|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 369 Records
-
1991 (4) TMI 467 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 983. But that was not done because the respondents did not decide the question of applicability of the notification to the appellant on the basis of commencement of commercial production. (8) In the circumstances, we allow the appeal partially and set aside the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs dated 12.6.1987 and part of judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 3/05/1989 to the extent the learned Single Judge has fixed the date of commercial production as 1981 and direct the Assistant Collector of Customs-respondent No. 1 to decide the question of applicability of the notification on the basis of commencement of commercial production by the appellants within 3 months from today. Needless to say that the appellant will be given adequate opportunity to prove that their commercial production commenced only after 1.1.1982 for which the respondent will give them a personal hearing. In the circumstances of the case, however the parties are left to bear their own costs.
-
1991 (4) TMI 466 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... counsel for the Petitioner and do not find and merit therein. The Petitioner filed the present suit on 12-6-1987 and it is before the institution of the suit that the property in question had been sold by the attorney of defendant No. 1 through registered sale deed dated 4-3-1987 in favour of Satinderjit Singh. Apart from this the Plaintiff himself had impleaded Satinderjit Singh as a defendant in the suit and the learned trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that the presence of the Applicant-Respondent was necessary to effectively adjudicate the dispute between the parties. I am of the view that the presence of defendant No. 2 will avoid multiplicity of proceedings and there is neither any illegality nor any impropriety in the order passed by the trial Court. 6. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed.. Since the proceedings in the suit were stayed by this Court, the Petitioner through his counsel is directed to appear in the trial Court on 7-5-1991. No costs.
-
1991 (4) TMI 465 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r as the relief of rectification of the record relating to date of birth is concerned, the Civil Court had jurisdiction and the High Court was not right in saying that the suit was not maintainable at all. 6. It is unnecessary to go into the other aspect, namely, whether the residuary reliefs were available in the Civil Court inasmuch as the appellant has by now superannuated, even on the basis of the corrected record the only relief to which he is entitled is one of backwages. We do not think that is a relief which the Civil Court could have granted. On the basis of the rectification of the date of birth granted by the Civil Court, the appellant is entitled to' work out his remedy in a different forum prescribed by law, but we find that the respondent is Public Sector Undertaking and it would do well in settling the claim of the appellant instead of driving him to a proceeding under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The appeal is allowed. We award no costs.
-
1991 (4) TMI 464 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sufficiently explained. As we have pointed out earlier the appellant Corporation was not guilty at all as it has done all within its power before expiry of the period of limitation. The 'delay, if at all, has been caused on account of some mistake by the counsel or his office. If the mistake is not attributed to the party and can be attributed to some one who was handling its affair on its behalf the appellant cannot be made to suffer on that account. In this case we feel fully satisfied that the Corporation having taken all timely steps and not being guilty at any stage for any lapse or negligence on its part it should not be allowed to suffer for the mistake of his counsel or the counsel's office. The delay, therefore, has been sufficiently explained and in our opinion the application deserves to be allowed. 15. Accordingly the application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed and the delay of seven days in filing the appeal is condoned. 16. Petition allowed.
-
1991 (4) TMI 463 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... es to lead evidence. Her appeal is accordingly allowed but the parties shall bear their own costs of this Court. 11. So far Renu Sharma's matter is concerned, the situation is very different. The judgments of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi and the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, indicate that although the adequate liberty was given to the present appellant to lead evidence in support of their cases, they never availed of the same and went on delaying the proceedings by repeated prayers of adjournment . They have also pointed out to the other circumstances adverse to the case of the appellants, including the facts that the rent was paid to the landlord by their mother and brothers and never by them, and they are young girls in the family who are being looked after by the elders. We are,in the circumstances, of the view that they must be held to be effectively represented by the named judgment-debtors. Their appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
1991 (4) TMI 462 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... time or by filing of the charge sheet, The petitioner is getting bail not on the merits of the case, but by the Legislative command and due to the fault of the prosecution in not filing the charge sheet within the stipulated period of 90 days. Further, the prosecution is at liberty to get his bail cancelled if it thinks fit under Sections 437(5) or 439(2) Cr.P.C. as the offence is a heinous one. 16. Hence, I make the following order-The petition is allowed. The learned Sessions Judge, Mysore, is directed to release the petitioner on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of ₹ 10,000/- with one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Mysore. This bail is granted subject to the following conditions - (1) The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses or records in any manner (2) The petitioner shall not leave the Municipal limits of Mysore City without the prior permission of the Principal Sessions Judge, Mysore.
-
1991 (4) TMI 461 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nistration of justice in an even handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of damage done to the National Economy and National Interest". Above observations show that economic offences are placed even at a higher pedestal than murder. In the present case the petitioner is also alleged to have stated that earlier also he used to help his father in his smuggling activities and involved in the seizure case of 120 foreign marks gold biscuit in the month of January, 1987. Therefore, it is a case where the petitioner is also likely to indulge in offences of a similar nature if released on bail. (6) Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances. I am of the view that it is not a fit case for grant of ball. However, any observations made by me for consideration of bail will not prejudice the mind of the learned trial court which is free to reach its own conclusion. Petition is dismissed.
-
1991 (4) TMI 460 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... jha, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
1991 (4) TMI 459 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... it was suggested that in the present case the ITO had no jurisdiction to impose penalty. According to the assessed penalty leviable was more than ₹ 25,000 as such the matter should have been referred to the IAC. The Tribunal while deciding the matter on 16th March, 1985 clearly held that s. 274(2) was omitted by Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 w.e.f. 1st April, 1975. It further held that in 1978 there was no provision in the Income-tax Act for making reference to the IAC. When there was no provision in the statute book for referring the matter to the IAC, the ITO was having full jurisdiction to impose penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The said point is self evident and as such no useful purpose would be served by referring this matter to the Hon'ble High Court." 2. We are in full agreement with the aforesaid conclusion of the Tribunal. In our opinion, no question of law need be referred. This petition is accordingly dismissed. 3. No order as to costs.
-
1991 (4) TMI 458 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... im of damages arisen in favor of the defendant from September 1, 1985. Hence, it cannot be said that ₹ 1 lakh could be adjusted in any claim towards any rent. The defendant was, in my opinion, bound to pay the court fee on the said amount of ₹ 1 lakh also. I hold accordingly. Let the court fee be furnished by the defendant within two weeks. Issue No. 10- 33. As I have already held that the defendant is not entitled to recover any damages, so the defendant is not entitled ‘to claim any interest also. Issue is decided against the defendant. Relief - 34. plaintiff is entitled to recover ₹ 1 lakh with interest @ 12% per annum from September 20, 1983, when the notice Ex.P6, was served on the defendant till realisation. 35. 1 decree the suit for recovery of ₹ 1 lakh with interest @ 12% per annum from September 20, 1983, till realisation. The plaintiff shall have the costs of the suit from the defendant. The counter-claim is dismissed. 36. Suit decreed.
-
1991 (4) TMI 457 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e pledged goods from the plaintiff' bank before the pledged goods were sold during the pendency of the suit. That is clearly provided in S.177 of the Contract Act. Hence, I hold that the interest has been rightly calculated according to the rate agreed upon between the parties and amount in the suit was due at the time of, filing of the suit. Issues are decided in favor of the plaintiff. RELIEF 10. The court at the time of framing of issues had given a finding that Delhi Courts have territorial jurisdiction inasmuch as the registered office of the defendant company is located at Delhi. Suit is liable to be decreed. 11. I decree the suit for recovery of ₹ 3,29,193.61 p. with costs and grant interest @ 16 1/2 % per annum from the date of the suit tilt realisation in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The amount which has been realised by sale of the pledged goods to the tune of ₹ 16,666.66 p. shall be adjusted in the decree. 12. Order accordingly.
-
1991 (4) TMI 456 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ure the Court has to be watchful and avoid the danger of allowing the suspicion to take the place of legal proof for sometimes unconsciously it may happen to be a short stop between moral certainty and the legal proof. At times it can be a case of 'may be true'. But there is a long mental distance between 'may be true' and 'must be true' and the same divides conjectures from sure conclusions. The least that can be said in this case is that atleast there is a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused and the benefit of the same should go to him. 12. We are conscious that a grave and heinous crime has been committed but when there is no satisfactory proof of the guilt we have no other option but to give the benefit of doubt to the accused and we are constrained to do so in this case. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the accused is set aside and he shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case.
-
1991 (4) TMI 455 - ITAT HYDERABAD
... ...
... ... ..... of legal action thereupon before the higher forum, namely, the Hon';ble High Court itself for seeking remedy. 17. We have also gone through the relevant provisions of the various citations made under different Acts and Rules. In the ultimate analysis we are of the view that the intent and purpose of section 254(3) is that the order of the Tribunal shall be received by the assessee which has been fulfilled in the instant case on its facts and circumstances. To repeat indeed, the assessee himself has admitted that the order has been received by him from his own counsel and has also further pursued the course of action by further legal proceedings thereupon. We are therefore of the view that the provisions of section 254(3) have been complied with leaving nothing further to be done in the matter by the Tribunal. In the circumstances, we are unable to lend support to the stand of the assessee. 18. In the result, the Miscellaneous Petition of the assessee is dismissed hereby.
-
1991 (4) TMI 454 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s cases held that the sentence awarded on the same day of finding guilt is not in accordance with the law. That would normally have the affect of remanding the case to the Special Court for reconsideration. But in the view of the fact that A-l was in incarceration for long term of six years from the date of conviction, in our considered view it needs no remand for further evidence. It is sufficient that the sentence of death awarded to A-l is converted into rigorous imprisonment for life. The sentences of death is accordingly modified and A-l is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for causing the deaths of all four deceased. The conviction of A-l for attempt to murder PW-4 and sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment is also upheld and all the sentences would run concurrently. A-2 is acquitted of all charges. The bail bonds are cancelled. He shall be set at liberty unless he is required in any other case. 18. The appeal is allowed only to the above extent.
-
1991 (4) TMI 453 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... vice of the probationer by issuing on calender month's notice in writing and on expiry thereof the service stands terminated without any further notice. Within three months from the date of expiry of original two years period of probation and within one year's period, the order of termination was made. In this view the question of conducting an inquiry under the Classification Control and Appeal (Rules) after giving an opportunity and that too for specific charges does not arise. The High Court, therefore, committed manifest error of law in decreeing the suit. By an interim order passed by this court, the respondent received a sum of ₹ 5,000 from the appellant. The appellant shall not recover the same from him. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment and decree of the High Court is set aside and that of the Trial Court and the Ist Appellate Court are confirmed. But in the circumstances parties are directed to bear their own costs. N.P.V. Appeal allowed.
-
1991 (4) TMI 452 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the fact of the stay orders was highly material in the determination of these Special Leave Petitions. Curiously enough, there is no reference in the Special Leave Petitions to any to the stay orders and we came to know about these orders only when the respondents appeared in response to the notice and filed their counter affidavit. In our view, the said interim orders have a direct bearing on the question raised and the non-disclosure of the same certainly amounts to suppression of material facts. On this ground alone, the Special Leave Petitions are liable to be rejected. It is well-settled in law that the relief under Article 136 of the Constitution is discretionary and a petitioner who approaches this Court for such relief must come with frank and full disclosure of facts. If he fails to do so and suppresses material facts, his application is liable to be dismissed. We accordingly dismiss the Special Leave Petitions. There will be no order as to costs of these petitions.
-
1991 (4) TMI 451 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... es to give an opportunity to the persons who had been affected by the earlier order and required to adopt a certain course of action. In this view of the matter it is to be held that when a notification is made rescinding the earlier notifications without hearing the affected parties, it is clear violation of the principle of natural justice. Such action is exercise of the implied power to rescind cannot then be said to have been exercised implied power to rescind cannot then be said to have been exercised implied power to rescind cannot then be said to have been exercised subject to be quashed on this ground. It shall be open to the Government to proceed after affording the slum dwellers an opportunity of being heard on the basis of the earlier notifications that were in force. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court is set-aside. The impugned notification is quashed subject to the observations made. We make no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.
-
1991 (4) TMI 450 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ance available with the company is approximately ₹ 96 crores only. There is already a safeguard provided in the order of the CCI dated 15-9-89 that the fund utilisation shall be with the approval of the IDBI. In any case, the consent order given by CCI cannot be held invalid on any of the grounds of challenge raised by the petitioners. In these proceedings this Court is neither called upon nor is entitled to decide as to how and in what manner the amount mopped up from the public by this mega issue could be utilised or spent. Thus, 1 agree with my learned brother B. C. Ray, J. that the consent given by CCI is valid. 91. All the above cases including the interim applications stand disposed of by the above order. The judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 29-9-89 also stands modified in accordance with the findings and observations recorded by us as mentioned above. The Contempt applications are dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Order accordingly.
-
1991 (4) TMI 449 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... eals on merits. In the result the appeals, are allowed, the Judgment of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal dated 5.1.1991 is set aside and the Tribunal is directed to decide the C.M.P. Nos. 4,5 and 9 of 1990 on merits. In the facts and circumstances of the case we direct the parties to bear their own costs. SAHAI,J. I agree with brother Kasliwal, J. that under the constitutional set up it is one of the primary responsibilities of this Court to determine jurisdiction power and limits of any tribunal or authority created under a statute. But I have reservations on other issues including the construction of the letter dated 6th July, 1986. However, it is not necessary for me to express any opinion on it since what started as an issue of profound constitutional and legal importance fizzled out when the States of Karnataka and Kerala stated through their counsel that they were agreeable for determination of the applications for interim directions on merits. R.P. Appeals allowed.
-
1991 (4) TMI 448 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f the rule exemption is available for vehicle kept upto 30 days in a year. In that view of the matter tourist vehicles registered outside the State of Punjab and Haryana when brought into these two States for regular use and not by way of transit and when used for more than 30 days in a year would attract taxability otherwise the exemption provision in rule 8(v) would be available . We have settled the legal position and we leave it to the individual taxing authorities as also the operators of tourist vehilces to work out their respective rights. We would , therefore , like to clarify that the first aspect being a challenge against the taxing provision whether by way of tax or additional tax is rejected and the question of exigibility of tax in the States of Punjab and Haryana with reference to rule 8(v) of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Taxation rules, 1925 is left to be determined in individual cases as and when raised. There would be no order as to costs. Petitions deposed of.
........
|
