|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 538 Records
-
2000 (5) TMI 1102
... ...
... ... ..... onviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act had been upheld by all the three forums, the Supreme Court, at the stage of SLP, where the complainant, having received the entire money, stated before the Supreme Court that he has no objection if the conviction was set aside, the Supreme Court permitted the complainant and the accused entering into a compromise, and proceeded to set aside the conviction and sentence, though the Supreme Court did so, as specifically observed by it in course of the order, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case that was being dealt with by it. That was in O.P. Dholakia v State of Haryana and Another . 7. In view of the above, the application is allowed. The complainant-respondent is permitted to compound the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioner-accused is acquitted of the said offence punishable under the said Act of 1881. Revision petition disposed of accordingly.
-
2000 (5) TMI 1101
... ...
... ... ..... irregularities and the investigations were going on since then. If that is so, it is unreasonable to think that they would have taken more than 12 years to initiate the disciplinary proceedings as stated by the Tribunal. There is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo and we are also of the view that it will be unfair to permit the departmental enquiry to be proceeded with at this stage. 13. Here the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent because of the production of a bogus certificate dated 4.10.1998. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated on 29.12.98. There was no delay. Besides the respondent participated in the enquiry without protest. 14. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the order dated 18th September 1999 in so far as it stayed the operation of the show cause notice dated 30th August 1999 as well as the finding relating to the caste of the respondent. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2000 (5) TMI 1100
... ...
... ... ..... sal when the appropriate department is liable to do the needful but at the costs and expenses of the petitioner. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the Indian Customs authority to take the goods upto the Indian border and hand over to the Nepalese Customs Authority not only for the purpose of their satisfaction but also satisfaction of the Nepalese Customs Authority as well as the party concerned and finally for the protection of both the countries. 29. Thus, the writ petition succeeds and accordingly disposed of. However, no order is passed as to costs. 30. Xerox certified copies of this judgment will be supplied to the parties by the department within 7 days from the date of putting requisition for drawing up and completion of the judgment as well as the certified copies. 31. Signed copy minutes of the operative part of this Judgment be made available to the parties after the satisfaction of the officer of the court as regard the furnishing of the requisitions as above.
-
2000 (5) TMI 1099
... ...
... ... ..... of the matter, the police cannot be allowed to flout the mandatory provision of sub-Section (2) of Section 155 Cr.P.C. That being so, the investigation conducted in violation of the mandatory provision of sub section (2) of Section 155 Cr.P.C. bore the stamp of illegality. Consequently, the petitioner's prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC is liable to be quashed. 12. For the foregoing reasons, I find and hold that the allegations in the FIR No. 248/96 lodged by the complainant. Isran Ahmed and the evidence collected by the prosecuting agency in support thereof do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence and make out a case against the petitioner. 13. In the result, the petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings emanating from the FIR No. 248/96 under Sections 147/149/323/506/354 IPC and pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi are quashed. The petitioner is discharged and his bail bonds are also discharged.
-
2000 (5) TMI 1098
... ...
... ... ..... s in a PIL or a Writ Petition as has been held in a series of decisions. In addition to damages aforesaid, the person guilty of causing pollution can also be held liable to pay exemplary damages so that it may act as a deterrent for others not to cause pollution in any manner. Unfortunately, notice for exemplary damages was not issued to M/s. Span Motel although it ought to, have been issued. The considerations for which "fine" can be imposed upon a person guilty of committing an offence are different from those on the basis of which exemplary damages can be awarded. While withdrawing the notice for payment of pollution fine, we direct a fresh notice be issued to M/s. Span Motel to show cause why in addition to damages, exemplary damages be not awarded for having committed the acts set out and detailed in the main judgment. This notice shall be returnable within six weeks. This question shall be heard at the time of quantification of damages under the main judgment.
-
2000 (5) TMI 1097
... ...
... ... ..... urt to decide the matters before it in accordance with law. If the law was, as the High Court observes in the passage quoted above, in favour of the appellant before it, it was obliged to make an order in favour of the appellant. Considerations of equity cannot prevail and do not permit a High Court to pass an order contrary to the law. 5. We do not make any observations in regard to the merits of the matter but, having regard to what moved the High Court to pass the order it did, we think that the Special Appeal should stand restored to the file of the High Court to be decided according to law and with due regard to what we have stated. 6. It would also be in the fitness of things that the writ petition itself should be disposed of expeditiously. 7. The appeal is allowed. The order under appeal is set aside and Special Appeal No. 277/99 is restored to the file of the Lucknow Bench of the High Court at Allahabad for being heard and disposed of afresh. 8. No order as to costs.
-
2000 (5) TMI 1096
... ...
... ... ..... non-use of a omnibus. This apart, there is no good reason put forward as to why the omnibuses are singled out. Even heavy goods transport vehicles are also purchased by investing heavy amount. In other words, the condition that for a period of non-use beyond three months, the owner or a person in possession or control of vehicle should satisfy the reasons beyond the control for non-use of vehicle is attached to omnibuses and not to other vehicles. If the appellants see any difficulty in working of their officers in the matter of checking evasion of tax, that itself is not a good ground to uphold the validity of the condition that an owner or possessor of a vehicle should satisfy as to the non-use of omnibus for the reasons beyond his control in order to claim refund of tax for a period exceeding three months. Thus, having regard to all aspects, we do not find any good or valid reason to interfere with the judgment and order under appeal. Consequently we dismiss it with costs.
-
2000 (5) TMI 1095
... ...
... ... ..... profound respect to the Bench in Chintaman's case AIR1956Bom553 (supra), we are unable to endorse the view expressed on the question in the said decision. We endorse the view expressed by the Patna High Court in Rajpatiprasad's case AIR1981Pat187 (supra), which is recent in point of time in so far as decisions referred to on behalf of the plaintiff are concerned. The view expressed by the learned single Judge in the referring judgment also merits acceptance. 8. In the result, we answer the question as under -- "The payment by cheque which is dishonoured would amount to acknowledgement of a debt and a liability. By necessary consequence there will be saving of limitation as envisaged by Section 18 of the Act. 9. Having answered the question referred to this Bench, we propose to remit the matter to the learned single Judge as jointly submitted by the learned advocates for the parties for the disposal of the appeal. This Reference will accordingly stand disposed of.
-
2000 (5) TMI 1094
Valuation - brokerage collected was shown to be inclusive of service tax - HELD THAT:- It was held in the case of KR CHOKSEY AND COMPANY VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI-I [1996 (10) TMI 1 - CEGAT (MUMBAI)] where the brokerage collected was shown to be inclusive of service tax and where the fact was indicated in all the relevant documents, there was no justification for calculating the service tax on the brokerage so inclusive of service tax.
The decision given by any Bench of the Tribunal is of precedent value and is binding on all the parties - appeal of Revenue dismissed.
-
2000 (5) TMI 1093
... ...
... ... ..... n, I am unable to find fault with the order of adjudication or with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the order of adjudication. The submissions made by learned JDR in support of the decision of the lower authorities have to be sustained. 4. Before parting with this appeal, I have to take note of the decision of the Tribunal’s Larger Bench in the case of CCE, New Delhi v. Avis Electronics Pvt. Ltd. 2000 (117) E.L.T. 571 wherein it has been held that a manufacturer can take credit on the original copy of invoices provided he satisfies the Assistant Commissioner about the loss of the duplicate copy (duplicate for transporter). The Larger Bench held that this is a mandatory requirement, not a mere procedural technicality. This view taken by the Larger Bench supports the view taken by the lower appellate authority. 5. In the light of the foregoing observations and findings I do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly rejected.
-
2000 (5) TMI 1092
... ...
... ... ..... e included in the value of assessable value. As packing P-41 is not necessary for delivery of the goods in the wholesale market at the factory gate, the value of the same cannot be added in the assessable value of the goods irrespective of the fact that whether such packing has been undertaken at the behest of the transporter for the safeguard of the goods or at the behest of the customers. We also find that similar issue was earlier decided by the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Jamshedpur v. TISCO 1998 (27) RLT499 (CEGAT) wherein it was held that packing charges for P-41 packing in respect of the goods transported through railways undertaken in terms of Rules and Regulations made by the Railway Authorities is not required to be included in the assessable value of the final product. We do not see any reason to differ from the above view taken by the Tribunal. Accordingly, following the ratio of the same, we do not find any merit in the Revenue's appeals and reject the same.
-
2000 (5) TMI 1091
... ...
... ... ..... determine the question whether the doer of such an act can be said to be wrong doer and as such the bond of necessity between the wrong doer and the remedy of wrong does not exist in the present case. Further it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the defendant could have perceived results of the prosecution launched on his first information report, which resulted in initiation of trial. He could not have known in advance whether the prosecution launched on his information would result in conviction or acquittal of the accused (plaintiff). The learned trial Court has dealt with the case with a deep and minute consideration and all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case and there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the decision of the trial court. The findings arrived at by it in the impugned judgment deserve to be upheld. 29. As a result of the discussion made above, this first appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2000 (5) TMI 1090
... ...
... ... ..... s with a painful and unhappy feeling. Can it be said that since the Full Court has made the Rules, Judges of this Court are disqualified and stymied by the rule of 'personal bias' from deciding the writ petition? Certainly not. There is no question of any personal bias coming into play in the matter of adjudication of questions revalidity of the rules. The veiled suggestion that our judgment would be warped by the personal bias is Ill-advised and totally uncalled for. 54. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The expression "if it is not disapproved by the Committee" occurring in Rule 3 (B) of the rules is struck down. The rule shall be construed and read in the manner indicated in the body of judgment. M. Katju, J. 55. I have perused the Judgments of my esteemed brothers Hon'ble R.R.K. Trivedi. J, and Hon'ble S.R. Singh, J. I agree with the views of both my learned brothers in their respective Judgments. I have nothing further to add.
-
2000 (5) TMI 1089
... ...
... ... ..... ls and the Deputy Commissioner is obliged to allot the same to some other tribal only does not merit our acceptance. Apart from the grounds on which we have rejected the claim of the appellant, we find that the High Court left open the question about the disputed character of the lands and the nature of interest surrendered which if had been properly considered and decided likely to have an impact on the question of the very applicability of the statutory provisions to the case on hand. Merely because Section 71A commence with the words If at any time .. it cannot be taken to mean that those power could be exercised without any point of time limit, as in this case after nearly about forty years unmindful of the rights of parties acquired in the eantime under the ordinary law and the Law of Limitation. We consider it, therefore, inappropriate to countenance any such contentions in these proceedings. These appeals, therefore, are hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs.
-
2000 (5) TMI 1088
... ...
... ... ..... of this case. It had been held by the Tribunal in that case that a procedural lapse on the part of HPCL (corresponding to the present registered dealer in this case) should not be caused for substantive benefit to be denied to the appellant. The Tribunal had also held that the theory of better title would not come to the aid of Revenue in the case where it has not been established that goods are non-duty paid. In this case, already as analysed above, the goods were duty paid and the incidence of duty has passed on till the appellant's stage, in view of the credit in R.G. 23D not having been denied to the registered dealer by the department. A similar view was taken by the Tribunal in the case of Birla Ericsson Optical Ltd. (supra). 8. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid analysis and following the ratio of these decisions, the Order-in-Appeal impugned is set aside along with the attendant Order-in-Original and the appeal is allowed, with consequential relief, as per law.
-
2000 (5) TMI 1087
... ...
... ... ..... igh Court has said that "On looking into the charge sheet, we are of the view that it is not hit by Article 194 of the Constitution of India." We are of the view that this observation would certainly come in the way of the trial court in applying its independent mind on the question of the applicability of Article 194 of the Constitution of India. We, therefore, direct that the trial court will consider the question of the applicability of Article 194 of the Constitution uninfluenced by any observation made by the High Court in the impugned judgment. The appeal is disposed of.
-
2000 (5) TMI 1086
... ...
... ... ..... case learned Judges held that the offence was not relating to an act done in the color of office. The said decision confined to the fact situation which arose In that case. 20. We may observe that neither of the above decisions has changed the legal position laid down by the three Judges Bench In Virupaxappa Veerappa Kadampur AIR1963SC849 (supra). 21. In the present case, it is the admitted fact that the complaint was filed only long after the period indicated in Section 161 of the Act was over, either with or without sanction from the State Government. Therefore, the complaint Is irretrievably barred under the said provision. 22. In view of this conclusion of ours it is unnecessary for us to consider the next question whether sanction under Section 397 of the Code is necessary to take cognizance of the offences alleged. 23. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the judgment under challenge and restore the order passed by the Sessions Judge dismissing the complaint.
-
2000 (5) TMI 1085
... ...
... ... ..... did arise or was even apprehend after lapse of about seven years of the dismissal of the respondent. Whenever a workman raised some dispute it does not become industrial dispute and appropriate government cannot in a mechanical fashion make the reference of the alleged dispute terming as industrial dispute." . 14. It is totally misconceived on the part of the petitioner to contend that the remedies are based on two different causes of action. Cause of action is same namely, punishment of removal from service which was challenged by filing the writ petition and which was again sought to be challenged by raising the industrial dispute. It is the ground taken which may be different. Different grounds taken by the petitioner are confused as different causes of action. However, as pointed out above, it is not permissible for the petitioner to invent new grounds and elect new forum after having failed once in one particular forum. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
-
2000 (5) TMI 1084
... ...
... ... ..... and user of the impugned trademark, namely, "SURAJ CHHAP" and the particular pouch has superior right than that of the plaintiff. The plaintiff thus is not entitled to a temporary injunction. 39. In view of this discussion, the defendant's I.A. No. 8739/99 is allowed and that of the plaintiff (I.A. No. 7665/99) is dismissed, with costs. 40. Interim injunction granted on 12.8.1999 which is continuing is hereby vacated. 41. In view of the above discussions in the earlier part of the judgment that the plaintiff has misrepresented, suppressed and withheld material documents and this amounts to practicing fraud on the Court, I feel it just, proper and expedient in the proper administration of justice that the suit itself should be dismissed on this ground. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is also dismissed with costs. Costs assessed at ₹ 20,000/-. I.A. No. 7665/99, and Suit No. 1744/99 are dismissed and I.A. No. 8739/99 is allowed and stand disposed of.
-
2000 (5) TMI 1083
... ...
... ... ..... 99. According to this respondent, he did not attend the meeting on 25.3.1999 and 7.4.1999 as they were held during the pendency of the appeals in the Bombay High Court. We are, therefore, of the view that considering para 5 our directions that as long as the 2nd respondent continues as a shareholder, he will be a director, his non-attendance in these two meeting in view of the pendency of the appeal proceedings in Bombay High Court, should not be taken cognizance of to invoke the provision of Section 283(1)(g) of the Act and, accordingly, direct the company to recognise him as a continuing director and sere him notices for all the Board meeting with at least 7 days notice by registered post acknowledgement due. However, this direction does not prevent the company from invoking the provision of Section 283(1)(g) of the Act in future on satisfaction of the requirements of this section. 9. With the above directions and observations, all the three applications are dis- posed of.
........
|
