|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 576 Records
-
2005 (10) TMI 614 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s submitted that all these persons were in fact claiming that their respective appointments were regular appointments by the regular process of appointment but that instead of giving regular appointments they were appointed on contract with the intention of not paying them regular salary. It was admitted that the Petitions may be badly drafted and such a contention not put forth specifically. The High Court has disposed of these Petitions also on the footing that the principle of equal pay for equal work applied. We therefore set aside the impugned orders in these cases also and remit the matters back to the High Court for disposal. The High Court shall permit these Petitioners to amend their Petitions to make necessary averments and will also permit the Respondents in these cases to file replies to the amended Petitions. 23) With the above directions all these Appeals stand disposed off. All the matters are remitted back to the High Court. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2005 (10) TMI 613 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... extending protection to tenants. 21. We now come to the last contention of Mr. L.N. Rao that the first respondent is not entitled to maintain the writ petition as the proceedings initiated by him before the Collector for cancellation of the No Objection Certificate is pending. The said submission cannot be accepted. While granting NOC, the Collector is not concerned about the ownership of the land. He is concerned about the location of the land and its suitability as a place for storage of petroleum. Rule 144 deals with the grant of NOC does not contemplate an enquiry into the ownership of the land nor does it require the Collector to enquire into the nature of the right claimed by the person who has applied for the NOC. We, therefore, uphold the judgment and final order passed by the Division Bench dated 7.10.2003 in Writ Appeal Nos. 1149 2140 of 2002 for the reasons given by us in this judgment. 22. The appeal stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2005 (10) TMI 612 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n against it. 16. In the facts and circumstances, the plaintiff is liable for a direction to sue British Airways Plc as a single entity, a single defendant. However, the plaintiff shall be entitled to sue the said defendant giving its different offices and addresses where the alleged cause of action had arisen against it. The defendant No. 2 is also defendant No. 1, Therefore, both should be shown and impleaded as same defendant. To that extent, the application is allowed and the plaintiff is directed to amend its memo of parties showing British Airways Plc with its different addresses as defendant No. 1. Consequently the plaintiff is liable to amend the memo of parties and show defendant No. 1 and 2 as defendant No. 1 with different addresses and defendant Nos. 3 and 4 be also re-numbered as defendants No. 2 and 3. 17. The application is, thus, partly allowed and parties are directed to bear their own costs. Amended memo of parties be filed by the plaintiff within two weeks.
-
2005 (10) TMI 611 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... igh Court passed a specific order on 28.1.2002 by which D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 3 of 2001 was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh contempt petition. Once the contempt petition was dismissed as withdrawn, the earlier order passed in the said petition on 24.7.2001, wherein one month's time was given to comply with the order, ceased to be operative as all interim orders passed in a case ultimately get merged with the final order. The order dated 24.7.2001 cannot have any independent existence and cannot survive once the contempt petition itself was withdrawn and was dismissed. The Jaipur Municipal Corporation was ill-advised to file a review petition seeking review of the order dated 24.7.2001 when the main contempt petition itself had been dismissed on the prayer made by the writ petitioner (petitioner in the contempt petition). As such there is no occasion for review of the said order. 10. With the clarification as above, the appeal is disposed of.
-
2005 (10) TMI 610 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rom being a difficult job, often does not carry the same sense which the witness wants to convey. The convenience of the prosecuting agency, especially in a case where there are large number of witnesses and documents, has also an important bearing. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the case may be transferred to Pondicherry as there will be no difficulty in recording the evidence in the same language in which almost all the witnesses would depose and with which the presiding judge would be familiar. It is only at a short distance from Kanchipuram and the witnesses would not face much inconvenience in going there. 26. The transfer petition is accordingly allowed. The Sessions Case No. 197 of 2005 pending before the Principal Sessions Court, Chenglepet, is transferred to the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Pondicherry, who may either try the case himself or assign it to any other Sessions Judge competent to try the same. All applications stand disposed of.
-
2005 (10) TMI 609 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ad obtained the appointment on the basis of fraudulent claim. We, therefore, find that the petitioner's appointment, which was much prior to 28-11-2000 i.e. the date on which the judgment of the Apex Court was delivered in the case of State v. Milind (cited supra), is entitled to be protected in view of the observations of the Apex Court in the last paragraph of the said case. The petition is, therefore, partly allowed. Respondent No. 3 is directed to reinstate the services of the petitioner with continuity in service. It is, however, made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any back wages. It is further made clear that neither the petitioner nor his legal representatives would claim any of the benefits as are available to the members belonging to Scheduled Tribe in future. The petitioner is directed to file an undertaking to his employer to that effect. The petitioner is further directed to deposit his original Caste Certificate with the Issuing Authority.
-
2005 (10) TMI 608 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n it at the date when it was instituted. We are in complete agreement with these observations. As stated above, the Mysore Act now stands repelled. It could not be denied that now the Court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit. 13. It must lastly be mentioned that on 18th March, 2002, at the request of the Appellants, the name of Respondent No. 4 was deleted from the array of parties in this Appeal. Respondent No. 4 is the concerned Trust. It is not only a proper party but a necessary party. The whole dispute relates to the management of the trust and the properties of the trust. By deleting Respondent No. 4 the Appellants have deleted a proper and a necessary party. For that reason also, the Appeal is required to be dismissed. 14. For all the above reasons, the Appeal stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. 15. As the Suit is old, we direct the trial court to dispose of the Suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year from today.
-
2005 (10) TMI 607 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... The plaintiffs would obviously be liable to pay the court fee on final determination arrived at by the court upon true and correct rendition of accounts, as admittedly the defendants are carrying on the business, though their pleading is that the partnership has already been dissolved. 20. In the circumstances aforestated, I find no merit in this objection raised on behalf of the defendants. In view of my above detailed discussion, the applications of the defendants are partially allowed and the plaintiffs are directed to make good deficiency in payment of court fee in relation to the relief of mesne profits within one week from today. In the event the deficiency is not made good, the plaint of the plaintiffs shall be liable to be rejected under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Other objections are rejected. 21. IAs No. 3144/2005 and 3145/2005 are disposed of accordingly, while leaving the parties to bear their own costs in these applications.
-
2005 (10) TMI 606 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ply to the show cause notice taking up all contentions, both legal and factual, within a period of three weeks from today. Upon such reply being filed before the respondent No.3 authority, the said authority shall take into consideration the same in accordance with law, as well as, take into consideration the order dated 5/2/1998 made by respondent No.2 (Annexure “A”) and the appellate order dated 4/2/2003 made in appeal against the order of respondent No.4 dated 31/12/2000 (Annexure “D”). The respondent authority shall, after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, frame a draft adjudication order which shall be placed on record of the petition and shall not be served on the petitioner without prior permission of the Court. The respondent shall complete the exercise within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the reply to the show cause notice tendered by the petitioner. Matter to be listed on 19th January 2006.
-
2005 (10) TMI 605 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... aintiff-appellant was liable to pay. Applying the principles of liberal construction and the admission of jural relationship between the parties, I am of the considered view that these two letters Exs.P10 and P11 constituted acknowledgement in writing within the meaning of Section 18 of the Act and, therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant must be held to be within time. Accordingly, the view taken by the lower Appellate Court cannot be accepted and the same is hereby reversed. 9. For the reasons aforementioned, this appeal succeeds. The judgment and decree passed by the learned lower Appellate Court in respect of findings on the question of limitation are hereby set aside. The suit of the plaintiff-appellant for a sum of ₹ 1,25,000/- as found due by the Courts below is decreed with interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from 1.8.1983 till its actual payment. The plaintiff-appellant shall also be entitled to costs which is determined at ₹ 5,000/-
-
2005 (10) TMI 604 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... irect the State Government to make a Reference under Section 10, to the appropriate Court, within a period of three months from today. A copy of this Order to be sent to the State Government forthwith. The Respondent will be at liberty to apply for interim relief before that Court. Such application, if made, will undoubtedly be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law. The Appellants are directed to maintain status quo for a period of four months from today. 6. We clarify that if any back-wages have been paid, they shall not be recovered. If, however, they have not been paid there will now be no question of paying the same. 7. It must also be clarified that Mr. Jain has based his submission on the basis that according to the Appellants, they are an industry. The Appellants will therefore not contend nor be allowed to contend before the appropriate Court that they are not an industry. 8. The Appeals stand disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2005 (10) TMI 603 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ied that the respondents will not be entitled to any further emoluments or service benefits except the amount paid to them as back-wages. 5. In our view, as the Civil Court had no jurisdiction, the decrees which were passed have no force of law. They are accordingly set aside. In our view, there can be no direction to reinstate or to continue reinstatement. However, on the facts of these cases we also direct that if any back-wages have been paid, they shall not be recovered but clarify that the respondents will not be entitled to any further emoluments or service benefits. 6. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. 7. Before we part, we clarify that in the event of the respondents or any of them deeming it fit and proper to raise a dispute, the period actually spent in litigation, i.e., from the date of the filing of the suit till the date of this judgment, will be excluded for the purposes of considering the delay in filing the dispute.
-
2005 (10) TMI 602 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Petitioner does not have the property or that the Petitioner was not competent to enter into an agreement to sell or could not have transferred title in the property to the Respondent. Merely because an agreement to sell was entered into which agreement the Petitioner failed to honour, it cannot be said that the Petitioner has cheated the Respondent. No case for prosecution Under Section 420 or Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is made out even prima facie. The complaint filed by the Respondent and that too at Madhepura against the Petitioner, who is a resident of Delhi, seems to be an attempt to pressurize the Petitioner for coming to terms with the Respondent. 7. The petition is allowed. The complaint filed by the Respondent in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Madhepura and registered as Complaint No. 120-C/2000 is directed to be quashed. Needless to say, the Respondent is at liberty to pursue such other remedy under the civil law as may be available to him.
-
2005 (10) TMI 601 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... in filings/refiling the appeal. Applications for condonation of delay are dismissed. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
2005 (10) TMI 600 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , letter of the Officiating Chief Record Officer for Commanding Officer dated 4.12.1996. A bare perusal of the letter shows that nowhere was it indicated that the appellant was to be paid for the period he was absent from duty. It merely stated that the claims and dues admissible will be settled after the Government sanction is received. This only was an indication that only after the Government sanction for regularization is received the claim will be settled. Nowhere there was admission of the entitlement of the appellant. In any event the appellant having not rendered service, the question of inclusion of the period, does not arise and if the said period is excluded then the inevitable conclusion is that the appellant has not rendered the requisite period i.e. service of 15 years in order to be entitled to pension. 6. Looked from any angle the High Court's order does not suffer from any infirmity. 7. The appeal deserves to be dismissed which we direct. Costs made easy.
-
2005 (10) TMI 599 - SUPREME COURT
Power of Magistrate to cancel the bail granted - Challenged the bail cancellation order passed - Offences under Section 120B and 307 IPC - HELD THAT:- The plea of the appellant's learned Counsel is that if the Sessions Court had granted bail, the order of cancellation of such bail should also have been passed by the Sessions Court or by any superior Court and not by the learned Magistrate who is not empowered to cancel it. As a general proposition, the plea raised by the appellant is correct. It is equally true that the accused who is on bail, should be heard before an order of cancellation of bail is passed by the Court.
The order of the Sessions Court shows that the learned Magistrate has been empowered to consider the question of violation of any of the conditions imposed by the Sessions Court and was given powers to pass appropriate orders. The plea raised by the appellant's learned Counsel is that when the learned Magistrate had no such power, the Sessions Court was not empowered to invest that power in the Magistrate. We do not find any force in this contention. The superior court can always give directions of this nature and authorise the subordinate court to pass appropriate orders and the trial Magistrate would be the competent authority to decide whether any condition had been violated by the person who had been released on bail. When there is a specific direction to pass appropriate orders as if the conditions for granting bail had been imposed by the learned Magistrate himself, the impugned Order is legal and valid.
The contention of learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant was in prison in connection with another case and that is why he could not appear before the Investigating Officer, does not appear to be true as such a plea was not raised before the learned Magistrate. The learned Counsel for the appellant only contended before the learned Magistrate that he apprehended assault at the hands of the police and, therefore, he refrained from making himself available before the investigating officer. The learned Magistrate rightly rejected this plea. The Order passed by the learned Magistrate was correct and the High Court has rightly rejected the Revision filed by the appellant.
We see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
2005 (10) TMI 598 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ried out so as to make a recipient of services rendered by clearing and forwarding agents an assessee liable to pay tax under Service Tax Act. These amendments were challenged before the Supreme Court. The Court while dealing with these challenges in the case of Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. v. Union of India 2005 (182) E.L.T. 33 (S.C.) upheld the Constitutional validity of these amendments and ruled “Furthermore the liability to pay interest or penalty on outstanding amount will arise only if the dues are not paid within the period of two weeks from the order passed by this Court on 17th November, 2003”. In the light of these observations of the Court and in view of the fact that tax was paid in this case on 18-11-03 the order of the Commissioner to the extent that it confirmed penalties and interest imposed on the appellant by the lower authority is set aside. Thus the appeal is partly allowed Service tax has been rightly demanded. Penalty and interest set aside.
-
2005 (10) TMI 597 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... he agreement provided "Thus agreement and all questions arising out of under this agreement shall be governed by any interpreted in accordance with the laws of Republic of India". 12. I observe that Article 9.1(a) of the said agreement provided for deduction of withholding tax in India. Withholding tax refers to income taxation and this article cannot be interpreted have authorised the appellant to pay service tax on behalf of the service provider, M/s. SWS Japan. Article 26 of the agreement provided that all questions arising out of under this agreement shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Republic of India. This article too cannot be said to have placed a burden on the appellants to pay service tax, which primarily is a burden on the service provider. 6. In view of the reasoning given by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), we find no merit in the appeal of Revenue and the same is rejected. (Dictated & pronounced in the open Court).
-
2005 (10) TMI 596 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ery Pie of the Bank is public money and that it is not a fit case for preferring Appeal in view of the categorical findings recorded by the Trial Court. Before giving opinion to file this appeal by spending huge money, the Bank officers should have been more careful in scrutinizing the documents with reference to the findings and reasons recorded by the Trial Court and thereafter should have taken decision in the matter for filing this Appeal. 29. For the reasons stated supra, we do not find any good reason whatsoever to interfere with the judgment and decree challenged in this appeal. Though it is a fit case to impose exemplary cost payable by the persons who are responsible for taking decision for filing this appeal, we refrain from doing so as we are dismissing this appeal. 30. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 31. The Registry is directed to send the copy of this Judgment to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Bank for his perusal and to take corrective measures.
-
2005 (10) TMI 595 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... thin a short span of time unless there were valid grounds giving rise to a tenable case for bail. Of course, the principles of res judicata are not applicable to bail applications, but the repeated filing of the bail applications without there being any change of circumstances would lead to bad precedents. There are strong allegations against the respondent but we do not propose to advert to any of the evidence collected against him. Though the respondent's name was not mentioned in the FIR, it is alleged that he is one of the conspirators and he had a motive to do away with one of the deceased persons. In the above circumstances, we allow this appeal, set aside the order passed by learned Single Judge and direct that respondent be taken into custody forthwith. We further direct that as the final report has already been filed in the case, and if the case already stands committed to the Sessions Court, the Sessions Judge may complete the trial as expeditiously as possible.
........
|
