|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 306 Records
-
1984 (7) TMI 411
... ...
... ... ..... s such, the same is dismissed without any order as to costs. 37. Before, leaving the matter, as must also say that on consideration of the submissions made by Mr. Sarkar, appearing on behalf of the learned Receiver. We discharge Mr. Abhijit Deb from further acting as such Receiver but subject to his filing of accounts, we however appoint Mr. Sovendra Kumar Mitra, a learned Advocate of this Court, as the Receiver in place and stead of Mr. Abhijit Deb. The outgoing' Receiver is directed to forthwith hand over the entire balance amount as available with him now to Mr. Sovendra Kumar Mitra, who shall hold such amount till the disposal of the suit or until further orders. Mr. Mitra would receive a monthly remuneration of 40 cms. which should be paid in equal shares by the applicants and the club. 38. We must also keep it on record that nothing said in this order, should be deemed to be considered as making any determination on the merits of the case. U.C. Banerjee, J. I agree.
-
1984 (7) TMI 410
... ...
... ... ..... ent has paid or made available to the management of the said college towards payment of such arrears and the amount paid by the management shall be adjusted between the management and the State Government in the proportion in which they were bound under the law to pay the salary of teachers in the recognized institutions. If as a result of such adjustment, any amount becomes payable by the management of the said college to the State Government, the State Government shall be entitled to recover the amount from the management by having recourse to all or any of the modes and remedies open to it under the law 2. We accept the unqualified apology tendered by the Fifth Respondent, namely, the Committee of Management of the said college, and refrain from taking any action in contempt either against any of the members of the Committee of Management or the Principal of the said college. 3. The Fifth Respondent will pay to the Petitioner the costs of this Civil Miscellaneous Petition.
-
1984 (7) TMI 409
... ...
... ... ..... esentative have argued to a great length and contended that certain paragraphs from the order of the learned Third Member should be reproduced while Passing the final order. It is ununderstandable that as to why certain paragraphs or observations are to be reproduced at the time of passing the final order. The observations are already on record in the orders of the learned Members of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal and the learned Third Member who has heard the appeal on the differed points. 6. As it is held that the IAC has a jurisdiction to make an assessment on the assessee as an assessing officer and as the additions made by him are further upheld by the learned Third Member and, therefore, the appeal requires to be dismissed according to law. Hence, we have considered it just and proper not to reproduce any observations made by the learned Members of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal as well as the learned Third Member. 7. In this view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1984 (7) TMI 408
... ...
... ... ..... posited in the State Bank of India at New Market Branch, Patna on April 20,1984. The petitioner was thus paid ₹ 4,34,163/- to which a sum of ₹ 25,000/- was added as directed to be paid by this Court as and by way of exemplary costs. The Finance Commissioner says in his report that the petitioner has thus been paid ₹ 4,53,163.37 p. The pension payment order evidencing pension payable to the petitioner has been handed over to him. That is the finale of this agonising and disturbing albeit unwarranted and uncalled for litigation. 7. We hope and desire that in future the employees who serve the Govt. would not be exposed in the fall of their life to such a costly and unending litigation to claim what is justly due to them on the date on which the bond of service is sapped. 8. In view of the discussion and the fact that wiser Counsels prevailed with the respondents, we discharge the notice issued to the respondents and the petition stands disposed of accordingly.
-
1984 (7) TMI 407
... ...
... ... ..... ies authorised by the Government of Maharashtra, the Government of Maharashtra may retain to itself all necessary powers for the regulation and control and the prevention of misuse of funds and exploitation of guileless members of the public In the case of lotteries authorised by the Governments of other States it may be difficult and even impossible for the Government of Maharashtra to take adequate regulatory steps to prevent abuse of the authority given by Governments of other States to non-Governmental agencies to organise lotteries. It may be equally difficult for the Governments of other States to take adequate measures for prevention of abuse of such authority within the State of Maharashtra. We are therefore, satisfied that no hostile discrimination whatever is involved in not extending the exemption from the applicability of the Act to lotteries authorised but not organised by the Governments of other States. The Writ Petitions are accordingly, dismissed with costs.
-
1984 (7) TMI 406
... ...
... ... ..... laim and states that there is no stipulation between the parties regarding the payment of interest. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the fact that there is no agreement for the payment of interest but he claims it on the basis of the bills submitted. This claim thus being hotly disputed, no winding-up order can be passed on its basis. This petition is dismissed. No costs.
-
1984 (7) TMI 405
... ...
... ... ..... s an overriding effect. In other words, Article 39 itself is subject to Article 40 of the articles of association. Article 40 will prevail under any circumstances. The reasons or the circumstances which resulted in the decision of the directors in declining to register any transfer of shares shall not be questioned. The decision of the directors shall prevail. So considered, I am of the opinion that the first respondent being a private limited company, whatever may be the reason for rejection of the transfer 6f shares or under whatever circumstance it so resulted, the petitioner is not entitled to question the same. The action of the first respondent in - rejecting the transfer application filed by the petitioner is well justified on the merits. Reliance placed on Article 39 of the articles of association is misplaced. In this view of the matter also, the company petition deserves to be dismissed. 18. For the reasons stated above, C. P. No. 4 of 1983 is dismissed with costs.
-
1984 (7) TMI 404
... ...
... ... ..... was rejected by the learned Single Judge. The point was not canvassed before the Division Bench and we are of the opinion that it is of no use trying to infuse life into this carcass after a lapse of nearly two decades. Further Section 232-A which was introduced by Section 48 of Act XX of 1954 in the 1950 Act conferred right on adhivasi object anyone who has dispossessed him and to such a proceeding the provision of Section 209 will mutatis mutandis apply as if he was an asami. This provision would have certainly enabled the respondents to claim possession from the appellants even if they were Bhumidars on the ground that the respondents were adhivasis as held by the High Court. No useful purpose would therefore, be served by re-opening the orders and decision of the authorities under the 1950 Act which have become final. 20. These were all the contentions urged in the appeal and as we find no merit in any of them the appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
1984 (7) TMI 403
... ...
... ... ..... fficers could have been proceeded against in contempt. The action of non payment of arrears of salary to the petitioner for such a long period could also have been similarly viewed. 13. In view of the foregoing, it appears to be expedient in the interest of justice to direct the State Government to bring the aforesaid legal position to the notice of all subordinates and to impress upon them the imperative need to implement the decisions rendered by the courts of law with the utmost expedition, unless, an appeal is preferred against such a decision and an application for stay is moved and granted by the appellate court, or in the alternative, the court which rendered the decision is moved and grants an interim stay of decision pending the preferment of an appeal and grant of stay by the appellate court. 14. Let a copy of this judgment be forwarded to the Chief Secretary of the State Government under the signature of the Registrar and seal of this Court for appropriate action.
-
1984 (7) TMI 402
... ...
... ... ..... in question can be imported under the licence and the restrictions contained in the 1984-85 Policy will not apply. The licence for import was issued on 13th April, 1980 and the restrictions if any till the date of issuance of the licence and imposed at the time of revalidation of the licence will only apply. If the interpretation of the licence in the light of the import policies is open to doubt the construction most beneficial to the subject should be adopted. Thus all the contentions for withholding the release of the goods mast fail. 28. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that the respondents have no jurisdiction to withhold the delivery of the goods in question any longer. The respondents, therefore, are directed to forthwith release the goods to the petitioner upon payment of the duty already assessed. 29. Let a plain copy of this order countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be handed over to the learned Advocate appearing for the parties concerned.
-
1984 (7) TMI 401
... ...
... ... ..... original letter was read out in Court and we had the advantage of that, I am inclined to take the view that the correct and the more expressive expression would be "I do not know why there is such a foul atmosphere in the house?" Read in that light and in the context of other factors, this letter causes some anxiety. It the deceased was sensing foul atmosphere, why was it? But this again is only a doubt. It does not prove the guilt of the accused. In view of the fact that this is a case of circumstantial evidence and further in view of the fact that two views are possible on the evidence on record, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other his innocence, the accused is entitled to have the benefit of one which is favourable to him. In that view of the matter I agree with my learned brothers that the guilt of the accused has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. In the premises as indicated before, I agree with the order proposed. Appeal allowed.
-
1984 (7) TMI 400
... ...
... ... ..... onerous. In the circumstances of this case, it virtually amounts to denial of bail itself. It is, therefore, ordered that appellant No. 1 shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a bail bond for ₹ 25,000/- with two sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge. The learned Special Judge need not insist that the appellants should produce sureties who are residing in Bihar only. The order of the High Court shall stand modified accordingly.
-
1984 (7) TMI 399
... ...
... ... ..... acts, in my opinion, the Tribunal was in error in affirming the finding of the authority below rejecting the books only on the ground that the cash book could not be shown at the time of survey. 3. The second thing is whether the difference between the books and the return is a good ground to reject the books in this case. My attention was drawn to the order of the Assessing Authority who observed that there was a difference of ₹ 175/05, out of which the difference of ₹ 100/05 was explained in writing and difference of ₹ 75/- was attributed to a mistake in totalling. On these facts, the difference in the books and the returns could not be a good ground to reject the books. 4. I, therefore, hold that the book version of the assessee, on the facts and circumstances, should have been accepted. The papers are sent back to the Tribunal to modify its order under Section 11 (8) of the Act accordingly. 5. This revision is allowed. Parties will bear their own costs.
-
1984 (7) TMI 398
... ...
... ... ..... , do not specify the purpose of letting. None of the documents contains any indication whether the tenancy was for agricultural or for non -agricultural purposes. Under such circumstances, the actual user of the land or a substantial portion thereof on the material date, that is, the date of the application under Section 11, would constitute the determining factor. Having regard to the actual user of the suit land or a substantial portion thereof for the stated purposes, as found hereinabove, the land must be regarded as having been occupied for agricultural purposes and or purposes subservient to agriculture and/or as satisfying the requirement of the inclusive part of the definition. Under the circumstances, in our opinion, the submission made by the learned Advocate General does not merit acceptance. o p /o p 30. For the foregoing reasons, in oar opinion, there is no merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. o p /o p
-
1984 (7) TMI 397
... ...
... ... ..... ld equally be not fair to penalize the committee of Management of recognized institutions because they only acted under the directions of the State Government to terminate the services of reserve pool teachers. The party which ought properly to pay the costs of these Appeals and writ petitions is the Uttar Pradesh Madhyamik Shikshak Sangh. In view, however, of the fact that during the course of hearing of these Appeals and writ petitions, the reserve pool teachers or a large majority of them including the Appellants and petitioners have become members of this Sangh to direct the Sangh to pay the costs would be to create bad blood between the Sangh and some of its members. A fair order of costs would, therefore, be that so far as the Appeals are concerned the parties should bear and pay their own costs throughout and that so far as the writ petitions are concerned the parties should bear and pay their own costs thereof; and we order accordingly. Petitions and Appeals allowed.
-
1984 (7) TMI 396
... ...
... ... ..... u Tenancy Act. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Collector the Financial Commissioner and the High Court were in error in dismissing the application filed by the appellant on the ground that it was barred by limitation. No period of limitation would apply to the filing of an application under Section 43 of the Pepsu Tenancy Act of 1955 since no such period is prescribed by that Act and the Limitation Act has no application to a proceeding under the Pepsu Tenancy Act. 5. Accordingly, we set beside the judgment of the High Court dated September 11, 1978, and remand the matter to the Collector for a decision on the merits of the issues involved in the case. Since the matter has been pending for a long time, the Collector will dispose of the application expeditiously, as far as possible within two months after the receipt of the record. 6. The appeal will stand disposed of in terms of this order. The appellant will get the costs of this appeal from respondent-landlords.
-
1984 (7) TMI 395
... ...
... ... ..... the children of their age-group coming from the urban area. The judgment does not refer to the material on which the finding was based that the' children attending the schools in rural areas cannot compete with children of the same age-group coming from the urban areas. That apart the situation in that case was that the students took education upto the Higher Secondary examination in the schools situated in the rural areas and had thereafter straightaway to compete for entrance to the medical college with students coming from urban areas. Such is not the situation before us. As pointed out earlier, in the instant case, the students in whose favour the reservation is made took education only upto the 8th standard in common rural school and for the last 4 years they were on par in every respect with students coming from urban areas. Therefore, this decision is of no assistance. These were the reasons which weighed with us in allowing the writ petitions. Petitions allowed.
-
1984 (7) TMI 394
... ...
... ... ..... arty. This duty in this case was discharged on March 2, 1984 that is six years after the death and promptly within three weeks the petition for substitution is filed. Having regard to the cumulative effect of all these facts we are satisfied that the appellant has made out a sufficient case for condoning the delay in seeking substitution. We accordingly set aside abatement of appeal and grant substitution. 31. In view of the discussion, C.A. No. 464 of 1971 is allowed and the orders of the District Judge and the High Court are set aside and the matter is remitted to the District Judge for hearing the appeal of the landlord against the decision of the trial court fixing standard rent at ₹ 855/- per annum. 32. C. A. No. 465-466 of 1971 are allowed. The matter is remitted to the trial court to dispose of the proceedings on merits in the light of the observations made in the judgment. 33. In the circumstances of the case parties are left to bear their own costs throughout.
-
1984 (7) TMI 393
... ...
... ... ..... e detailed evaluation of the evidenc. In the process the High Court had allowed an amount of ₹ 12,055.90 p. under various sub-heads under major heads 2 and 3. While reaching this conclusion, the High Court minutely examined the evidence and substantially rejected the claim. Haing read the judgment, we are not disposed to take a different view of the matter. Therefore, the claim under these two heads except to the extent allowed by the High Court have been rightly rejected and we agree with the reasoning and conclusion of the High Court in this behalf. 14. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed and over and 50 above the amount awarded by the High Court, respondent-State shall have ₹ 2 lakhs as and by way of damages for loss of profit for breach of contract committed by the respondent with interest at 6 from the date of the suit and proportionate costs. The court fee shall be recovered proportionately from the appellant and the respondent. We order accordingly.
-
1984 (7) TMI 392
... ...
... ... ..... case. 9. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed. EDITOR’S COMMENTS It is no accepted practice that before refund claims are rejected, a show cause notice is issued and a personal bearing is also granted to the claimant. If the show cause notice and personal hearing is given in some cases and is not given in other cases, it may result in discrimination resulting in violation of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution which guarantees equality before law. It appears that this aspect of the matter has not been brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Tribunal. Further it was held in the case of Bharat Aluminum Ltd. - 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1055-that it is incumbent on the Excise authorities to issue show cause notices before rejecting a refund claim because if the ground on which refund claim is liable to be rejected, is not disclosed to the assessee before passing an order of rejection, it would amount to violation of the principles of natural justice.
........
|
