|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 452 Records
-
2002 (3) TMI 959 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... expressed their desire to prosecute the lis as major. Thus, it will be deemed that they elected to abide by the judgment and cannot avoid the same after disposal of the case. Even otherwise, in the Misc. Appeal, the Hon'ble Single Judge has upheld the amount of compensation payable to the petitioners (claimants). The only modification to the award made by the Hon'ble Single Judge is that, the compensation has to be paid by the owner and not by the Insurance Company. For deciding the said issue, the only proper and necessary party was the owner of the vehicle, respondent No. 4. The owner has entered appearance before this Court through Shri G. P. Mohanty, a fairly senior advocate, and as the judgment reveals, he was heard in extenso. Thus, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners and I, therefore, have no hesitation to hold that none of the ingredients of Order 41, Rule 21 CPC are satisfied in the present case. 12. Accordingly, the M.J.C. is dismissed. No costs.
-
2002 (3) TMI 958 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... est of the appellants to get it set aside. Nor would we like to do it. 14. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in the appeals filed by the claimants and dismiss the same. The cross appeal filed by the development authority lacks merit and is also dismissed. 15. Counsel for the appellants then contended that the claimants have not been given any compensation till date. If that be so, the development authority is directed to pay the compensation to the claimants within one month of the date of receipt/production of a certified copy of this order. 16. It was brought to our notice that the claimants have already filed a reference petition under Section 18 of the Act for claiming enhanced compensation. If that be so, the reference petition be decided in accordance with law keeping in view the directions given by this Court in the earlier judgment dated 14th November, 1991. There will be no order as to costs. 17. All the I.A.'s are disposed of as infructuous.
-
2002 (3) TMI 957 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... l Magistrate had condoned the delay of 2 years 4 months in filing the complaint against the petitioners without giving them a notice of the application for condonation of delay and thus without affording them an opportunity of being heard, therefore, the impugned order is not only illegal but has resulted in gross injustice to the petitioners. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 7. As a result, this petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the proceedings taken in consequence of the impugned order by the learned trial Magistrate, are quashed. The case is remanded to the trial Court with the direction to afford an opportunity to the petitioners to make their submissions in opposition of the application of the respondent for condonation of delay/extension of time in filing the complaint and then proceed with the case in accordance with law. 8. The parties, through their learned counsel, are directed to appear before the trial Court on 8-4-2002.
-
2002 (3) TMI 956 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... a Dam Project, Saundatti and Ors. v. Madivalappa Basalingappa Melavanki and Ors. (1995) 5 SCC 670, this Court refused to interfere where compensation was determined on the basis of annual yield of agricultural land by application of 15 years' multiplier on the ground that the small area of land was acquired and approved the order of the High Court in which it was observed that "it is hardly appropriate to interfere with the award notwithstanding the discernible blemish pointed out by the learned Government Pleader" and also held thus -- "However, it would not operate as a precedent to any future case or other cases arising from the same notification. All cases need to be decided applying only 10 years' multiplier." 16. In the present case also, considering the small amount of compensation awarded to the claimants, we do not think that this would be a fit case for interference in this appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2002 (3) TMI 955 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ere omission on his part or it may be attributed to lack of competence or inaptitude etc. Apart from other charges it was directly attributed to the respondent that he had made changes in the alignment of long section approved by the Chief Engineer without sanction from the competent authority as a result of which the length of canal itself was much increased involving heavy expenditure. Relevant provisions of the Mannual have been quoted in the charges to indicate that the respondent was not authorized to make changes. The approved alignment was rendered infructuous. It all relates to the factual aspect of the matter. Apparently it is not open to the respondent to raise these pleas now at this stage. In view of the discussion held above, we find that the judgment and order passed by the High Court is not sustainable. The appeal is therefore, allowed and the order and judgment of the High Court impugned in this appeal is set aside. There would however be no order as to costs.
-
2002 (3) TMI 954 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t dated 8-5-2000. Therefore, from this point of view also, the petitioner-Society cannot ask for review of the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 8-5-2000. (6) That it is clarified here that if the petitioner-Society still feels that its rights should be protected the petitioner-Society is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum permissible under the law, out that remedy cannot be provided to it through the present review petition, as discussed above. 11. In view of the discussion made above, the present review petition is devoid of any force and the; same is liable to be dismissed. Thus, DBC stay Appln. 265/02 (Def) with other stay applications stand dismissed. Misc. Appln. 8/01 of Municipal Corporation also stands dismissed in view of order dt. 29-11-2001 and 28-1-(sic) in Contempt Petition No. 3/2001. Accordingly, the review petition filed by the petitioner-Society is dismissed. Resultantly judgment dt. 8-5-2000 in WP No. 6051/97 be complied with immediately.
-
2002 (3) TMI 953 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... .K. Prasad, Adv. ORDER Adjourned for six weeks. This is a dispute between a Government of India Undertaking and the Customs Department. It is appropriate that the Committee of Secretaries should resolve this dispute.
-
2002 (3) TMI 952 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... my Raju, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2002 (3) TMI 951 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... liability. Defence plea cannot be entertained in quashing proceedings. But in the cases where the petitioner is able to show to the Court that there was no existing debt or liability at the time of presentation of the cheque for encashment on the basis of the conduct of the complainant or admissions made by the complainant that may be in other legal proceedings, then in such cases, the proceedings can be terminated and the accused should not be asked to face the trial till it concluded. So, this Court inclined to allow this petition as the petitioner has successfully rebutted the presumption at initial stage and has pointed out the basic infirmity as to maintainability of the proceedings. 10. In the result, petition is allowed. Criminal Complaint dated 21-11-1998 being Criminal Case No. 1010 of 1998 pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Court No. 3) are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Yadi be sent to the concerned Court.
-
2002 (3) TMI 950 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sham defence of understanding and thus rendered themselves punishable under the provisions of Article 142 of the Constitution and also under the Act of 1971. 24. Be it placed on record that by the order dated 1st February, 2002, this Court directed the presence of all the alleged contemnors on the next date, i.e. on 8th March, 2002 since the order was to be pronounced in the presence of the respondents. The Office-Report, however, depicts that one of the respondents has filed an application for exemption from appearance. We do feel it expedient to allow the application for exemption, though by reason therefore the consequence of the findings as above cannot be pronounced as of date. In that view of the matter, let this matter appear two weeks hence in the list (22nd March, 2002) for further orders. The respondents are directed to be present in Court on the next date of hearing. No further notice need be served to the respondents excepting the applicant in I.A. No. 2 of 2002.
-
2002 (3) TMI 949 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and introducing a fresh contract in its place. 7. The prevailing factual position as on date, as stated by the learned counsel for the appellants, is that in compliance with the interim order of stay passed by this Court, no further step has been taken and the possession of the vehicle has remained with the auction purchaser. The corporation has realized certain amount from the auction purchaser towards its dues and the balance amount is yet to be realized. It also appears that the respondent No. 1 who was the owner of the seized vehicle has lost interest in the matter, in all probability due to the lapse of about more than 12 years in the meantime. 8. On facts and in the circumstances of the case, the orders passed by the High Court are clearly unsustainable and are to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the orders of the High Court which are under challenge are set aside. S.L.P. (C) No. 12578/1992 9. Delay condoned. 10. Special leave petition is dismissed.
-
2002 (3) TMI 948 - CEGAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... pra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that mere fact that the goods were released on the bond would not take away the power of the revenue authorities to levy redemption fine. In the present case, the admitted fact is that the goods were released to the appellants on execution of bond on the request made by the appellants. Therefore, the goods are liable for confiscation. 13. The appellants also objected the imposition of composite penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and Rule 173Q of the Rules and relied upon the decision of the case of Punjab Recorder Ltd. v. CCE. In view of the decision of the Tribunal, the composite penalty imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act and Rule 173Q of the Rules, is set aside. 14. Taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case, as the value of confiscated goods, the redemption fine is reduced to Rs. one lakh, otherwise the impugned order is upheld. The appeal is disposed of as indicated above.
-
2002 (3) TMI 947 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rial available to hold the partnership a sham or nominal one and to hold that the partnership was brought into existence for disguising a sub-letting in reality. A substantial question of law, therefore, arose before the High Court justifying interference in second appeal with the judgment of reversal recorded by the appellate authority. In addition, the case involved interpretation of the partnership deed and general power of attorney so as to see whether on a totality of the interpretations of recitals contained therein, read in the light of the other facts and circumstances, a case of sub-letting disguised as partnership was made out and needless to say, such interpretation of deeds is a question of law - substantial one in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the High Court. The appeal is, therefore, held liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly but without any order as to costs.
-
2002 (3) TMI 946 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ff Act, 1985, specifically provides that repacking from bulk packs amounts to deemed manufacture and attracts duty. Issue notice.
-
2002 (3) TMI 945 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... em to be over-whelming in favour of the appellant herein in the matter of cancellation of the bail. The elder brother has been brutally murdered and the proceeding is pending before the Sessions Judge. It is during the period when the accused persons were enlarged on bail that another FIR was recorded and charge-sheet having been filed, the Court ought to have taken a serious note of these factual details. Tampering with the evidence and threatening of the witnesses are two basic grounds for cancellation of bail - both these two factors stand alleged and by reason of subsequent filing of charge-sheet therein, there should have been some mention of it in the order for grant of bail. The factum of the second charge-sheet has been omitted in its entirety. 11. In that view of the matter, these appeals succeed. The order of the High Court stands set aside and quashed. The bail order as granted by the High Court stands cancelled and the private respondents be re-arrested forthwith.
-
2002 (3) TMI 944 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
... ...
... ... ..... ed that where the liability in relation to the sum so adjudged had arisen out of a commercial transaction, the rate of such further interest may exceed six per cent per annum, but shall not exceed the contractual rate of interest or where there is no contractual rate, the rate at which moneys are lent or advanced by nationalised banks in relation to commercial transactions.” 3. A reading of the decision in Central Bank case shows that no reference has been made to the proviso which specifically deals with the awarding of interest arising out of a commercial transaction. 4. Under the circumstances, we think it appropriate that this case is heard by a larger Bench, inasmuch as the interpretation of the proviso to Section 34(1) CPC is clearly involved and there should be no observations made in this case which are in conflict with the decision in Central Bank of India v. Ravindra. 5. Papers be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.
-
2002 (3) TMI 943 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... which is a condition precedent to assume jurisdiction and, therefore, service of that notice should be on that dealer. This was followed in the case of Bhagwandas Munni Lal v. State of U.P” 12. The service of notice for the purpose of initiating proceedings under Section 21 of ‘Act’ is not mere matter of procedure but is a condition precedence to the exercise of power under Section 21. In the result these revisions succeed and are allowed. The question of law raised by the applicant-revisionist are dealt with affirmatively by saying that notice under Section 21 have not been properly served to the assessee and the initiation of proceedings were without jurisdiction and these could not be validated by participation of the assessee in the proceedings. It was not open to the Learned Tribunal to remand back case to the Assessing Officer to issue fresh notice under Section 21 and make a fresh assessment order in the present circumstances. 13. Order accordingly.
-
2002 (3) TMI 942 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Recovery Officer which may not be in accordance with law. There is, therefore, sufficient safeguard which has been provided in the event of the Recovery Officer acting in an arbitrary or an unreasonable manner. The provisions of Sections 25 and 28 are, therefore, not bad in law. 31. For the aforesaid reasons, while allowing the appeals of the Union of India and the Banks, we hold that the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 is a valid piece of legislation. As a result thereof, the writ petitions or appeals filed by various parties challenging the validity of the said Act or some of the provisions thereof, are dismissed. It would be open to the parties to raise other contentions on the merits of their cases before the authority constituted under the Act and, only thereafter, should a High Court entertain a petition under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution. Transferred Cases stand disposed of accordingly. Parties to bear their own costs.
-
2002 (3) TMI 941 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... report of the Chairman and these further orders were challenged in the High Court on which the High Court held that such passing of further orders was in terms of Regulation 44 of CLB Regulations. Therefore, the decision of the Madras High Court in that case is not applicable to the present case before us. In regard to City Hospital case (Supra), the decision of this Board was with reference to a consent order in respect of which this Board held that it had no power of review and had not held that under inherent powers, the Board cannot modify and order. Anyway, in the present case, in view of the fact that the events that had taken place had not been placed before us before passing of the final order, no modification can be made after passing of the final order on the basis of the intervening events. Accordingly, the prayer relating to distribution of shares in the ratio of 68 32 cannot be considered and as such is rejected. 9. Application is disposed of in the above terms.
-
2002 (3) TMI 940 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... charged from him at the time of purchase of goods described in Schedule 3 and liability to pay tax shifts to the contractor. In view of above, after the Assam General Sales Tax Amendment Rules 1999, the works contractor have become eligible to use declaration in Form A. 17. In the light of the aforesaid directions we hold that the provisions of Section 27 of the Act and Rule 8(3)(iv) of the rules are not ultra vires and illegal and that cannot be said to be confiscatory in nature. Deduction of tax at source is permissible under the law and the above provision of law are to be read down as provided above. We may also mention here that deduction of tax at source under Section 27 of the Act is not an end of the matter and the Dealers/Assessee are at liberty to claim all permissible deduction if any available to them while final assessment is being made. In the result all these batch of writ petitions stand disposed of in the light of the observations as stated above. No costs.
........
|
