|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 252 Records
-
1988 (4) TMI 439
... ...
... ... ..... ition No. 1419 of 1978 is set aside. The preliminary objection raised on behalf of the bank before the Appellate Authority in the appeal filed by Respondent No. 1 under Section 18 of the Kerala Shops Act to the effect that the said appeal was not maintainable is upheld. With the result that if the said appeal is still pending it shall be disposed of as not maintainable and in case it has been decided the said decision shall be treated as without jurisdiction. The various employees whose appeals preferred under the Kerala Shops Act or the Andhra Pradesh Shops Act preferred to above have been hold to be not maintainable and the orders passed therein have been set aside shall be at liberty to take recourse to such other remedies as may be available to them in law. In the circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs in any of these appeals. S.L. Civil Appeal Nos. 4291-4292,4329 & 4735/84 dismissed and C.A. Nos. 1120/76, 1042/79 & 837/84 allowed.
-
1988 (4) TMI 438
... ...
... ... ..... n the books and records of the Company. All persons who are liable to make out or concur in making out a statement of affairs of the Company under Section 454 of the Act shall appear before the Official Liquidator on such date as he may appoint and furnish to him all the particulars that he may require within the time specified by him and in accordance with law. The petitioner and 2nd respondent together shall deposit a sum of ₹ 5000/- each with the Official Liquidator to meet the initial costs of taking charge of the assets, books and records of the company now ordered to be wound up within one month from today. The Official Liquidator shall cause a sealed copy of this order to be served on the Company by pre-paid registered post. The amounts deposited by the petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent as directed hereto before will form part of the costs of this petition. The costs of the petition be taxed and paid out of the assets of the company. 58. Order accordingly.
-
1988 (4) TMI 437
... ...
... ... ..... he respondents would be entitled to realise the dues. In case of dispute as to whether the notice under Section 11A had been issued or not, the Assistant Collector will decide the issue. In cases where notices are yet to be issued, the respondents would be entitled to do so but the same should not go beyond six months. In either of the aforesaid two eventualities, orders will not be passed by the respondent’s authorities without giving opportunities to the Applicants to make representations against the proposed orders. If notices are issued for the aforesaid purpose the Applicants would have eight weeks’ time to make representation from today. 2. The Bank Guarantees furnished by the Applicants shall be made available for realisation of dues, if any, by the respondents. The interim orders are modified as indicated above. The Applications for amendment have become infructuous and are, therefore, dismissed accordingly. These applications are disposed of accordingly.
-
1988 (4) TMI 436
... ...
... ... ..... tures Association confirmed that in view of the failure of the producer to comply with his earlier letter regarding payment of ₹ 6,50,000 plus interest, the picture "Savere Wali Gadi" stood registered in the name of M/s. Raja Movies in the Motion Pictures Association. This position was accepted by Suyog Films in letter dated 5th November, 1985 and the subsequent letter by them. It is clear that the petitioner in his letters dated 15th July, 1985 and 11th September, 1985 fell back on the original contract of 19th March, 1983. This was accepted by the respondent. Hence, there was at all relevant times a valid and binding contract between the parties. That contract contained an arbitration Section. There was nothing, in view of the reasons indicated above, to disentitle the parties to have their rights adjudicated in terms of an arbitration Section. 6. In the premises the High Court was right in the view it took. This petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
-
1988 (4) TMI 435
... ...
... ... ..... vour of the plaintiff. 14. ISSUE NO. 7 The plaintiff has also claimed interest or compensation from the defendant on the amount of Sales Tax paid at the rate of 15 . I am of the view that the defendant had some genuine contentions to make and it is not a case in which the defendant has refused to pay the amount of Sales Tax on a frivolous ground. It was necessary for this Court to decide all the contentions of the defendant before the defendant can be saddled with the liability to pay the amount of Sales Tax paid by the plaintiff to the Sales Tax Authority in respect of the sale transaction in question. In the circumstances, I am unable to grant the plaintiff any amount by way of interest or compensation on the amount of Sales Tax paid. 15. ISSUE, NO. 8 In the circumstances, the plaintiff's Suit is decreed in part. The plaintiff shall get ₹ 62,021.62 from the defendant with proportionate cost of the Suit. The decree shall, however, carry an interest of 6 per annum.
-
1988 (4) TMI 434
... ...
... ... ..... gree with the view expressed by the High Court of Allahabad on the above question. 23. Taking into consideration all aspects of the case including the object with which the Act is enacted we feel that Sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the Act, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as it confers unguided and uncontrolled powers on the State Government. We, therefore, declare Sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the Act as unconstitutional. We accordingly strike it down. It follows the Order passed by the State Government on December 5, 1984 remitting the case for reconsideration by the Labour Court is also liable to be set aside. It is accordingly set aside. The State Government shall now proceed to publish the award under Section 6(3) of the Act. On the publication of the said award it is open to any of the parties aggrieved by it to resort to such remedies as may be available to it in law. 24. The appeal is accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1988 (4) TMI 433
... ...
... ... ..... ew of the scheme of the Act as analysed before us and as also apparent from the aforesaid judgment, it is clearly manifest that the Act in question was passed for a public purpose and for the acquisition of shares there was a public purpose. The acquisition subserved the object of the Act. The compensation in the manner indicated above and in the manner indicated in the aforesaid judgment for such acquisition has been provided for. No separate compensation need be provided in the circumstances of the case for these shares. The factual basis for the legal challenge made in this writ petition was, therefore, incorrect in the facts of this case. It is apparently too late in the day to contend that there was no compensation for the shares or that the acquisition of the shares amounted to confiscation or there was no public purpose in the Act. The petition, in our opinion, is wholly devoid of any merit. 20. For these reasons, this writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
-
1988 (4) TMI 432
... ...
... ... ..... quo;s case. In all such cases the smaller Banches had entertained the petitions and passed appropriate interim orders. In view of what is stated above, can it be said that in this case the DiVision Bench which having regard to the various constitutional issues involved in it merely granted Special Leave to Appeal and issued an interim order of stay had violated rules of judicial discipline? Even if all the issues are to be held against the appellant ultimately after hearing the appeal until that decision is given by this Court, is it not reasonable to stay the trial pending disposal of this appeal? 12. If ultimately it is found in this that the proceedings before the High Court consequent upon the order of transfer are not constitutional, what is the effect of that decision on all the proceedings which have gone on till now in the High Court and the decisions of this Court passed in appeals against the orders of the High Court passed at different stages in these proceedings?
-
1988 (4) TMI 431
... ...
... ... ..... tances of this particular case, we direct that the sentence of death passed on appellant no. 1 Laxmi Raj Shetty be commuted to one of imprisonment for life. The evidence does not clearly indicate the exact manner in which the murder was committed. It is noteworthy that appellant No. 1 had not taken with him any weapon for assaulting the deceased but used two stitchers lying in the Bank premises, indicating that the murder was not pre- planned. Looking to the nature of the weapon used, if seems to us that the accused acted under a momentary impulse. In the circumstances, we direct that the death sentence passed on appellant No. 1 should be converted into one for life imprisonment. Subject to this modification, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The judgment and sentences passed on the appellants by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, as affirmed by the High Court in appeal, are upheld being appropriate. The sentences passed on them shall run concurrently. Appeal dismissed.
-
1988 (4) TMI 430
... ...
... ... ..... e case was further converted from 304 IPC to 323/34 IPC. Prima facie the police has acted in partisan manner to shield the real culprits and the investigation of the case has not been done in a proper and objective manner. We are therefore of the opinion that in the interest of justice it is necessary to get a fresh investigation made through an independent authority so that truth may be known. Since according to the respondents charge-sheet has already been submitted to the Magistrate we direct the trial court before whom the charge sheet has been submitted to exercise his powers under Section 173(8) Cr. P.C. to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation for proper and thorough investigation of the case. On issue of such direction the Central Bureau of Investigation will investigate the case in an independent and objective manner and it will further submit additional charge sheet, if any, in accordance with law. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Appeal disposed of.
-
1988 (4) TMI 429
Whether the High Court was right in dismissing the application under Section 20?
Held that:- In view of the well-settled principles we are of the view that it will be entirely a wrong to mix-up the two aspects, namely, whether there was any valid claim for reference under Section 20 of the Act and, secondly, whether the claim to be adjudicated by the arbitrator, was barred by lapse of time. The second is a matter which the arbitrator would decide unless, however, if on admitted facts a claim is found at the time of making an Order under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, to be barred by limitation. In order to be entitled to ask for a reference under Section 20 of the Act, there must be an entitlement to money and a difference or dispute in respect of the same. It is true that on completion of the work, right to get payment would normally arise and it is also true that on settlement of the final bill, the right to get further payment gets weakened but the claim subsists and whether it does subsist, is a matter which is arbitrable. In this case the claim for reference was made within three years commencing from April 16, 1976 and the application was filed on December 18, 1976. We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court was right in this case
-
1988 (4) TMI 428
... ...
... ... ..... 1983) decided on April 23, 1986 and Sanjay Transport Corporation v. State of Rajasthan (Writ Petition No. 1517 of 1986) decided on November 17, 1987 wherein validity of section 22A of the Act has been affirmed. As regards the issuance of a direction to the State of Rajasthan to bring into force the provisions of section 22B of the Act, it may be stated that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued directing the State of Rajasthan to bring into force the provisions of section 22B of the Act. In this regard reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in A.K. Roy v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 710 wherein the Supreme Court while dealing with the Constitution (Fortyfourth Amendment) Act, 1978, has held that no writ of mandamus could be issued directing the Central Government to bring into force the provisions of section 3 of the said Amendment Act. Thus we find no merit in this writ petition and it is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1988 (4) TMI 427
... ...
... ... ..... roceedings arising out of which have come before us in T.R.C. No. 343 of 1985. The Tribunal deleted an addition of Rs. 29,109.70 and came to the conclusion that the suppression of turnover was limited to Rs. 95,318, as against Rs. 1,24,420 arrived at by the Assistant Commissioner. Accordingly the Tribunal which reduced the turnover by Rs. 29,109.70, also reduced the penalty from Rs. 12,994 to Rs. 4,970. The petitioner questions the levy of penalty in the abovesaid sum of Rs. 4,970. We are satisfied that in view of the suppression of the turnover arrived at by the Tribunal as a finding of fact, it was justified in retaining the penalty limited to the sum of Rs. 4,970. We do not find any question of law arising out of the said levy. We are accordingly of the view that the order under revision does not call for interference. For all the aforesaid reasons, the three T.R.Cs. are dismissed but in the circumstances without costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 150 in each. Petitions dismissed.
-
1988 (4) TMI 426
Dispute between the parties is in regard to a flat in a building on Lord Sinha Road, Calcutta - Held that:- As in the interest of justice the prayer made on behalf of the plaintiff before the High Court after the disposal of the appeal for remand and retrial of the suit is fit to be allowed. As nobody is disputing this position before us, we do not consider it necessary to further deal with this aspect. In view of the prayer made by the plaintiff in the High Court and in Civil Appeal No. 4145 of 1986 before this Court and the concession of the defendant no. 3 before us, we hold that the suit should be sent back to the learned Single Judge for retrial.
-
1988 (4) TMI 425
... ...
... ... ..... which depends upon both facts and law and such questions should be allowed to be decided by the primary authorities and can be reviewed by this Court only in the last resort on the ground of errors apparent on the face of record or want of jurisdiction. This is not at all a case where any of those two conditions are present. In our opinion, this writ petition is aimed only to prevent the functioning of the Tribunal according to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act. The mission of article 226 is to promote the working of the regular statutory machinery and not to obstruct it. We do not see any merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250. We direct that the petitioner will be liable to pay 12 per cent per annum interest on the amount of tax levied against him from the date the tax would have been levied but for the proceedings which have been pending in this Court from 1984 onwards. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1988 (4) TMI 424
... ...
... ... ..... 01 and it observed The case of Lakshmiratan Engineering Works 1968 21 STC 154 (SC) did not involve the question of the extension of the period of limitation under section 9(6). Indeed in our judgment the word entertain in section 9(1) has hardly any material bearing on the point under consideration. As the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on alternative contention on the ground that the assessee s request seeking remand of the case was futile, inasmuch as, the payment of tax during the pendency of the appeal will not meet the requirement of the proviso appended to section 9(1) of the Act, this matter will have to go back for reconsideration and redecision of the Sales Tax Tribunal. In the result, finding of the Sales Tax Tribunal on both the questions discussed earlier, cannot be sustained. The Tribunal shall pass an appropriate consequential order, in giving effect to this order under section 11(8) of the Act. This revision succeeds and is allowed with costs. Petition allowed.
-
1988 (4) TMI 423
... ...
... ... ..... le to be deemed to have taken place in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, that the covenant regarding inter-State movement must be specified in the contract itself, but it would be enough if the movement was in pursuance of and incidental to the contract of sale. This authority clearly negatives the submission of Sri Bharatji Agarwal that the movement of the goods was not a result of a concluded contract of sale, as the sale took place when the goods were approved by the Secretary to the President of India in Delhi. It is not necessary that the sale must precede the inter-State movement, but what is necessary is whether the movement of the goods was occasioned by a covenant or was incident of contract of sale. For the reasons, the view of the Appellate Tribunal affirming the concurrent findings of the Sales Tax Officer and the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) is upheld and the revision is dismissed. There will be, however, no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1988 (4) TMI 422
... ...
... ... ..... in the enactment. When such a right-royal method is available for the petitioners to approach the higher forum to get redressal of their grievance, they ought to have availed that. Instead of doing that and after the expiry of three years, they cannot approach the authorities with a petition under section 55 of the Act because section 55 of the Act is only with respect to rectification of errors apparent on the face of the record, such as clerical errors, typing mistakes, etc. Therefore the petitioners cannot approach the authorities with a petition under section 55 of the Act against an order which could be the subject-matter of appeal or revision. Under the circumstances, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners in this writ petition, though interesting and thought provoking, yet deserve to be rejected. There is no merit in this writ petition. Hence this writ petition is dismissed. Under the circumstances, there is no order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed.
-
1988 (4) TMI 421
... ...
... ... ..... al that from the facts of the assessment year 1972-73 it is proved that goods sent from Ghaziabad depot by the dealer to Sapron depot were sold in the same quantity to the customers from there and the numbers indicated in the transfer invoices were the indents of the customers for whom the goods were appropriated and sent from Mohan Nagar depot. Therefore, on an appraisal of entire facts and the circumstances of the case the Sales Tax Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the alleged branch transfers were, in fact inter-State sales. In view of the aforesaid material, which has been discussed by the Sales Tax Tribunal under the impugned order, in my opinion, there is no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the assessee that the Tribunal has recorded the said findings without any material. No other point was pressed. In the result, the revision fails and is dismissed with costs. The interim order dated 13th July, 1987 is vacated. Petition dismissed.
-
1988 (4) TMI 420
... ...
... ... ..... e the matter afresh. This position is not controverted by the counsel for the other side. The real point involved for decision in these two matters has been indicated in an application filed for this purpose by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is obvious that the Tribunal has failed to decide the real point arising for decision in these two matters under a misapprehension that the common point disposed of by the impugned common order was the only point arising herein. This being so, a direction has to be given to the Tribunal to decide afresh the case after setting aside the impugned order in so far as it relates to the respondent-assessees in these two revisions only. Consequently, the revisions are allowed and the impugned order of the Tribunal dated January 3, 1987 is set aside only to the extent it relates to the respondent-assessee in these two revisions and the Tribunal is directed to decide their matter afresh as indicated above. No costs. Petitions allowed.
........
|
