|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 701 Records
-
2005 (3) TMI 811 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f this order passed in the year 1996 to even conduct an enquiry. But what they have done is that, on the verge of the first respondent's retirement, they passed an order dated 28.2.2002 suspending him stating that enquiry into grave charges of corruption is contemplated. Therefore the fact remains that in respect of the incident that is shown to have taken place in the year 1991, for fourteen long years, the authorities have not chosen to take action at all except serving the charge memo and the suspension order. The Tribunal found that the charge memo itself had been issued subsequent to the acquittal by the criminal court (ie) almost after two years. Therefore at this distance point of time if the first respondent has to face the departmental enquiry, considerable prejudice would be caused to him. 5. For all the reasons stated above, we are inclined to sustain the order under challenge and accordingly, it is sustained. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. No costs.
-
2005 (3) TMI 810 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e findings arrived at herein above, the writ petition consequently succeeds and is allowed and the entire proceedings finalized in favour of respondent No. 3 including the execution of the sale-deed are hereby quashed. As a consequence thereof the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 are also not entitled to retain possession of the property as the sale-deed executed in their favour on 29.10.1999 can not confer any right upon them as the present writ petition has been allowed. The respondent U.P. Financial Corporation is hereby directed to consider the offer of the petitioner and proceed to negotiate the property in accordance with the principle of obtaining the best possible price. The Registrar General, before whom the amount of ₹ 50 Lacs have been deposited by way of 10 bank drafts of ₹ 10 Lacs each as per our order dated 5.1.2005 by the petitioner shall forthwith release the same in favour of the petitioner. 64. The writ petition stands allowed with no order as to costs.
-
2005 (3) TMI 809 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... I make it clear that I have not entered into the merits of the main case and the observations made by this Court in this matter are observations only for the purpose of the revisional applications and the learned Magistrate will be at liberty to act in accordance with law on the basis of evidence and materials on record without being influenced in any way by the observations of this Court. 27. This Order will govern all the three revisional applications bearing Nos. CRR 1001/99, CRR 1071/99 and CRR 1103/99. 28. All the Rules issued in connection with these revisional applications are hereby discharged. 29. Interim Order of stay passed earlier in all the three revisional applications stand vacated. 30. Criminal Section is directed to send the Lower Court Record along with a copy of this Order to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court, Calcutta for information and necessary action. 31. Urgent xerox certified copy be given to the parties, if applied for, expeditiously.
-
2005 (3) TMI 808 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... aspects have been considered by the Tribunal in the case of Pioneer International. He specifically referred to para 4 of the said decision which refers to various letters produced by the learned Advocate from Government Organisation using these machines, and contended that these letters establishes that the machine is printing machine. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. We observe that the issue regarding the classification of Risograph printing 5600 D has been settled by the Tribunal in the case of Pioneer International (to which one of us was party). After considering the Explanatory Notes of HSN for Heading 84.43 and Operational Panel, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the Risograph can not be treated as off set printing machinery so as to be classifiable under sub-Heading 84.43 of the Tariff. We do not find any reason to differ with the classification earlier decided by this Tribunal. Accordingly, we reject the Appeal filed by the Appellants.
-
2005 (3) TMI 807 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e regarded as immovable property. The above said case is applicable on all the fours to the case on hand. The subject-matter of the property in the instant case is Centerless Bar Turning Machine measuring 80' in length and 10' in width and 5' height embedded to the earth by mounting the same on cement base and fastened to it with bolts and nuts cannot be called as immovable property. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in the procedure adopted by the Advocate Commissioner while auctioning the property in question. The appellants have utterly failed to establish collusion between the Advocate Commissioner and Bank or any other violation of law while auctioning the property. Therefore, the decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the appellants are not applicable and of no avail to the case of the appellants. 10. Therefore, I pass the following order.-- The appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, I pass no order as to costs.
-
2005 (3) TMI 806 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... that the appellant desired that the decision of this Court should be obtained on certain questions of importance, and that purpose has been achieved. On a consideration of all the circumstances we do not think that this is a fit case in which we should pass an order for demolition." 53. The said decision, therefore, does not support the contention of the Appellants. CONCLUSION 54. For the reasons aforementioned, these appeals, being devoid of any merit, are dismissed. The Municipal Council is hereby directed to carry out the order of the High Court, as expeditiously as possible and not later than four weeks from date. Having regard to the fact that the Appellants have sought to mislead this Court, we think it appropriate to impose costs upon them. The Appellants are hereby directed to deposit a sum of ₹ 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with National Legal Services Authority within four weeks from date and deposit the receipt thereof in the Registry of this Court.
-
2005 (3) TMI 805 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... be examined and found positively for the purpose of exercise of said discretion. 21. In the case in hand, it appears that the impugned order did not suffer from any arbitrariness or capriciousness or unreasonableness and the learned trial Court has not ignored any settled position of law in rejecting the prayer for temporary injunction. Rather it has considered all these three factors essential in deciding the matter of injunction against the appellants. That being so, having regard to the above cited precedents, this Court does find enough force in the submission of the learned Counsel representing the respondent No. 1 and the same is accepted. 22. Consequently, this Court is of firm opinion that no wrong or illegality was committed by the learned Judge in exercising her discretion warranting interference of this Court with the impugned order dated 15-7-04. Interim order passed earlier shall stand vacated. 23. In the result, this appeal fails and stands dismissed. No costs.
-
2005 (3) TMI 804 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... d as ‘3003.30’ wherever it occurs in the order dated 8th October, 2004. I.A No. 4 is disposed of accordingly.
-
2005 (3) TMI 803 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... of Central Excise, Mumbai-III v. I.S.P.L. Industries Ltd. reported in 2003 (154) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) these appeals are dismissed.
-
2005 (3) TMI 802 - SUPREME COURT
Termination of service - violation of principles of natural justice - seeking reinstated in service of workman with full back wages - HELD THAT:- It is not a case where the Respondent has completed 240 days of service during the period of 12 months preceding such termination as contemplated under Section 25-F read with Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Badli workers, thus, did not acquire any legal right to continue in service. They were not even entitled to the protection under the Industrial Disputes Act nor the mandatory requirements of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes were required to be complied with before terminating his services, unless they complete 240 days service within a period of twelve months preceding the date of termination.
Even where an adverse report regarding the work of a temporary Government servant is made or a preliminary enquiry on the allegation of improper conduct is carried out, the same would not stand in the way of the employer to terminate his service.
The principles of natural justice cannot be applied in vacuum. It cannot be put in any straight jacket formula. The principles of natural justice are furthermore not required to be complied with when it will lead to an empty formality. What is needed for the employer in a case of this nature is to apply the objective criteria for arriving at the subjective satisfaction. If the criterias required for arriving at an objective satisfaction stands fulfilled, the principles of natural justice may not have to be complied with, in view of the fact that the same stood complied with before imposing punishments upon the Respondents on each occasion and, thus, the Respondents, therefore, could not have improved their stand even if a further opportunity was given.
We have noticed hereinbefore the relevant provisions of the Regulations. The status of a Badli cannot be better than a probationer. If the services of the probationer can be terminated for not being able to complete the period of probation satisfactorily, there is no reason as to why the same standard cannot be held to be applicable in the case of Badli worker.
Thus, the impugned judgments cannot be sustained which are set aside accordingly. The appeals are allowed.
-
2005 (3) TMI 801 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tered office of HSCCI is at New Delhi as also the fact that the stamp paper on which supplementary agreement dated 31.12.2003 has been executed has been purchased at Delhi. A presumption has to be drawn that a document, executed on a stamp paper, has been executed in the state from where the stamp paper has been purchased. 28. I accordingly hold that subject to evidence being led on the issue as to where contract dated 17.5.2000 and the supplementary agreement dated 21.12.2003 was executed, at the moment, this court cannot hold that it has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. For the purposes of maintainability of the petition, this court has to proceed ahead on the assertion of ABL that the original agreement as well as the supplementary agreement were executed at Delhi. 29. The preliminary objection by NEIGRIHMS is accordingly rejected, subject to final adjudication after evidence is led. It is held that the petition is maintainable in this court.
-
2005 (3) TMI 800 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tered by plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3. Principle of interim injunction being to maintain "status quo ante bellum" i.e. to maintain a status before the war, facts of the present case do not warrant the issuance of any interim directions as prayed for as the same woolgather the status which existed and was sought to be altered by plaintiffs 2 and 3, when letter dated 7.5.2002 was addressed to defendant No. 1, which letter was not acted upon. Effect of relief if granted, would be to direct defendant No. 1 to alter the status quo which was existing. 31. The second reason which compels this Court not to grant the interim relief prayed for is that the dispute as laid, concerns the internal affairs and management of plaintiff No. 1 Issue relates to the accounts of plaintiff No. 1. Since parties are already before the Company Law Board in proceedings under Section 397 of the Companies Act, appropriate forum would be the Company Law Board. 32. I.A. 6084/02 is dismissed. No costs.
-
2005 (3) TMI 799 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he considered view that in case the plaintiff feels that the defendant is in breach of Agreement, the plaintiff may sue him for damages in accordance with law. 10. Accordingly, this Court finds no prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff. The balance of convenience is also more in favor of the defendant who has to make his livelihood by seeking employment in the trade in which he has some experience. No irreparable loss/injury would be caused to the plaintiff as its contract with M/s. Indigo Orient Limited, with whom the defendant is working, has already come to an end by efflux of time and it is not pleaded that the same has been renewed. The plaintiff can be adequately compensated in terms of money and may claim damages for the breach, if any. 11. Accordingly, is No.4894/2004 stands dismissed. 12. Nothing stated herein shall be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the suit pending before the Court inasmuch as the observations made herein are tentative only.
-
2005 (3) TMI 798 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... und can be ordered on account of setting aside the respective orders as liability cast on them to pay service tax on account of ‘goods transport operator’ is never distinguished. I do not find that reasoning of the Commissioner (Appeals) is sustainable. The moment he sets aside the orders of the original authority demanding service tax, relief follows as a consequence. He cannot say that the appellants are not entitled for refund after setting aside the orders of the original authority. The Order-in-Appeal is patently wrong. I hold that appellants are entitled for refund. The appeals are allowed. (Operative part of the order was pronounced in open Court on 8-3-2005).
-
2005 (3) TMI 797 - HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Oppression and Mismanagement - Allotment of shares - Equitable to wind up the company - NRI investments in shares and balance by resident Indians - value of the imported second hand equipments - Whether the petitioners being qualified doctors would be more suitable for controlling the company having a hospital as the only project - HELD THAT:- It would appear from the said Section that a petitioner who files an application under Section 397, he has to satisfy two ingredients to make out a case under Section 397(a) that to wind up the company would unfairly prejudice the member or members who have the grievance and are the applicants before the court; and (b) that otherwise, the facts would justify the making of a winding up order on the ground that it was just and equitable that the company should be wound up.
After analysing the facts of this case it appears to me that two groups are fighting to take control over the company. It have not been able to find out any fact nor has been shown by Dr. Dutta before the Company Law Board which would prejudice the petitioners Dr. Kamal Kumar Dutta and Dr. Binod Prasad Sinha if the company in question were to be wound up.
There is no pronouncement in the decision of the Company Law Board as to whether a just and equitable winding up would unjustly prejudice Dr. Dutta and his group or not. It further appears from the facts placed before me by the parties that it would be apparent that Dr. Dutta by way of relief asked a control over the company and if I try to find out an answer, the answer would automatically that none of the parties wants a winding up. Two groups are fighting for company and not for its winding up.
I do not have any hesitation to come to a conclusion that the Company Law Board in the instant case did not deal with the said aspect of the matter and not even investigate on those facts and failed to make a conclusion that whether the facts are such that a just and equitable winding up of the company is called for, yet such order of winding up would unfairly prejudice the petitioners and when passed the said order. Then I could have been hesitant to interfere with the order so passed by the Company Law Board. But as has been pointed out by Mr. Sen and I do accept the contention of Mr. Sen since I do not find that the decisions cited by Mr. Sarkar would help him to come across the said hurdle.
Since I am of the opinion that the petitioner has failed to fulfil the pre-conditions to have an order u/s 397/398 and the Company Law Board did not deal with the matter at all, I do not have any hesitation to set aside the order passed by the Company Law Board. I also express my opinion following the decision of the Division Bench of our High Court in Bagree Cereals P. Ltd. v. Hanuman Prasad Bagri [2000 (8) TMI 1120 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] that the termination of the directorship, even by suppression of notice, or termination of directorship by a show of majority, would not entitle the terminated person to petition for just and equitable winding up is, that there is an appropriate remedy by way of a company suit, which can give the terminated director every relief. If notice has been suppressed, he can file a suit for injunction and declaration and get himself reinstated as a director or if he has been removed from a directorship, he could have filed a suit for declaration. The facts as pleaded by Dr. Dutta, a suit would give him a remedial measure and cannot ordinarily find a petition for just and equitable winding up and I feel that he could obtain each and every adequate relief in the suit court.
I am of the opinion that Section 397 contained the essential requirement of the finding of a just and equitable winding up. It appears that the finding of the jurisdictional issue should contain a legal patent error. Granting of relief u/s 398 does not require to make out a case that it is just and equitable to wind up the company. Therefore, I do not have any hesitation to set aside the order passed by the Company Law Board.
Thus, the appeal is allowed.
-
2005 (3) TMI 796 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Petitioners seeks leave to withdraw this Petition with the liberty to file an appeal under Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Leave granted. Petition is allowed to be withdrawn and stands dismissed with the aforesaid liberty.
-
2005 (3) TMI 795 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... e no reason to interfere. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
-
2005 (3) TMI 794 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... atives. In case, she is willing for sale of her group’s shares, she should file an application before this Bench for appointment of an independent valuer and for consequential directions. In case she chooses to share the developed property, she should communicate the same to the respondents. This should be done within a month from the date of this order. However, in case, she does not choose any of the two alternatives and to ensure that the respondents do not enter into any agreement for development of the property without the consent of the shareholders, I direct that any proposal for development of the property with any builder should be approved by the general body by way of a special resolution. I am making this stipulation only because the company itself, at the first instance, decided to obtain the consent of the general body by way of a special resolution in the EOGM held on 15-3-2000. 20. The petition is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to cost.
-
2005 (3) TMI 793 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... C or not. EXECUTION CASE In view of the aforementioned findings, the decree passed in Title Suit No.49 of 1990 having regard to our decision in Civil Appeal No.9131 of 2003 reported in (2004) 1 SCC 483, the decree has become enforceable. The submission of Mr. Sanghi to the effect that the undertaking given by the Respondents has revived is stated to be rejected. The undertaking given by the Appellant is analogous to an interlocutory injunction restraining her from executing the decree till the Respondents’ suit for specific performance was decided by the trial court as this Court held that the said undertaking cannot be revived after the party giving it has been released therefrom See Cutler vs. Wandsworth Stadium Ltd. (1945) 1 All E.R. 103 CONCLUSION For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgments cannot be sustained which are set aside accordingly. The appeals are allowed. However, in the facts and circumstance of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2005 (3) TMI 792 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... evidence produced before the authorities and on the relevant records. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises for consideration in the present appeal. 3. We may also notice here that the order of the Appellate Tribunal is dated 26th September, 2002 while the present appeal was filed, as per the stamp of the Registry of the High Court, on 1st March, 2005. There is an apparent delay in filing the appeal. 4. However, there is no application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. There is considerable delay even in re-filing the appeal for which application for condonation of delay in re-filing (CM No. 3924/2005) has been filed. Prima facie the appeal would also be barred by time. Even this would be a circumstance against the respondent, for us to dismiss this appeal. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. 5. C.Ms. No. 3923/2005 (for stay), 3924/2005 (for delay in re-filing) and 3925/2005 (exemption) stands disposed of accordingly.
........
|
