondents that the ad-interim order made by Nijjar. J., came to an end as a result of dismissal of the Notice of Motion on 3rd August, 2000 and that, though the Appeal was presented on 19th August, 2000, there was no ad-interim order sought in the Appeal. In our view, it makes no difference. It was considered necessary by the learned Single Judge that the ad-interim order should be made we too consider it necessary. Hence, pending hearing and disposal of the Notice of Motion, there shall be an ad-interim order in terms of prayer clause (c) (ii) as made by Nijjar, J., on 6th April, 2000. 24. Appeal accordingly allowed. Costs of the Appeal to be the costs of the Suit. 25. Parties to act on an ordinary copy of order duly authenticated by the Associate of this Court. 26. Issuance of certified copy expedited.
-
2001 (1) TMI 1022 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s an industry . In this view of the matter, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the learned single Judge as well as the Division Bench committed serious error of law in holding that to the appointment in question, the provisions of the Act apply. We would accordingly set aside the judgment of the Division Bench as well as that of the learned single Judge and hold that the writ petition would stand dismissed. 7. Mr. Anand then submitted that by virtue of an interim order, this Court had observed that the pendency of the appeal in this Court does not stand on the way of the State Government to consider the case of regularisation of the respondent since he has continued for a pretty long time. We do not think it appropriate to make any observation on that score since the impugned judgment proceeded on the basis of applicability of the Act and we have already held that the judgment is erroneous in law. This appeal is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.
-
2001 (1) TMI 1021 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e mere fact that it will cause hardship to the defendants cannot prevent this Court from passing any decree for specific performance. The defendants have not brought to our notice any circumstance, which necessitate non-granting of specific performance. 22. In the above view of the matter, we set aside the judgment and decree of the lower court. We allow this appeal and decree the suit as follows The plaintiff is given a decree of specific performance of Ext. A6 agreement and is also directed to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 15,000/- within a period of four months from today. On such deposit, the defendants shall execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff with regard to the plaint schedule property. In default of the defendants executing such document, the plaintiff shall request the court to cause the document to be executed in favour of the plaintiff with regard to the plaint schedule properly. Both sides are directed to suffer costs. Cross objection is dismissed.
-
2001 (1) TMI 1020 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... only when the Court does not hold enquiry. When the enquiry is held and order is made such an order cannot be questioned under Section 115 CPC. In this case enquiry has been held and a detailed order has been passed by the Trial Court. In such an event, the Civil Revision Petition is riot maintainable. 9. In ILR 1996 KAR 833 this Court had an occasion to consider the enquiry under Order 22 Rule. 5. This Court has held that such an enquiry and the result thereof does not conclusively establish the right or title to property or decide such a person as an heir of the deceased or not. 10. The Trial Court has taken for the purpose of further prosecution of the case the respondents-1 (a to h) as LRs and there has been no decision under Will and validity thereof. It is always open to the petitioner to question the will or the right of the respondent to claim under the will. Making that positron clear this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the order of the trial Court.
-
2001 (1) TMI 1019 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... cannot stand. The observation made by the Adjudicating Officer based on his satisfaction cannot be limited to applicability to regulation 11/section 15 (ii) alone as the facts are common. Further the Adjudicating Officer has also clearly stated in the order that the delay in filing of the report has not resulted in any gain to the Appellant. There is not even a whisper in the impugned order of any loss to any body. There is nothing on record to show that the Appellant had a past record of default. None of the factors of section 15 J is attracted in this case. In the light of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the Supreme Court's guidelines in the Hindustan Steel's case imposition of monetary penalty on the Appellant in my view is unwarranted. 30. For the reasons stated above I am of the view that the order-imposing penalty on the Appellant cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be set aside. I do so. 31. The appeal is allowed.
-
2001 (1) TMI 1018 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Seeking grant of stay on proceedings - petitioner's application for stay of proceedings was rejected on the ground that the provisions of the Bombay Relief Undertaking Act, 1958 (BRU Act) cannot prevail over the Recovery Of Debts Due To Banks and Financial Institutions Act,1993 - HELD THAT:- If the object of BRU Act is kept in view along with the object of the DRT Act, it is apparent that there is no conflict between two Acts and both can be read harmoniously to operate together. As stated by the Apex Court, the BRU Act is framed for the purpose of resurrecting and rehabilitating industrial undertakings by temporarily suspending remedies to enforce fulfillment of obligations and liabilities so as to prevent unemployment and thus give immunity from legal actions so as to render working of such undertakings in smooth and effective manner. At the same time the DRT Act has been brought on the statute book to subserve the purpose of protecting public money of which the banks, and financial institutions are custodian, and to recover dues of such money expeditiously; if that is so, both the statutes are beneficial in nature with an underlying public purpose. Under the BRU Act what is suspended is the remedy against the right to enforce the liabilities which have already been incurred and in the event of notification prevailing over the DRT Act all that happens is that the undertaking is permitted to run and there is no question of public money being siphoned away in the interregnum.
This petition is required to be entertained not only because the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction but also for "any other purpose"; namely, to further the legislative intent instead of frustrating it. In view of what is stated hereinbefore, we reject the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondent caveators.
No observations may be taken to be final on merits, because the said observations have been made only for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether we could entertain the petition or not in view of the preliminary objections - Rule returnable on 22.02.2001.
-
2001 (1) TMI 1017 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the sender mentioned on the packet is correct. It is not unlikely that the sender may mention only his name on the postal packet or address, which is incomplete. In that case, if the postman fails to deliver the articles to the addressee, it would not be possible for the postman to return the article to the sender. Thus, simply because the landlord has not received the article back, he cannot presume that the article was tendered to the tenant. No such presumption can be drawn particularly in fact of denial by the defendant on oath that he received any such article." In my view no fault can be found with the aforesaid conclusion reached by the Appellate Court even with regard to the question of service of notice by under certificate of posting mode, for no evidence has been adduced by the Petitioner to prove to the contrary. 13. For the aforesaid reasons the present writ petition should fail and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.
-
2001 (1) TMI 1016 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e Reserve Bank of India the interest rate has been lowered. The nationalised bank are now granting interest at the rate of 9% on fixed deposits for one year. We, therefore, direct that the compensation amount fixed hereinbefore shall bear interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim made by the appellants. The amount of Rs.50,000/- paid by the Insurance Company under Section 140 shall be deducted from the principal amount as on the date of its payment, and interest would be recalculated on the balance amount of the principal sum from such date. 25. We direct the first respondent Insurance Company to pay the above amount to the claimants by depositing it in the Tribunal. Once such deposit is made the same shall be disbursed to the claimants in accordance with the principles laid down by this Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation vs. Susamma Thomas & ors. AIR 1994 SC 1631 AIR 1994 SC 1631. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
2001 (1) TMI 1015 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ase on hand. 27. It is, therefore, evidently clear that the various averments made in the paras referred to above are unnecessary, scandalous frivolous and vexatious and, as such, they are liable to be deleted from the pleadings. There is no cause of action against the second defendant and, as such, the plaint has to be rejected in respect of the second defendant and under the circumstance, the name of the second defendant also has to be struck out from the plaint. The leave granted to the plaintiff also is liable to be revoked. Hence, these points are answered accordingly. 28. For the foregoing reasons, Application Nos. 4371 and 4373 and 4631 of 2000 are allowed. So far as Application No. 4372 of 2000 is concerned, the plaint is rejected so far as the second defendant is concerned and the plaint is returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper court in a period of six weeks. Consequently, Original Application Nos. 855 and 856 of 2000 are dismissed as unnecessary .
-
2001 (1) TMI 1014 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ough there is no positive provision in any of the relevant Acts, as already pointed out by us, by virtue of the Rulings of the Apex Court viz., that the Order of confiscation is a proceeding in rem and that the property vests with the Government absolutely, we have to only hold that this is identical to the category where a Government claims sovereign immunity. In other words, the Government claiming sovereign immunity and the highest court of the country holding that confiscation results in absolute vesting of the property in the Government, are similar (i.e.,) same effect/consequence. 51. In the result, both the appeals stand allowed. There will be no order as to cost. 52. We make it clear, notwithstanding the decision in these appeals it is open to the Chief of the ship and the crew to question the validity of the order of confiscation since we have only considered the effect of the order as to whether the vesting is subject to the crew's maritime lien for their wages.
-
2001 (1) TMI 1013 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and suffers from the error apparent on the face of the record as well as jurisdiction. If the impugned orders are allowed to continue in existence the Petitioners and others to whom sites have been allotted long back in 1989 would suffer irreparable loss and injustice is likely to cause them. Thus considered, in my opinion, the writ petitions deserve to be allowed and are hereby allowed. 13. The impugned order passed by the Common Standing Committee, Zilla Parishad, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, dated 3.1.1992 and the endorsement issued by the Chief Secretary, Zilla Parishad, Bangalore Rural District Bangalore, on 20.1.1992 vide Annexures 'G' and 'H' respectively to the writ petitions are hereby quashed. 14. Let a writ of mandamus be issued to the appellate authority which has been substituted in place of Respondents 1 and 2 to decide the matter in accordance with law after providing opportunity to both parties. 15. The parties to bear their own costs.
-
2001 (1) TMI 1012 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... where any cheque was drawn for payment of any amount of money for the discharge in whole or any part of any debt or other liability and the same is dishonoured by the Bank, the person who drew the cheque shall be punishable. Therefore, the cheque drawn should be towards the discharge of either the whole debt or part of the debt. If the cheque is more than the amount of the debt due, I am afraid, Section 138 cannot be attracted. This is a case where the cheque amount was more than the amount due on the date when the cheque was presented. The presentation of the cheque and subsequent dishonour alone raises a cause of action. When the cheque cannot be said to be drawn towards the discharge of either the whole or part of any debt or liability, Section 138 is not attracted. On this sole ground, the complaint is liable to be quashed and is accordingly quashed. The petition is, therefore, allowed, connected Crl.M.P. Nos. 9221 and 9222 of 2000 and Crl.M.P. No. 455 of 2001 are closed.
-
2001 (1) TMI 1011 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... a subject matter of the suit filed by the plaintiff in the City Civil Court. There is already a decree passed in respect of the said saving bank joint account and therefore, there is no question of entering into that aspect of the matter again. I am no entering into further controversy in that respect, there is no question of considering that aspect of the matter now as the City Civil Court decree has become final and the issue involved therein cannot be reopened now. It appears that under certain misconception the plaintiff wnted to make claim even in respect of other amounts left by Bharucha in respect of which there was a Will and defendants have taken action in accordance with law by approaching the appropriate authority for grant of necessary certificate in pursuance of the Will. Hence these issues are answered against the plaintiff and consequently, the plaintiff is not entitled to any amount as claim in the suit and the suit must fail. 24. Suit is dismissed with costs.
-
2001 (1) TMI 1010 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... from the bid. One month's time was granted to the appellant to pay the balance amount. 6. From the facts enumerated hereinabove, it is evidently clear that the offer of the appellant was a qualified one. The bid was not open for acceptance for an indefinite period. In the offer made by the appellant, it was clearly stated that the acceptance should be conveyed within three months which was subsequently extended up to July 1999. When, admittedly, there was delay in the acceptance of the bid, the appellant was at liberty to ask for the refund of money already paid and to withdraw from the bid at least after 9-7-1999. 7. We, accordingly, allow this appeal and set aside the order of the High Court insofar as it has accepted the bid of the appellant and has directed it to make the payment. The Official Receiver will refund to the appellant the earnest money deposited along with such interest as may have accrued thereon. The refund should be made within eight weeks from today.
-
2001 (1) TMI 1009 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... re hereby set aside. But this would not prejudice any investigation to be conducted on the FIR registered or to be registered by the police station concerned in respect of the complaints involved in these appeals. In Criminal Appeal No.1165 of 1998, when special leave was granted the orders of the magistrate directing the CBI to conduct investigation were stayed. However, this Court permitted the complainant in the case, to move the magistrate again for appropriate order for investigation of the offences. Pursuant thereto a direction was given by the magistrate concerned to the officer in charge of Hari Nagar Police Station, New Delhi, and on the strength of the said direction FIR No.32/99 was registered. We considered the facts alleged in the said case and we deem it that it requires to be investigated by a specialised agency, like the CBI. Hence we order the CBI to take up investigation in FIR No.32/99 of Hari Nagar Police Station. These appeals are disposed of accordingly.
-
2001 (1) TMI 1008 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... re hereby set aside. But this would not prejudice any investigation to be conducted on the FIR registered or to be registered by the police station concerned in respect of the complaints involved in these appeals. In Criminal Appeal No.1165 of 1998, when special leave was granted the orders of the magistrate directing the CBI to conduct investigation were stayed. However, this Court permitted the complainant in the case, to move the magistrate again for appropriate order for investigation of the offences. Pursuant thereto a direction was given by the magistrate concerned to the officer in charge of Hari Nagar Police Station, New Delhi, and on the strength of the said direction FIR No.32/99 was registered. We considered the facts alleged in the said case and we deem it that it requires to be investigated by a specialised agency, like the CBI. Hence we order the CBI to take up investigation in FIR No.32/99 of Hari Nagar Police Station. These appeals are disposed of accordingly.
-
2001 (1) TMI 1007 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... eason to interfere with the impugned Order. The Appeal stand dismissed. We clarify the merits of the case have not been argued before us. We are thus not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. 30. As the trial has already been delayed, we direct that now the trial be taken up for hearing on a day to day basis and the same be concluded within a period of 6 months from today. 31. It has been brought to out attention that in a large number of cases stays have been granted by the High Courts in matters under the Prevention of Corruption Act, even though there is a specific bar against the grant of any stay. We therefore direct the Registrars of all the High Courts to list all cases in which such stay is granted before the Court concerned so that appropriate action can be taken by that Court in the light of this decision. The Registrar of this Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the Registrar of all the High Courts. 32. There shall be no Order as to costs.
........
|
