|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 531 Records
-
2002 (9) TMI 906 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ation of their services. This is evident from a reading of the pleadings in both the Section 33A Complaints filed by them. Had they pleaded, for instance, that they actively participated in the agitations relating to the pending disputes, and hence had been victimized, the nexus would prima facie have been set out. 27. The delicate problem is that the Management had not taken the approval as envisaged under Section 33(2), which I have held to be mandatory. However, this question had not been raised in the Complaint not has it been argued before me. Therefore, while absence to meet with this requirement would ordinarily be fatal, in the present case it should be overlooked primarily because even Mr. Joshi had conceded that the legal position on the issues which have been debated here, is nebulous. The forensic fortunes of a party must fairly rise and fall with the case that it has presented. 28. The Petitioners are, Therefore, dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2002 (9) TMI 905 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r example, electronic goods may be preferred. It is on record that the accused-respondents were arrested in another case of theft of T.V. set. Without going into the merits of that case, it can only be said by way of illustration that there may be fascination for selling goods of particular category which are easy to carry and are easily disposable. In view of the credible evidence on record, it is not necessary to fathom as to what was in the mind of the accused or find out why valuable articles were not lifted. This is not a case where the prosecution case rests only on the evidence in terms of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. That was only one of the pieces of evidence. It is, therefore,not necessary to decide the question as to whether conviction can be recorded only on the basis of such recovery. The High Court was clearly in error in directing the acquittal. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside, and that of the trial Court is restored. The appeal is allowed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 904 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... the powers of the disciplinary authority in a given case, it results in discrimination against the employee concerned. This is a particularly so when there are no guidelines in the Rules/Regulations as to when the higher authority or the appellate authority should exercise the powers of the disciplinary authority. The higher or appellate authority may choose to exercise the power of the disciplinary authority in some cases while not doing so in other cases. In such cases, the right of the employee depends upon the choice of the higher/appellate authority, which patently results in discrimination between an employee and employee. Surely, such a situation cannot savour of legality... 23. For the reasons afore-mentioned, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. 24. The writ petition is allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner shall also be entitled to costs which are quantified at Rs. 5000/-.
-
2002 (9) TMI 903 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . In fact the clarification issued by the Government of Kerala in the context of Sales Tax Act referred to by the petitioners appears to be correct and acceptable because the very object of entry tax itself, as stated in the preamble, is to prevent evasion of sales tax. Going by the object of the statute, entries in the Schedule to the Entry Tax Act and the KGST Act should be given the same meaning. Therefore I feel that the contention of the petitioners is correct and the respondents have no right to demand entry tax in respect of Dental Chair brought by them. The Original Petitions are accordingly allowed. I declare that the petitioners are not liable to pay entry tax or penalty for the import of Dental Chair and the assessing officer has no right to demand the same. The impugned proceedings in all the OPs. at whatever stage shall stand cancelled and if at all any appeals are filed, it is made clear that they are unnecessary as the original proceedings stand hereby quashed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 902 - THE SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... isions of regulations 10 and 12 are not applicable to the alleged acquisition of shares/takeover of control of the Bank, the Appellant has been deprived of his legal right to exit from the Bank and in the said context in my view the Appellant is a person aggrieved by the impugned order and as such entitled to prefer an appeal. This is not the first time that a shareholder claiming to be aggrieved by an order depriving him of participation in public offer approaching the Tribunal challenging such order in an appeal under section 15T. In Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation V. SEBI Others (2001) 32 SCL 631; Ashwin Doshi V. SEBI (appeal No. 44/2001) the appeals filed by the shareholders of the target companies were entertained by the Tribunal, recognizing them as persons aggrieved, by SEBI's order. 41. For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the present appeal is maintainable. Order accordingly. 42. The Registry will post the appeal early for disposal.
-
2002 (9) TMI 901 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rummy, which is to be treated as a game of skill only. Therefore, the question whether the management of the club or the club is making profits, and what is the rate of profit that is being made from out of the game of rummy with 13 cards/syndicate may not be of any relevance. Therefore, even if the petitioners, who are running the club that was raided by the police, were making profits by allowing persons to use the premises for playing the game of rummy with 13 cards/syndicate, they cannot be said to be running a 'common gaining house' as defined in Section 3 of the Act, because Section 3 of the Act, in view of Section 15 of the Act, does not apply to a place where Rummy is being played. 16. Therefore, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the FIR in Cr. No. 252 of 2002 of Jubilee Hills Police Station. Hyderabad, registered under Section 3 of the Act is quashed. It is needless to mention that the property seized from the petitioners shall have to be returned to them.
-
2002 (9) TMI 900 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 2(2) of the Civil Procedure Code only in cases where it can be disposed of as an issue of law and not otherwise. In cases where such an issue requires recording of evidence, it has to be disposed of along with the other issues except when the Court, in its opinion, thinks fit to postpone the settlement of the other issues till the disposal of the issue regarding jurisdiction or limitation. Undoubtedly, the Court in that regard has to exercise its discretion judiciously and considering the facts of each case. (iv) The decision in Sudesh case was in the facts of that particular case wherein the point of limitation was raised on the basis of the pleadings in the plaint itself and being so, the ruling therein cannot be made applicable to the cases where the point of limitation is to be decided by allowing the parties to lead evidence on such issue. 22. In the result, therefore, the civil revision application fails and is rejected. The rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
-
2002 (9) TMI 899 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed by the plaintiff. It has further been held by both the Courts below that the plaintiff-respondent is also entitled to Rs. 480-00 only as arrears of rent. These concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below are based on evidence on record and they do not call for any interference by this Court. The question of law formulated above is being answered in negative. 9. Thus, the findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below are based on evidence on record. These concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below are based on evidence on record, hence they do not call for any interference by this Court in view of the record rulings of Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in MANU/SC/0278/1999 Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar, AIR 2001 SCW 2057 Hamida v. Mohd. Khalil. AIR 2001 SCW 2295; Chandra Bhan v. Pamma Bai and AIR 2001 SCW 2290; Kaluram v. Shrinathdas. The second civil appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed with costs.
-
2002 (9) TMI 898 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rd to the legality or otherwise of the detention at the time of the return and not with reference to the date of the institution of the proceeding, it is difficult to hold, in the absence of proof of bad faith, that the detaining authority cannot supersede an earlier order of detention challenged as illegal and make a fresh order wherever possible which is free from defects and duly complies with the requirements of the law in that behalf." Counsel appearing for the detenu is justified in contending that on the same set of facts a fresh order of detention cannot be passed but in a case where vital documents were not adverted to or noticed and considered while passing the detention order the detaining authority could look into all those vital documents omitted to be considered and pass a fresh order of detention. We therefore quash the order of detention subject to the above observation and set the detenu at liberty unless he is required in connection with any other case.
-
2002 (9) TMI 897 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t is not possible to accept the grievance made that the appellate Court has not at all dealt with the issue of hardship insofar as respondent landlord was concerned. As observed earlier, the appellate court in substance has dealt with that aspect in paras 17 and 18 of its judgment. Besides, the appellate court, has also noted in para 17 that the defendant has not adduced any positive evidence to establish the fact that he would not be in a position to secure alternate accommodation except his bare words. If that be so, the appellate court was right in answering the issue against the petitioner tenant. Accordingly, since no other grievance has been made and as observed earlier, the appellate court has applied the correct test while answering this issue of comparative hardship, no interference is warranted even with regard to this finding and conclusion reached by the Appellate Court. 12. Accordingly, this Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed with costs all throughout.
-
2002 (9) TMI 896 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... they will be entitled for more. That question can be gone into and decide later on. However, in view of the fact that the amount due and payable to the workers is due since long and they could not even get it in last Diwali and now the next Diwali is approaching, therefore, at least an amount of ₹ 55,00,000/ should be distributed to the workers. #. Accordingly, by way of interim order, the Official Liquidator is directed to disburse in all ₹ 55,00,000/ to the workers of Omex Investors Ltd. by accountant payee cheque in the equal proportion after due verification / identification from the applicant-Textile Labour Association. #. In view of the above, Official Liquidator is permitted to break the F.D.R. and encash it for the purpose of paying to the workers and for that he may maintain separate account. This order is passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties concerned. As requested by learned counsel for the parties, put up on 27.11.2002.
-
2002 (9) TMI 895 - COMPANY LAW BOARD
... ...
... ... ..... d before or after 9-1-1997. The CLB has further exercised its suo motu powers in such cases. Moreover, the provisions of Section 117C(4) being analogous to Sections 58A(9) and 45QA(2), are beneficial provisions intended to protect the interests of debenture holders. Such a provision, in my view, should be exercised in favour of such aggrieved investors. Therefore, the plea of the Companies must fail. 7. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the authorized representatives of both sides and the legal position stated supra, I am of the considered view that the provisions of Section 117C(4) are applicable to all debentures whether issued prior or after the introduction of the Amendment Act, 2000, i.e., 13-12-2000 and pending redemption. In view of this, the Companies are directed to redeem the debentures covered by these applications by payment of the principal amount and interest due thereon not later than 30-9-2002. 8. No order as to costs.
-
2002 (9) TMI 894 - CEGAT, CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... are dedicated to the furnace in order to make it a single unit and that the furnace cannot be put to effective use without the particular control panel meant for it. He has noticed that the furnace and control panels are always presented together for assessment. He has applied the provisions of Note 4 to Section XVI Note (2) (b) to Section XVI, and also explanatory note at Page 1132 and has held that control panels are designed specifically and dedicated to the furnace and requires to be classified alongwith integral furnace. We notice that the ratio of the citations referred to also lays down the same ruling that when a part is utilised alongwith main equipment and cleared alongwith it then it has to be classified alongwith the main equipment. In view of the findings given by the Commissioner (Appeals) which are legal and proper and in terms of the citations given above we do not find any merit in all these 3 appeals filed by Revenue and hence all the 3 appeals are rejected.
-
2002 (9) TMI 893 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the reliefs appropriately. However, the order of the consumer forum dated December 13, 1999, is subsequent to the order of the conviction of the trial court. Therefore that cannot be a ground to deny the relief to the petitioner. In that view, I find the trial court committed grave illegality in not imposing the sentence as envisaged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, the impugned orders of the court below are set aside. The respondent is directed to pay a fine of twice the cheque amount, in default the respondent accused to undergo S. I. for a period of one year. Out of the fine amount levied ₹ 10,000 to be defrayed by the State towards prosecution expenses and balance to be paid as compensation to the complainant/ petitioner. 8. Counsel for the respondent submits that a sum of ₹ 20,000 of fine imposed is already paid if it is so the same can be deducted. 9. No grounds to interfere with the order dictated. Hence, no further orders.
-
2002 (9) TMI 892 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... old that as the question whether Section 15 of the Act bars the present eviction petition, was decided against the appellants by the Appellate Authority at the earlier stage of suit and it was allowed to become final, it is not open to the appellants to re-agitate the same at the subsequent stage of the suit. In this view of the matter, we do not find any illegality in the order under appeal to warrant any interference. 8. Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel, however, submits that as the appellants have been in occupation of the rented building since 1969, reasonable time to vacate the premises may be granted to them. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we grant time to the appellants, to hand over vacant possession of the petition schedule building, till the end of April 2003 on condition of furnishing usual undertaking by them within four weeks from today. 9. Subject to the above observations, the civil appeal is dismissed, but without any order as to costs.
-
2002 (9) TMI 891 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he commission of an offence, he is being prosecuted for an offence under the law in force in India. The prosecution in India is not for the act which was made an offence under the law in force in foreign country, but for the act which is an offence as per the law in India. Identity of the offence is requisite for the application of Article 20(2). The previous prosecution and conviction or acquittal does not bar a subsequent prosecution and trial for a separate and distinct offence even though the two offences arise out of the same facts. In spite of the fact that the fourth respondent was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment in Abu Dhabi it is open to respondents 1 to 3 to register crime on the basis of Annexure I if the statements in Annexure I disclose commission of cognizable offence. Direction is given to respondents 2 and 3 to register crime against the fourth respondent on the basis of Annexure I and Annexure II to proceed with the investigation of the crime.
-
2002 (9) TMI 890 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the learned Magistrate is based on the evidence adduced by him and at that stage he did not hear the petitioner, it is open to the petitioner to show to the Magistrate that on the basis of the evidence adduced during trial, no case can be said to have been made out for proceeding against him. So when the liberty was given to the petitioner to raise the question of absence of evidence for taking resort to Section 319, the Court exempted personal appearance of the petitioner. 8. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature and gravity of the offence. I would hold that Section 88 of the Code cannot come to the aid of the petitioners and the Court below cannot be asked to let them off on taking bonds with or without sureties. 9. In the result, criminal misc. application fails and the same is dismissed. Learned trial Judge is directed to take steps in accordance with law to apprehend the petitioners if they or any of them have not entered appearance.
-
2002 (9) TMI 889 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... State of Bihar 2000 (8) SCC 655. 2. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner proceeds on a misconception. Bhumidhari right is not proprietary right but tenancy right. No doubt Bhumidhari right is a very high kind of tenancy right because it is heritable and transferable, nevertheless it is not proprietary right. The proprietor of the land is the State in whom the land vests under Section 4 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Thus, there is no force in this writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed.
-
2002 (9) TMI 888 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rendering it difficult, inappropriate as well as impossible too, to consider even one or more of them alone to either sufficiently constitute or provide the necessary basis to legitimately presume the guilt of the appellant. We could not resist but place on record that the appellant seems to have been roped in merely on suspicion and the story of the prosecution built on the materials placed seems to be neither the truth nor wholly the truth and the findings of the courts below, though seem to be concurrent, do not deserve the merit of acceptance or approval in our hands having regard to the glaring infirmities and illegalities vitiating them and patent errors apparent on the face of the record, resulting in serious and grave miscarriage of justice to the appellant. 19. For all the reasons stated above, the judgments of the courts below are set aside. The appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted and directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
-
2002 (9) TMI 887 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ule 2(1)(d)(xvii) and Section 65(41)(M) and Sections 69 and 70 of the Finance Act, 1994. However, I see prima facie force in the plea of the applicants that the show cause notices do not call upon them to show cause against recovery and collection of service tax, although, the notices state that the assessees are required to pay service tax in accordance with Section 68 and they have failed to deposit the service tax, the assessees have been called upon to show cause only as to why penalty should not be imposed upon them under Sections 76, 77 and 81 of Chapter X of Finance Act, 1994 and why interest should not be recovered from them for delayed payment of service tax. In the absence of any proposal for demanding service tax, I waive the requirement of pre-deposit of the service tax amounts as set out in Annexure 'A' together with interest payable thereon and stay recovery thereof, pending these appeals which are now listed for hearing or l-11-2002. (Dictated in Court)
........
|
