|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 266 Records
-
1993 (8) TMI 320
... ...
... ... ..... that any remedy if available to the plaintiff in accordance with the law apart from the one in the present suit is not dealt with in this order. 15. In the result, the order passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court for return of the plaint is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. However, since the learned Judge of the Court below had deferred the return of the plaint for some time and has directed the parties to maintain status quo in the meanwhile, I direct that the order returning the plaint shall not be given effect to till 6th September, 1993 and the parties are directed to maintain status quo until that date. The plaintiff will be at liberty to seek interim relief from the Court of Small Causes after the plaint is lodged in that Court after it is returned to the plaintiff. In that event, the plaintiff shall give advance notice to the defendant. No order as to costs. No separate order on the civil application which stands disposed of. Certified copy expedited.
-
1993 (8) TMI 319
... ...
... ... ..... ars salary inclusive of dearness allowance calculated on the scale of pay prevalent in the year the judgment was delivered, that is, in 1990. (b) This benefit shall be available even to those employees who have retired from service. In those cases where the employees are dead the compensation shall be paid to their dependents. The compensation shall be calculated on the scale prevalent three years immediately before the date of retirement or death. (iii)Although the employees shall not be entitled to any promotional benefit but. They shall be given notional continuity from the date of termination till the date of restoration for purpose of calculation of pensionary benefits. This benefit shall be available to retired employees as well as to those who are dead by calculating the period till date of retirement or death. 8. All the appeals and pensions are disposed of accordingly. Since the employees are being directed to be paid compensation there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1993 (8) TMI 318
... ...
... ... ..... conducted, resulting in adverse orders against it. If the officer-in-charge of the case would have carefully read the order appointing him as such, the order under challenge could not have been passed against the Government and the valuable time of the various officers of the Government and money would not have been wasted during this long period of seven years (1986-93). The officer-in-charge has rendered himself liable for disciplinary action as provided in the order appointing him as such. If the Government is anxious and keen to effect improvement in this direction, necessary action should be taken against all concerned whose negligence and carelessness resulted in the passing of the adverse order against it. 7. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed with costs. Copies of this order may be sent to the Legal Remembrancer and also to the Secretary, Public Works Department, Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur for information and necessary action.
-
1993 (8) TMI 317
... ...
... ... ..... leadings of the respondents that they became owners is not a clear unequivocal disclaimer of title. The plea cannot be said that it is unequivocal disclaimer. In this background the plea of adverse possession and particularly in the face of the non-payment of rent and their payment of revenue to the State also cannot be said to be unequivocal. As seen earlier lease is only unproved document of 30 years old to which knowledge was disclaimed by the respondents. Therefore, it does not amount to unequivocal and clear disclaimer of title but at best denial of relationship of lessor and lessee and does not entail forfeiture. The High Court rightly, in the nature of pleadings and scope of the suit, did not go into the plea of adverse possession on merits. 11. Under these circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the findings of the High Court are not beset with any illegality warranting interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs quantified at ₹ 2,500.
-
1993 (8) TMI 316
... ...
... ... ..... tition that there was bad blood between certain Officers of the Executive, resulting in their transfer on account of complaint by the petitioner. There has been doubt in the matter of investigation as well as there was a final report and subsequently the S.P.O. had given a different opinion and also that the breach of the provisions has been of a very minor nature. Considering these factors, we are inclined to grant him an interim relief. 37. Standing counsel is allowed 3 weeks' time to file a counter-affidavit. Rejoinder may be filed within two weeks next. Till disposal of the application for interim relief after due exchange of the above mentioned affidavits, the arrest of the petitioner in case crime No. 74 of 1991 under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, police station Khairagarh, District Agra, shall remain stayed. 38. A certified copy of this order may be issued to the learned counsel for the petitioner within 24 hours on payment of usual copying charges.
-
1993 (8) TMI 315
... ...
... ... ..... . Sahai, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
1993 (8) TMI 314
... ...
... ... ..... llate Assistant Commissioner was doing in this case was not passing any order. All that he was doing was issuing a direction under Section 31(2) and such a direction is clearly not appealable and the Commissioner could not have appealed against that order. The substantive order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissing the appeal of the assessees and therefore the Commissioner was never aggrieved by that order and no question of appealing against that order ever arose. We have to consider the direction given by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner because before the Appellate Tribunal the assessees insisted upon the Tribunal considering the report made on the order of remand, and that is why we have to consider whether the order itself was a proper order; and if the order was not a proper order, no question of considering the report made on that order can arise. The result therefore is that we must answer both the questions submitted to us in the negative.
-
1993 (8) TMI 313
... ...
... ... ..... and having regard to the fact that full 20 per cent deduction with reference to the gross amount of income by way of royalty and fees received by the assessee-company from the Indian concern was granted in each of the 3 earlier years, namely, assessment years 1978-79 to 1980-81, wherein the expenses incurred on research and developmental work was far lower than ₹ 94 lakhs, incurred in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1981-82, there is point in denying the statutory deduction under section 44D. 7. We are of the view that the Tribunal should have allowed full 20 per cent deduction with reference to the gross amount of royalty and fees towards expenditure incurred by the assessee-company under section 44D(a) in respect of the assessment year 1981-82 as well. There is no reason to allow only a token deduction of ₹ 1 in the assessment year 1981-82. We, therefore, answer the third question in the negative and in favour of the assessee. Sen, J.-I agree.
-
1993 (8) TMI 312
... ...
... ... ..... es not mean that penalty must necessarily be imposed in every case falling within ss. 269SS or 269T. Even if the minimum penalty is prescribed the authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty when there is a technical breach or venial violation of the provisions of the Act or where the breach flows from a bone fide belief like in the present case. Such a view is fully fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa, (supra). Since we have held that the transactions in question were bona fide and genuine transactions and were made on account of urgent business necessity and there was no guilty intention or guilty mind on the part of the assessee at the time when these transactions were made, the penalties levied on the assessee also deserves to be cancelled in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 13. In the result the appealls are allowed.
-
1993 (8) TMI 311
... ...
... ... ..... ntroversy itself and relegated the parties to file appeal before the authorities under the Act. The above judgment has not laid down any legal preposition of general application. It is confined to the peculiar facts of that case. 6A. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the clear opinion that the machine imported by the petitioners is machinery within the meaning of Entry 50 of Schedule H to the Act and the respondents are entitled to charge octroi at the rate of 2% ad valorem which is applicable to the goods specified in that entry. They are directed to revise the assessment accordingly and to refund the excess amount collected by them with simple interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of payment till the date of refund. The refund must be made within three months from today. 7. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the rule is made absolute in the above terms. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1993 (8) TMI 310
... ...
... ... ..... ly be mentioned that the court has already indicated that interest is payable and the rate at which it is payable. On that basis parties are asked to work out the figures. 47. In the view that I have taken there will be no need to decide the question whether or not there is a sale of the four lakh units in favour of the third respondent. In the view that I have taken the third respondent will only step into the shoes of the second respondent so far as the four lakh units are concerned. The petitioners are, therefore, entitled to redeem the four lakh units even in the hands of the third respondent. In the view that I have taken the remedy of the third respondent for any loss, if any, will be against the second respondent. I am not concerned with that in this petition. In court today, the modality by which petitioners will redeem all the units has been worked out. It will be incorporated in the final order. 48. Petition adjourned to Wednesday August 18, 1993, for final orders.
-
1993 (8) TMI 309
... ...
... ... ..... upon the said late Ramprit Kumar the father of the defendant No. 1 and copy of the said notices were also sent to the Proforma defendants Nos. 2,3,4 and 5. The true copy of the said notices and the postal receipt and the A/D receipt are filed herewith and marked as plaintiffs documents Nos. 1,2&3. 16. The answer to this is in paragraph 5 of the written statement to the following effect That the notice of ejectment as referred to in para 7 of the plaint is not according to law. 17. Certainly it is a case to which Order 8 Rule 5 was attracted. It is unnecessary to examine the question as to where a judicial admission could be permitted to be withdrawn or retracted. 18. Non-traverse would constitute an implied admission. In the facts of this case the findings of the trial court and that of the first appellate court could be upheld on this admission. Thus, we find the High Court was wrong in interfering with this finding. Accordingly, the appeal will stand allowed. No costs.
-
1993 (8) TMI 308
... ...
... ... ..... ocedure thus itself recognises that a member may abstain from voting. Therefore, abstaining or refusal to express opinion by casting vote in favour of or against the Motion cannot be construed on any rule of construction or constitutional interpretation as deemed support of the motion. The language of the Article, the purpose of its enactment, the objective behind it do not warrant such construction. When the Constitution mandates that a judge can be removed for proved misbehaviour or incapacity only when out of the members present two-third express there opinion in favour of such a Motion by exercising their right of voting then there is no scope for assumed voting or assumed expression of opinion by invoking the principle that silence amounts to acquiescence in favour of the Motion. The submission made by the petitioner is contrary to explicit language of the Article and inherent philosophy of Parliamentary sovereignty. 4. Consequently, the petition fails and is dismissed.
-
1993 (8) TMI 307
... ...
... ... ..... onstrue the provision as containing a restriction that the complaint should be made by the payee or the holder in due course (as the case may be) "personally". 11. My attention has been drawn to the unreported decision of a learned single judge of this court (Thulasidas J.) in Criminal Revision Petition No. 209 of 1991 in which the learned judge has stated that "there is nothing in the Act that the complaint under Section 142 should be filed by the aggrieved person personally ; there are indications in the Act itself to show that steps could be taken to file the complaint on behalf of the aggrieved party". I am in respectful agreement with the aforesaid view. 12. In the result, I hold that a power of attorney holder of a payee or a holder in due course (as the case may be) can make a complaint under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. No other point has been canvassed before me. 13. Accordingly, I dismiss this criminal miscellaneous case.
-
1993 (8) TMI 306
... ...
... ... ..... he detention order, which only has been relied in formation of subjective satisfaction, the statement that reliance has been placed on numerous irrelevant documents is baseless." (13) In other words the return suggests that detaining authority did not rely upon all the documents accompanying the grounds of detention for reaching the subjective satisfaction though it considered all of them and that mere consideration of the same does not mean that reliance was placed upon them. This self serving assertion of the detaining authority is contrary to the categorical statement made in the grounds of detention and does not advance its case. The counter-affidavit also does not disclose which of the documents were merely considered and which were relied upon for arriving at the subjective satisfaction. (14) In view of the above discussion, the impugned detention order is quashed. The petitioner is directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in connection with any other case.
-
1993 (8) TMI 305
... ...
... ... ..... host of other factors which weigh with the High Court to deny, grant or mould relief even when illegalities in procedure keep staring. Thus for the view afore-expressed, we allow these appeals set aside the impugned orders of the High Court and remit all these matters back to it with the request that though it may take them up as a batch, it may give individual attention to each case, view the illegalities pointed by the writ petitioner in its right perspective having regard to the time factor and confine the relief, if due, to him separately. We shall not be taken to have controlled the discretion of the High Court in administering individualised justice and amongst others it may, with the cooperation of the Society and of the State Government, as also the writ petitioners examine the possibility of as equitable solution so that the fist of law and the discretion of the Court do not hurt unbearably. We thus remit the matters to the High Court without any order as to costs.
-
1993 (8) TMI 304
... ...
... ... ..... tion process conducted by the third respondent, Dist. Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Society, Solapur to the Society is illegal. The final list of voters published by the Dist. Collector, Solapur, as on June 30, 1992 is declared illegal. The final voters list declared on December 17, 1991 relating to the society is the valid list. Accordingly the order of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 4107 of 1992 dated September 15, 1992 is modified. The direction to the Dist. Collector and the 3rd Respondent, Dist. Deputy Registrar, Coop. Society, Solapur to proceed as per Rules 4 to 7 and 16 to conduct election to the committee of the society in accordance with the Rules is upheld with the above modification. The election held to the Managing Committee of the society on April 27, 1993 is declared illegal and invalid. Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are directed to conduct the election as per Rules consistent with the above order. The appeal is allowed accordingly with costs as fixed above.
-
1993 (8) TMI 303
... ...
... ... ..... ion and the imposition of the minimum sentence cannot be said to be vitiated by any error of law. 6. It is next contended that this Court in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution has plenary power to reduce the sentence. We are afraid that we cannot ignore the statutory object and reduce the minimum sentence prescribed under the Act. Undoubtedly under Article 142 the Supreme Court has the power untrammelled by any statutory limits but when penal offences have been prescribed for violation of statutory regulations for production, equitable supply and distribution of essential commodities at fair prices, it was done in the social interest which this Court would keep in mind while exercising power under Article 142 and respect the legislative policy to impose minimum sentence. Amendment to the Act was made to stamp out the statutory violations with impunity. Thus we find that it is not a fit case warranting interference. 7. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
1993 (8) TMI 302
... ...
... ... ..... of the debtors was so precarious and shaky that it would be impossible to collect any money from them. This is a case of honest judgment on the part of the assessee at the time when the debts were written off in the light of the events up to that stage and not in the light of later happenings. The later happenings only justify the belief which was formed at the time of writing off of the debts. The fact that the debtors have no assets and even the partners of the firm were declared insolvent was a sufficient indication that the debt could not be realised any further. The decrees are merely paper decrees which does not establish that there was still a chance of realisation of the debts. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, the first question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee; the first part of the second question is also answered in the affirmative and the second part in the negative, both in favour of the assessee. 10. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1993 (8) TMI 301
... ...
... ... ..... he show cause notice. We have no doubt that on the reply to the show eause notice being filed by the petitioner the concerned Sales Tax Officer shall deal with all aspects both factual and legal, that the petitioner may like to raise for consideration of the Sales Tax Officer. At this stage when the petitioner has only been called upon to show cause, we see no good reason to forestall the proceedings by entertaining this writ petition and issuing any order or direction to stay the further proceedings in pursuance of the show cause notice. If for some reason the petitioner feels aggrieved after the order, if any, is made by the Sales Tax Officer in pursuance of the show cause notice, the petitioner shall be at liberty to have recourse to such forum or Court of Law as it may be advised to do so. 4. For what has been stated above, the petition is premature and is accordingly rejected in limine without going into the merits of the various contentions raised in the writ petition.
........
|
