|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 663 Records
-
2004 (8) TMI 775
... ...
... ... ..... h July, 2004, prayed for withdrawal of the writ petition so as to make appropriate representation to the respondent No.7 for redressal of their grievances. 2. The learned counsel for the respondents have no objection to the course suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The petition is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty as prayed. Certified copy expedited.
-
2004 (8) TMI 774
... ...
... ... ..... refore, from that point of view also, the decree in question dtd. 14.1.1970 was executable decree though in nature it might be a declaratory decree and hence the findings of the learned Executing court that the decree dtd. 14.1.1970 passed by the learned Dist. Judge, Merta was executable are liable to be confirmed one and the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners - judgment debtors that the decree dtd. 14.1.1970 passed by the learned Dist. Judge, Merta is not executable also stands rejected and the same was rightly rejected by the learned Executing Court. 35. For the reasons mentioned above, the order dtd. 18.5.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Merta does not suffer form any basis infirmity or illegality and hence the same does not require any interference by this Court and the present revision petition filed by the petitioners - judgment debtors deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2004 (8) TMI 773
... ...
... ... ..... and proper to allow the prayer of the Investigating Officer for police custody of the accused person in the circumstances stated above. 28. As regards the highhanded activities of the CID officers in refusing to accept the release order of the accused persons in spite of repeated approach and keeping the accused persons in wrongful confinement, as pointed out by Mr. Bose, learned advocate of the accused, it will not be proper for this Court to make any observation as the matter is under consideration of the learned Session Judge, who will take appropriate steps in that regard if such allegations are found to be correct. 29. In view of the discussion made above, the revisional application fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. The order dated 3.8.2004 passed by the learned SDJM, Alipore is hereby affirmed. 30. Criminal section is directed to supply the certified copy of this order to the learned advocates of the respective parties in course of this week on urgent basis.
-
2004 (8) TMI 772
... ...
... ... ..... rs with this petition, show that the petitioners made a note thereon that they were received by them on May 8, 2003. But, that cannot be taken into consideration for deciding this petition. Date of receipt of notice contained on the postal acknowledgements of the statutory notice sent by respondents Nos. 2 to 4 can be verified by the trial court. Irrespective of the date of receipt of statutory notice mentioned in the complaint, the court also has a duty to verify the date of receipt of notice, if any, contained on the postal acknowledgement, because the court has to be satisfied that the complaint is filed within the period of limitation. Therefore, the petitioners are at liberty to request the trial court to decide the question of limitation before it. 10. For the above reasons, I find no grounds to quash the complaint. As stated above the petitioners are at liberty to approach the trial court for deciding the question of limitation. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
-
2004 (8) TMI 771
... ...
... ... ..... nitial burden of rebutting the presumption under the provisions of Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was discharged. The trial Court had held that the cheques were issued on account of jaggery purchased by the defendants. Even if, this finding is negatived, the presumption under the provisions of Section 118 of the Act continued to exist as there was no material to hold that this presumption had been rebutted by the defendants showing preponderance of probabilities in their favour. Thus, even after examining the evidence on record as desired by the learned counsel for the respondent, it cannot be said that the presumption about existence of the consideration stood rebutted. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 29-9- 1990 passed by the first appellate Court is set aside and the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 19-9-1987 is restored. The respondents shall pay the cost to the appellant throughout and shall bear their own.
-
2004 (8) TMI 770
... ...
... ... ..... pinion, that the plaintiff has proved the case regarding the passing of consideration under Ex.A1, which should follow the plaintiff is entitled to decree as prayed for. Though the defendants have claimed benefits under the Debt Reliefs Act, the same was negatived, not challenged before us. 28. The trial Court unfortunately without considering the case from its proper prospective on the legal position correctly, committed an error, in coming to the conclusion that Ex.A1 is not supported by consideration. In this view, the findings of the trial Court regarding Ex.A1 should be reversed and the suit should be decreed as prayed for. For that purpose, setting aside of the lower Court Judgment is an absolute one and the appeal deserves acceptance. In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the Judgment and decree of the trial Court in O.S. No. 78/84, thereby passing a preliminary in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for, with costs throughout. Time for payment three months.
-
2004 (8) TMI 769
... ...
... ... ..... n be deemed to have been covered under the exempted category in terms of the then regulation 3(1)(c) of the Takeover Regulations. However, the shares so acquired would need to be subjected to an appropriate lock in requirement. 6. ORDER 6.1 In the light of the above findings, and in exercise of the powers conferred upon me under Section 19 of SEBI Act, 1992 read with Regulation 44 and 45 of the Takeover Regulations, I hereby direct that the report submitted by the Acquirers on August 27, 2003 regarding acquisition of shares in Rajapalayam Mills Ltd on preferential basis by its promoters viz. Ramco Industries Ltd, Shri P R Ramasubrahmaneya Rajha and Shri P R Venketrama Raja be taken on record. I also hereby direct that the equity shares allotted by Rajapalayam Mills Ltd on August 21, 2003 to Ramco Industries Ltd., Shri P R Ramasubrahmaneya Rajha and Shri Venketrama Raja through conversion of warrants, be subjected to lock in of 3 years from the date of allotment of the shares.
-
2004 (8) TMI 768
... ...
... ... ..... heque issued by the wife as a guarantee for the due payment of the instalments in respect of a vehicle loan was found to be duly supported by consideration. Hence, going by the case of the accused, an offence under Section 138 of the Act is made out. 7. Hence, this is a case where the order of acquittal has to be reversed. As there is no other contention, necessarily, the reversal of acquittal shall end in conviction as well. The amount of the cheque is Rs. 80,000/-. 8. Accordingly, the accused/respondent is found guilty and she is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a day until the rising of the Court and to pay a compensation of Rs. 85,000/- within a period of two months. The Court below shall ensure that the aforesaid sentence is suffered by the accused. The non-payment of the compensation shall result in simple imprisonment for three months. The amount, if realised, shall be paid to the complainant. Appeal is disposed of as above. A reproduction from ILR (Kerala Series)
-
2004 (8) TMI 767
... ...
... ... ..... Even today Appellant could not inform us whether any clearance has been obtained from the High Powered Committee. In any event, we find that identical Appeals have been dismissed on 13th July, 2004. Accordingly, we dismiss these Appeals.
-
2004 (8) TMI 766
... ...
... ... ..... at the appellant had split the tenancy and had asked for possession of a portion of the tenanted premises. The High Court has also erred in holding that the tenancy had not been validly terminated by serving a notice in accordance with law. For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is restored. The suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant stands decreed and the appellant would be entitled to take possession of the demised premises. Appeal is allowed with no order as to costs. Keeping in view that the respondent is carrying on manufacturing activities in the demised premises his dispossession is stayed till 31.5.2005 provided he files an undertaking within a period of three weeks from today to vacate the premises and hand over possession of the same to the appellant on or before 31.5.2005. Further he is required to deposit arrears of rent, if any, and undertake to pay the rent in future as well.
-
2004 (8) TMI 765
... ...
... ... ..... ut of the question which is based upon the interpretation of law for being answered by the High Court, such is not the case here. In the opinion of assessing officer the assessee made certain concealment. The assessee came with an explanation and the same was accepted. It is in our opinion, a question of fact. It does not involve any issue of importance as such. A grant of imposition of penalty on the assessee is essentially a question of discussion. If proper explanation was offered and the same was accepted by the Tribunal, this court would not like to disturb such finding in exercise of their jurisdiction conferred upon them under section 256(1) of the Act. The Tribunal has rightly declined to refer the question proposed by the revenue to High Court to examine such question which does not involve any issue of law. 5. We are respectfully agreeing with the reasoning assigned by the Tribunal, as a consequence, the application fails and is hereby dismissed in limine. No costs.
-
2004 (8) TMI 764
... ...
... ... ..... ot;It is not of much use to compare a signature of a person said to have been made in 1950 with that made six years earlier in 1944 as there is likely to be some change in the signature". 5. Coming to the facts on hand, the disputed signatures are of the year 1995 and whereas the specimen signatures are of the year 2004, there is a gap of nearly nine years between the two signatures. So far as signatures of the petitioners appearing in written statement etc., there is every possibility of his disguising his style of signature so as to make them dissimilar with the disputed signatures. Since there are no contemporaneous signatures for comparison with the disputed signatures, there is no useful purpose in sending the suit documents to an expert for his opinion. The Trial Court considered the matter in right perspective and dismissed the application. I do not see any valid ground to interfere with the impugned order. 6. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed.
-
2004 (8) TMI 763
... ...
... ... ..... nfortunate litigation, we direct as follows The Registry of this Court to pay to the Appellants a sum of Rs. 28 lacs, with accrued interest thereon, from out of the amount deposited by the 3rd Respondent in this Court pursuant to the Order dated 14th January, 2002. The balance of the amounts so deposited, along with interest accrued thereon, to be returned to the 3rd Respondent, The 3rd Respondent is also in possession of 63600 shares of the 2nd Respondent. The Transfer Forms for such shares are in the name of the 3rd Respondent. The 3rd Respondent is directed to sell these shares in consultation with the Advocate-on-Record of the Appellants. The sale proceeds thereof to be handed over to the Appellants. On payment of this amount of Rs. 28 lacs with accrued interest thereon and on sale of the 63600 shares, the 3rd Respondent shall stand discharged of its liability under the Letter of Credit, The Appeals stand disposed of in the above terms. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2004 (8) TMI 762
... ...
... ... ..... rts are precluded from doing so merely because the Labour Court has on an erroneous ground has reduced such back wages. In the instant case, we have noticed that the trial court apart from generally observing that in Ludhiana, there must have been job opportunities available, on facts it did not rely upon any particular material to hold either such job was in fact available to the respondent and he refused to accept the same or he was otherwise gainfully employed during the period he was kept out of work. On the contrary, it is for the first time before the writ court the appellant tried to produce additional evidence which was rightly not considered by the High Court because the same was not brought on record in a manner known to law. Be that as it may, in the instant case we are satisfied that the High Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled to full back wages. For the reasons stated above these appeals fail and the same are dismissed.
-
2004 (8) TMI 761
... ...
... ... ..... hority has been presented by the Inquiry Officer, by conducting regular examination-in-chief of prosecution witnesses by taking them through the prosecution case. The Inquiry Officer has also conducted regular cross-examination of the defence witnesses. This is not a case where the Inquiry Officer merely put a few questions to clarify certain aspects. The Inquiry Officer has put questions to present the prosecution case and make out the prosecution case. Leading questions suggestive of answers have been put to the prosecution witnesses. The fact that Inquiry Officer acted as the Presenting Officer is not seriously disputed. In fact it is sought to be justified as permissible as per Railway Board circulars. In the circumstances, we find that the inquiry was vitiated. 18. We find no error in the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has reserved liberty to petitioners to resume the inquiry from the stage of appointment of Presenting Officer. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
-
2004 (8) TMI 760
... ...
... ... ..... onduct which, in our considered view, is not permissible in law. 9. As we have already observed hereinabove, after 15th June, 1986, the respondent lost the legal right to proceed with the departmental enquiry against the petitioner by virtue of the specific order dated 24-3-1986 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 598 of 1986 and therefore, the question of starting new enquiry by fresh charge sheet dated 9-3-1988 on the same set of charges and for the same misconduct, does not arise. 10. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the charge sheet dated 9-2-1988 issued by the respondent is unsustainable in law. Similarly, the letters dated 15-4-1989 as well as 3-9-1990 which are impugned in this writ petition are also unsustainable in law. 11. In the circumstances, the charge sheet dated 9-2-1989 and letters dated 15-4-1989 and 3-9-1990 are quashed and set aside. Writ Petition is allowed in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2004 (8) TMI 759
... ...
... ... ..... ng him to give secondary evidence, objection must be taken at the time of admission and such objection will not be allowed at a later stage. 15. In the present case, when the plaintiff submitted a certified copy of the sale deed (Ex.P1) in evidence and when the sale deed was taken on record and marked as an exhibit, the appellant did not raise any objection. Even execution of Ex.P2 was not challenged. In the circumstances, it was not open to the appellant to object to the mode of proof before the lower appellate Court. If the objection had been taken at the trial stage, the plaintiff could have met it by calling for the original sale deed which was on record in collateral proceedings. But as there was no objection from the appellant, the sale deed dated 14.11.1944 was marked as Ex.P1 and it was admitted to the record without objection. 13. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this civil appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.
-
2004 (8) TMI 758
... ...
... ... ..... for coming to the aforesaid conclusion. Such an interpretation would defeat the object of insertion of the provision in Act. Section 138 does not call for such a narrow construction. The approach to be kept in view construing Section 138, has been discussed in detail by this Court in Goaplast (P) Ltd. v. Chico Ursula D'Souza, 2003(2) Criminal Court Cases 450 (S.C.) 2003(4) CTC 628 2003(3) SCC 232. The High Court did not examine the merits while deciding Criminal Appeal No. 317 of 2002 in view of its opinion that Section 138 would not apply where cheque is issued from a closed bank account. 3. For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and remit the aforesaid Criminal Appeal for its fresh decision, on merits, in accordance with law. We express to opinion on merits. All the pleas would be open to be urged before the High Court. The High Court is requested to decide the Criminal Appeal expeditiously. 4. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
-
2004 (8) TMI 757
... ...
... ... ..... nce with law. 8. It was also submitted by Mr. Somasekhar, counsel for the appellant, that it is common ground that the appellants had informed the Managing Director of the target company on the same day and therefore the information was deemed to have been given to the company. However, informing the MD is not informing the company. This factor would, however, indicate that there was no deliberate intention to suppress information to the company. The Adjudicating Officer records that the Managing Director was informed of the acquisition and had this in mind while imposing a limited penalty. But unfortunately the Adjudicating Officer did not refer to the section as it then was. 9. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to modify the penalty from ₹ 50,000 each to ₹ 15,000 to each of the appellants. The amount shall be deposited with respondent within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 10. The appeals are partly allowed. 11. No order as to costs.
-
2004 (8) TMI 756
... ...
... ... ..... ureties a period of three months shall be given to the petitioners to go abroad. (v) On furnishing of the necessary sureties and bonds as also the undertaking with the conditions afore-noticed and fixing the time for return of the petitioners, the passport of the petitioners shall be released to them and they would be permitted to go abroad. (vi) On return, the petitioners shall continue to be bound by the old bonds and conditions imposed while releasing the petitioners on bail and the conditions imposed for their going abroad shall cease to be operative. (vii) During the period, the petitioners are abroad their personal appearance shall be exempted and they shall be permitted to appear through their counsel. 15. With the above observations, the criminal miscellaneous petitions stand disposed of. 16. Thereafter, the petitioners shall be at liberty to approach the trial Magistrate for further permission to go abroad and their request shall be considered in accordance with law.
........
|
