|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 228 Records
-
1983 (12) TMI 333
... ...
... ... ..... sation, demagnetisation (about which we have already expressed reservation above) and final magnetisation would cost less than 5% of the landed cost. Applying the above said Rule, it would be seen that the post importation expenses excluding the cleansing would come to less than 5% and in any case are insignificant. 7. In view of the matter, it would not be proper to hold that the articles imported were not component parts of loudspeakers as to their special shape, size and quality. The imparting of magnetisation, etc. cannot be considered the manufacturing process so as to take it out from the purview of item 73(11) of ICT and to place it under residuary item 87 ICT. In view of the foregoing, the Ceramic magnets which had already assumed the shape, size and quality as component parts will thus more appropriately fall under heading 73(11). The appeal is accordingly dismissed. This order would also apply to 7 other appeals namely No. 2481 to 2487/83-B which are also dismissed.
-
1983 (12) TMI 332
... ...
... ... ..... sult inevitably is that the operation of the order passed by the High Court has to be stayed pending delivery of the reasoned judgment. It may be thought that such orders are passed by this Court and therefore there is no reason why the High Courts should not do the same. We would like to point out respectfully that the orders passed by this Court are final and no appeal lies against them. The Supreme Court is the final Court in the hierarchy of our courts. Besides, orders without a reasoned judgment are passed by this Court very rarely, under exceptional circumstances. Orders passed by the High Court are subject to the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution and other provisions of the concerned statutes. We thought it necessary to make these observations in order that a practice which is not very desirable and which achieves no useful purpose may not grow out of its present infancy. S.R. Appeal allowed and Case remanded to the High Court.
-
1983 (12) TMI 331
... ...
... ... ..... of proof by appropriate evidence. In the circumstances, therefore, there is absolutely no justification for quashing the complaint for an offence under the Dowry Prohibition Act instituted after duly obtaining the sanction of the District Magistrate under the proviso to Section 4 of the said Act although the other complaint under Section 406 IPC against the three applicants based on the averments as it deserves to be quashed as it would amount to abuse of the process of the court if the applicants are prosecuted for that offence. o p /o p 15. In the result, therefore, Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 676 of 1981 is allowed and the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 3021 of 1979-- Prem Pal Agarwal v. Kailash Nath Agarwal and others Under/Section 406/109/114 IPC pending in the court of the Special Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, are quashed. o p /o p 16. Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 2753 of 1981 is however dismissed. The stay orders earlier granted shall stand vacated. o p /o p
-
1983 (12) TMI 330
... ...
... ... ..... of the Limitation Act by the present appellant seeking condonation of delay in preferring the appeal before the learned District Magistrate is granted and delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted to file. The matter is remitted to learned District Judge with a direction to dispose of the appeal on merits . 6. Respondents 3 to 6 are dragged to this Court through no fault of theirs. Though in the facts of the case they ought not to have very seriously contested the application made by the appellant for seeking condonation of delay in preferring the appeal, However, as discretion is exercised in favour of the appellant, it is just and proper that the appellant shall pay costs incurred by the respondents 3 to 6 both in the High Court and this Court quantified at ₹ 1500/- within one month from today. 7. Appellant shall also pay interest at 9 on the amount of compensation that may be determined finally in the appeal from the date of the order of the prescribed Authority.
-
1983 (12) TMI 329
... ...
... ... ..... ntion. . 11. We, however, wish to clarify that in this case we express no opinion on the question whether a member or a retired member of the armed forces who acquires title to a building which is already in the occupation of a tenant by inheritance, partition, transfer or otherwise and thus becomes the landlord of the building while he is a member of the armed forces, can avail of the remedy against such tenant Under Section 13A(1) of the Act. 12. Even on the basis of Section 13(1)(g) of the Act, the plaintiff is not entitled to succeed in view of the clear finding recorded by the High Court. We have gone through the reasons given by the High Court to reverse the decision of the District Court on the above question. We agree that the plaintiff has not established that he was really in need of the building. The finding of the High Court oh this question also does not call for any interference. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.
-
1983 (12) TMI 328
... ...
... ... ..... he kind can be said in the present case where in fact the Deputy Registrar has held that the two marks are not deceptively similar. In any event, this court having come to the conclusion that the two marks are deceptively similar, this cannot be a case for the excercise of discretion In favour of the respondents as their case is not founded on truth and also in view of the uncontroverted evidence of actual deception perpertrated and confusion caused. 23. In the result the appeal is allowed and the judgment and orders of the learned single Judge and the Deputy REgistrar respectively are set aside and the appellants application for rectification is consequently allowed. The respondents shall pay to the appellants the costs thorugout; 24. The Prothonotary and Senior Master is requested to send a copy of this Judgement to the Registrar for requisite action. 25. On Mr. Kale's application operation of the order stayed for the a period of 2 weeks from today. 26. Appeal allowed.
-
1983 (12) TMI 327
... ...
... ... ..... ned brother Bhagwati, J. in his judgment, to my mind, do not amount to any adjudication on the question of applicability of the Inter State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979. The observations made by my learned brother Bhagwati, J. and the directions given by him on the various aspects with regard to the merits of the case after carefully considering the provisions of all the relevant labour legislations enacted for the benefit of labourers and for improvement and betterment of their lot, are for furthering the interests of the workmen and for proper protection and preservation of their just rights and to enable the appropriate authorities to take necessary action-in the matter. As I am in agreement with the views expressed by my learned Brother Bhagwati, J. I do not propose to deal with these aspects at any length and I content myself by expressing my agreement with the judgment of my learned brother Bhagwati J. on these matters.
-
1983 (12) TMI 326
... ...
... ... ..... e circumstance that the registration certificate stands in the name of the complainant, though the complainant was unable to produce the original registration certificate. The learned Magistrate has also taken into consideration the contract set up by the accused and the document showing payment of a substantial part of the consideration and other documents relied on by him. It was on a consideration of all these materials that the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the accused has a better claim over the lorry and therefore is entitled to possession. I do not think any ground is made out to interfere with this conclusion under S.482 of the Code. In the result, Crl. M. C. No. 752 of 1983 is dismissed. Crl. R. P. 418 of 1983 is allowed; the order of the Sessions Court in Crl. R. P. 158 of 1983 is set aside. The order of the magistrate in Crl. M. P. 2162 of 1983 is restored. Issue carbon copy or photostat copy, whichever is available to both parties on usual terms.
-
1983 (12) TMI 325
... ...
... ... ..... plurality of vessels for such carriage is not contemplated by Section 2(21). 5. We have with advantage been referred to the judgment of Sabyasachi Mukharji, J., the learned single Judge from whose judgment the owners of the Nancy Dee went in appeal. The learned Judge has taken a view akin to ours. He has quite rightly pointed out that the interpretation suggested by the owners of the Nancy Dee would lead to the unacceptable conclusion that any country boat which helped transhipment from the port to the ship would be a foreign-going vessel. 6. We may add that even if we were in agreement with the judgment of the division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, the petitioner would not succeed. A transhipper like the 'Gosalia Prospect' is no more than a floating quay or pier over which mineral ore brought by barges is loaded on to bulk carriers. It cannot be said to be engaged in the carriage of goods. In the result, the petition is dismissed with costs. 7. Rule discharged.
-
1983 (12) TMI 323
... ...
... ... ..... essment Committee may be set up to examine the case of Dr. T.S. Raman for promotion to S-3 grade within a period of 3 months Dr. T.S. Raman is not entitled to any further relief in his special leave petition. o p /o p In C.A. 1043/81, the ICAR and ASRB are directed to prepare the merit list in respect of those candidates who were called for viva voce test, but were not included in the merit list on the aggregate of marks obtained by them as directed herein and if there is a vacancy and the appellant/petitioner comes within the zone of selection he shall be appointed to one such vacancy. The appointment would be prospective and would be effective from the date of the appointment but this is subject to the condition that if the appellant/petitioner is already selected at a later selection, nothing more is required to be done. o p /o p We order accordingly. The respondent shall pay the costs of the petitioners in each petition. o p /o p Appeals & Petitions allowed. o p /o p
-
1983 (12) TMI 322
... ...
... ... ..... f which we have directed in the foregoing paragraph, the advance tax paid by the assessee would be certainly within the statutory margin of 75 per cent laid down in the Act. Therefore, on the facts of the case, levy of interest under section 215 is not called for at all. 27. So far as the other issue relating to interest under section 139(8) is concerned, the question of levy would require reconsideration in the light of the tax liability as may be determined after giving effect to this order.’ the matter is, accordingly, remitted to the ITO for reconsideration of the question relating to levy of interest under section 139(8). In the view which we have taken it is not considered necessary to go into other aspects of the matter. We, therefore, do not consider it necessary to give our finding on other issues raised by Shri Shah which we have set out earlier. 28. The appeal filed by the revenue is dimissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as partly allowed.
-
1983 (12) TMI 321
... ...
... ... ..... on 103(1) of the Act and produced before a Magistrate under Section 103(2) of the Act. The benefit of the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code is available to them. 13. Admittedly the petitioners have been in detention as ordered by a competent Magistrate for a period of over 60 days. It must necessarily follow, by virtue of proviso to Section 167(2) read with Section 437 of the Code, that the petitioners are entitled to be released, if they are prepared to furnish bail. In the result it is directed that the petitioners in these three petitions shall be released on bail, as each of them executing bond for ₹ 10,000/- and furnishing the solvent, sureties each in the like amount 1o the statisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tellicherry. It is further directed that they will make themselves available for interrogation by the Customs Officers, Until further orders, the petitioners shall also appear on every Monday before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tellicherry.
-
1983 (12) TMI 319
... ...
... ... ..... nsurance policy on the death of the assured. The nomination only indicates the hand which is authorised to receive the amount, on the payment of which the insurer gets a valid discharge of its liability under the policy, The amount; however, can be claimed by the heirs of the assured in accordance with the law of succession governing them. In view of the above conclusion, the judgments and decrees of the High Court, the first appellate court and the trial court are liable to be set aside. They are accordingly set aside. Since it is not disputed that the plaintiffs are under the law of succession governing them each entitled to 1/3 share in the estate of the deceased, it is hereby declared that each of the plaintiffs is entitled to 1/3rd share in the amount received under the insurance policies in question and the interest which may have been earned by its investment. The suit stands decreed accordingly. Parties shall, however, bear their own costs throughout. Appeal allowed.
-
1983 (12) TMI 318
... ...
... ... ..... The respondents claim that the licence was granted to the petitioner due to mistake or inadvertence of the officer concerned and such a mistake or inadvertence, in respect of an individual, cannot be a reason for falsely presuming that the import policy has been liberalised or changed to allow quota licences to the established importers for items for which they hold no valid quota certificate at all. It is obvious from the contents of this return that the licence granted to the petitioner for import of parts of petrol, gas and kerosene engines was clearly contrary to the Import Policy. The mistake committed by the Department in that connection cannot be used for securing the import licence for import of spare parts of crawlers/agricultural tractors. In my judgment, the claim of the petitioner based on the mistake of the Department cannot be sustained in this writ petition. 6. Accordingly, petition fails and the rule is discharged, but there will be no order as to costs.
-
1983 (12) TMI 317
... ...
... ... ..... rections of the High Court to set apart the amount for distribution of the same to the consumers from whom it was recovered. The said observations of the Court should therefore be pressed in service as a matter of equity and not law in appropriate cases. The present is certainly not such a case. On the contrary to direct the Government to pay the amounts claimed by the present petitioners would amount to a wrong exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction, and would pervert justice. Apart from the fact that the money does not belong to the petitioners, the petitioners have not come to the court with clean hands and are guilty of suggestio falsi and suppressio veri both on the question of the recovery of the excess duty from their purchasers as well as on the question of the date on which they learnt of their mistake. They therefore deserve no such indulgence. 41. For all these reasons I dismiss this appeal. The petitioners will pay the costs of the respondents throughout
-
1983 (12) TMI 316
... ...
... ... ..... f justice have to be protected from insults, annoyance or even obstructions. Administration of justice cannot be effective unless respect for it is fostered and maintained. Interference with it shakes the very pillar of the administration of justice and the confidence of the people in courts, which is of a prime importance to the litigants in their struggle for the protection of their rights and liberties. No Tribunal can function properly unless it is allowed to keep up its dignity, and unless it has power to enforce discipline and respect in its administration of justice. The object of discipline enforced by Tribunals is not to vindicate the dignity of the Tribunals but to prevent undue interference with the administration of justice.” The Assistant Collector would do well to remember that in disobeying the order of the Tribunal she has not only attempted to undermine the authority of the institution established by the law but has brought disrepute to the department.
-
1983 (12) TMI 315
... ...
... ... ..... uggled goods and held herself out as an active partner in the crime by acting as a shrewd sales person though contacts, which she had established among the “elite” of the capital. What view a Court may eventually take of her complicity by virtue of being a wife is a different aspect of the matter which would naturally be considered by the trial court if and when it decides to convict her of the offence with which she has been charged. 18. The petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. That trial court would expedite the trial of the complaint to make up for the time lost in the present proceedings and the proceedings in revision. The trial court would, however, be entitled, as indeed, bound to decide the matter in accordance with law uninfluenced by any observation made by this court on the merits as these were merely intended to determine the limited question as to the justification or otherwise of any interference in exercise of this court, inherent powers.
-
1983 (12) TMI 314
... ...
... ... ..... nt cited by the learned Counsel of the respondent in the case of Rukmanand Bairoliya v. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in AIR 1971 S.C. 746. The Hon’ble Court had observed that the findings of the Revenue Authorities are based on poor assumptions and conjectures and on no evidence whatsoever should be quashed. I very respectfully follow the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, before I conclude the judgment, I make it clear that higher percentage of shortage accepted in this will not be a precedent. The learned SDR’s argument that the shortage due to handling and leakage is not a natural loss is also not tenable in view of the Madras High Court’s judgment in the case of A. Loganathan v. Union of India reported in 1978 E.L.T. (J 707) (not cited by the parties) wherein it was held that the deficiency was due to driage to tobacco caused by natural causes. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue fails and the same is dismissed.
-
1983 (12) TMI 313
... ...
... ... ..... such a construction as the language in its plain meaning imports. The rule must be enforced even at the risk of hardship to a particular party. The judge cannot on equitable grounds enlarge the time allowed by law, postpone its operation, or introduce exceptions not recognized by it. It was so held by the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Ramnath and others, reported in AIR 1927 Rajasthan 161 (not cited by the parties). The Hon’ble Court had further held that there was no sufficient cause which could entitle the appellant for extension of time as all of them acted without due care and attention. The Hon’ble High Court had followed the judgment of Calcutta High Court and Privy Council reported in AIR 1933 Cal. 462 and AIR 1941 Privy Council 6. (Not cited by the parties). In the result I hold that the appeal is barred by limitation and the same is dismissed. As being hit by limitation I am not going to the merits of the appeal.
-
1983 (12) TMI 312
... ...
... ... ..... that the appellant’s appeal should be accepted. 6. After hearing both the sides and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case I find that the only point for decision is whether or not the Inclinometer can be considered as a spare for the Rotary Kiln in terms of the Import Policy. The Inclinometer is an instrument for milling inclination and it can function without Kiln too. The acceptance of classification by the Revenue cannot lead to the inference that the same is also covered in the AM Policy for the year 1979-80. I feel that the finding arrived at by the Collector (Appeals) is correct in law and facts. I, therefore, uphold the same. However, I feel that the penalty imposed is excessive. The same is reduced to ₹ 1,650/- (Rupees one thousand six hundred fifty only). The Revenue is directed to refund the excess amount if already paid by the appellant within two months from the date of the order. For statistical purpose the appeal is dismissed.
........
|
