|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 148 Records
-
1982 (10) TMI 224 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hich alone permits the presumption to be raised. Facts in this case being a demand and voluntarily acceptance, the presumption would squarely arise and has been rightly raised. 22. Reliance was also placed on the decision of this Court in Sultan Singh v. State of Rajasthan Crl. Appeal No. 26 of 1967 decided on July 28,1969. In that case the explanation of the appellant was that Rs. 100 was paid to him towards the arrears of revenue and in the absence of reliable evidence to the contrary the explanation was held acceptable. This is a decision on the facts of that case and would be hardly of any assistance in dealing with the points raised in this case. 23. Therefore, the charge is brought home to the accused and he has been rightly convicted and the sentence awarded being the minimum, no case is made out for interfering with the same. 24. Accordingly this appeal fails and is dismissed. The bail bond of the appellant is cancelled and he must surrender to serve out the sentence.
-
1982 (10) TMI 223 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... only absence of reasonable precaution but absence of any precaution whatsoever which normally a person engaged in transport business would be expected to take. It is agreed that in the premises where the goods were stocked there were no fire extinguishers, there were no buckets with sand and there was not even a watchman. It is the watchman in the neighbouring premises who was good enough to notify about the fire long after the fire started. That was responsible for inviting the fire fighting force to the place. The officers of the Defendant company reached the place long thereafter. That shows that no precaution had been attempted against the possibility of a fire. In this view the above said clause cannot be invoked by the Defendant and the Defendant would be liable to answer the plaint claim. We therefore hold in agreement with the court below that the Plaintiff is entitled to the decree sought. No interference is called for in appeal. The appeal is dismissed, with costs.
-
1982 (10) TMI 222 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... onsideration in the present writ application. It appears however that the lands appertaining to khata No. 431 were settled with another deity named Khetrapala Thakurani. Be that as it may, where a Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide a matter, it does not lose its jurisdiction by passing its decision upon an incorrect determination of any question of fact or law. The decision must be regarded as valid so long as it is not set aside or declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction. The order of settlement dated 2-4-66 was not reversed by appeal of revision. The power of review under Section 38-A of the O. E. A. Act and the inherent power under Section 151 C. P. C. were not available to be exercised. The Tribunal could not thereafter recall or ignore its own order. 15. In the premises aforesaid, the writ application be allowed and the orders in Annexures 1 and 2 be quashed. In the circumstances of the case, we do not make any order as to costs. B.N. Misra, J. 16. I agree
-
1982 (10) TMI 221 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed from time to time on the basis of a preliminary charge-sheet without taking cognizance. I may also take note of the fact that after 30-1-1982, this Petitioner filed an application for bail before this Court registered as Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 345 of 1982. By order dated 26-2-1982 this Court rejected his prayer for bail. The Petitioner did not urge then the contentions now raised in this application. In my opinion, though there is no res judicata or estoppel in matters of bail and an accused can file successive applications the subsequent application can be founded on account of subsequent events or further materials. Such contention has been raised. 9. As I hold, agreeing with the learned Standing Counsel, that investigation, in fact, had been completed, the statement in the charge-sheet was under a misconception. The Petitioner was not entailed to bail under Section 167(2) Proviso. In the result, I find no merit in this application which is accordingly rejected.
-
1982 (10) TMI 220 - ITAT JAIPUR
... ...
... ... ..... ITO accepted four of the items as disclosed by the assessee and the fifth one is an automatic resultant. In this case it so happened that the opening stock, the purchases, the sales and the gross profit have been accepted and, therefore, the fifth resultant factor, namely, the closing stock has to be accepted. 3. I may also add that the exercise of the ITO in tinkering with the closing stock is futile, inasmuch as, the closing stock of this year will have to be taken as opening stock of the next year and this process goes on with no benefit to the revenue. In a case of this nature, the only and proper method would be to find out whether the gross profit disclosed by an assessee is reasonable. Once it is found that the gross profit disclosed is reasonable, by and large, nothing further need be made unless there are very compelling circumstances. Per Shri Om Prakash, Judicial Member - I concur with the conclusions reached by the learned Accountant Member and the Vice President.
-
1982 (10) TMI 219 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e may be rendered to both the parties. 8. We accordingly allow this appeal and modify the judgment of the High Court as under The respondent in conformity with the judgment of the High Court shall be treated in service ignoring the order of termination. However, he would not be entitled to salary or wages for the period from August 31, 1965, till the date of his reinstatement. But when he is reinstated pursuant to this judgment his monthly salary should be so fixed in the relevant scale as if he was throughout in service from August 31, 1965, till reinstatement which means that he would be given all the increments due to him. This would relieve some hardship to the respondent. Rest of the judgment of the High Court is set aside save and except a paltry amount decreed by the trial court shall be paid to the respondent. The respondent must report for duty pursuant to this judgment within two weeks from today. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.
-
1982 (10) TMI 218 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... dents were very keen to get the appeal expeditiously disposed of, they could have been called upon to supply the paper-books and costs could have been imposed on the appellants. Instead of this permissible mode of achieving the end, the High Court has imposed a penalty which we find disproportionate to the gravity of the omission. Access to justice cannot be thwarted in this manner. Therefore, we are constrained to interfere in this matter. V 8. We are assured that the paper-books have been supplied by the appellants. Therefore, the appeal can now be expeditiously disposed of. 9. We accordingly allow this, appeal, set aside the order of dismissal of the Appeal No. 14/79 dated June 19, 1979 and remit the case to the High Court and restore the appeal to the file of the High Court. It would be open to the High Court to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as it considers proper and as suits its convenience. In the circumstances of the case there would be no order as to costs.
-
1982 (10) TMI 217 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n to the workers without an order from the committee of management. 155. There will be an order in terms of prayer(n) of the petition. There will also be an injunction restraining the present board of directors from functioning until the committee of management is appointed. After the election of the new board, the existing board shall stand superseded. 156. Respondent No. 1 and its existing shareholders are directed not to take any steps for the purpose of implementing the operative part of my judgment and order for a period of two weeks after the reopening and there will be a stay of the operation of my order with regard to the committee of management for the same period in regard to the transfer of shares. 157. I make it clear that the injunction on the executives, mentioned above, will continue. 158. The contesting respondents are directed to pay the costs of this application to the petitioners. 159. All parties to act on a signed copy of the operative part of the order.
-
1982 (10) TMI 216 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , included in the valuation for the purpose of computation of the levy. 19. We may mention that we do not consider it necessary to refer to and consider the decision in Alembic Glass (supra) and every other judgment on the point of packing material as the reasoning reflected hereinabove, which is the fundamental basis of our decision, has not been considered therein. 20. The curtain cannot be dropped till we observe that in case we had sustained any of the contentions urged by Counsel for petitioners would have directed refund of the amount to the buyer or directed the same to be deposited in a Bank Account for the benefit of the consumers instead of allowing the petitioners to secure unjust enrichment. In the view we are taking, the question does not arise. 21. In the result, we see no substance in any of the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners. The petitions are rejected. Rule is discharged and interim orders are vacated in each matter. No order regarding costs.
-
1982 (10) TMI 215 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ting the same vacated. In any case sufficient protection has been provided by Section 19 of the Act. After getting the premises vacated the landlord is required to occupy the same within two months of obtaining possession and to retain the same for a period of at least three years. The landlord is not entitled to relet or transfer the said property. In case the respondent does not occupy the premises within two months of obtaining possession from the appellant, the appellant-tenant would be entitled to make an application for getting back the possession from the respondent under Section 19(2) of the Act.In any case the Controller and the Tribunal have concurrently held that the requirement of the respondent was bona fide. This is a finding of fact and no question of law is involved. (8) There is no infirmity in the judgment and order of the Tribunal confirming the order of eviction, passed against the appellant. The appeal, is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
1982 (10) TMI 214 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nd interest at quarterly basis on agricultural loans and advances notwithstanding the Reserve Bank circulars issued from the time to time prohibiting such compounding of interest. It is not one or two isolated cases of inadvertence or mistake which troubled us, but it is persistent and widespread tardiness which caused serious misgivings in our minds. We do not know whether it is due to communication gap or any other contributing factor like lack of supervision or callousness. It is for the Reserve Bank which is charged with the duty to control banking transactions, to find out the cause and suggest remedies. 49. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Governor of the Reserve Bank. 50. Mr. Shaker for the bank seeks a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court. We do not think that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance which needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. The certificate prayed for is therefore refused. 51. Appeal allowed.
-
1982 (10) TMI 213 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... or and only a small fraction of the claim of the 2nd secured creditor which is a public institution and a nationalised Bank should be met. if possible. Having regard to that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that there is no discretion about either granting or non-granting of interest but as to the rate there is the discretion of the Court. 7. Having regard to the fact that the learned Judge has already passed an Order granting interest UD to August, 1977 we direct that interest at half percent per annum should be granted during the pendency of the litigation, that is to say from August, 1877 up to 14th December, 1978 and thereafter there would be no interest. The order of the learned trial Judge is modified to that extent. 8. The parties shall pay and bear their own casts but the Official Liquidator will retain his cost out of the assets in his hands. 9. As we do not find any reason to stay the order, the stay asked for is refused. Suhas Chandra Sen, J. 10. I agree.
-
1982 (10) TMI 212 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... itioner is reduced to the period already undergone and if the fine of ₹ 50/-, imposed is set aside. The revision is dismissed subject to the modification as stated above." We are unable to understand why the High Court reduced the sentence. The statute prescribes a minimum sentence. It does not provide for any exceptions and does not vest the Court with any discretion to award a sentence below the prescribed minimum under any special circumstances. The learned judge has himself noticed that the sentence imposed is the statutory minimum. Having noticed that the statute prescribes a minimum sentence for the offence, the High Court has ununderstably reduced the sentence of imprisonment to less than the minimum permissible. The High Court was clearly in error in doing so. We think we have said enough to correct the error. It is unnecessary to pursue the matter further by granting special leave. The petition is dismissed with the above observations. Petition dismissed.
-
1982 (10) TMI 211 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n to the workers without an order from the committee of management. 155. There will be an order in terms of prayer(n) of the petition. There will also be an injunction restraining the present board of directors from functioning until the committee of management is appointed. After the election of the new board, the existing board shall stand superseded. 156. Respondent No. 1 and its existing shareholders are directed not to take any steps for the purpose of implementing the operative part of my judgment and order for a period of two weeks after the reopening and there will be a stay of the operation of my order with regard to the committee of management for the same period in regard to the transfer of shares. 157. I make it clear that the injunction on the executives, mentioned above, will continue. 158. The contesting respondents are directed to pay the costs of this application to the petitioners. 159. All parties to act on a signed copy of the operative part of the order.
-
1982 (10) TMI 210 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... unity was given before taking the decision not to renew the licence though it is admitted that for the reasons hereinbefore set out the licence was not renewed. Such a decision in violation of the minimum principle of natural justice would be void. Now, it is true that no specific order is made setting out the reasons for refusal to renew the licence. But the action of sealing the premises for carrying on the business without a licence clearly implies that there was refusal to renew the licence and the reasons are now disclosed. And the action disclosing the decision being in violation of the principle of natural justice, deserves to be quashed. 6. On this short ground this petition succeeds and the rule is made absolute. 7. It would be open to the respondent Corporation to proceed according to law before taking any decision resulting in refusal to renew the licence. The interim order made by this Court shall remain in Operation till the Corporation takes its fresh decision.
-
1982 (10) TMI 209 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... res that during the pendency of the appeal the operation of an order having serious civil consequences must be suspended. More so when appeal is admitted. Previous history of litigation cannot be overlooked. And it is not seriously disputed that the whole of the building, Hari Bhawan, except one room in dispute is in possession of the Corporation. We accordingly suspend the operation of the order dated 6th August 1982 directing the appellants to handover the possession of the room to the respondents till the disposal of the first appeal against that order pending in the High Court of Allahabad. Mr. Manoj Swarup requests that both the earlier and later Appeals should be heard together as early as possible, We order accordingly and request the High Court if it considers proper in its own discretion to hear both the appeals as expeditiously as possible in order to avoid the continuance of the boiling situation. The appeal stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1982 (10) TMI 208 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... -General who appeared for the respondents and with his atypical fairness he stated that there are still number of posts of Junior Engineer for which the requisition is pending with the Commission. In order to do justice between the parties and not to leave the appellants, fresh young engineering graduates, in lurch, we direct that the commission shall proceed to finalise the list of selection on the basis of the viva voce tests conducted and marks assigned and forward the same to the Government within two months from today. If the appellants or any one of them fall within the zone of selection, they must be first appointed according to their place in the select list before any outsider is appointed hereafter to the post of the Junior Engineer in any branch of Andhra Pradesh Engineering Service and this must be irrespective of the Department in which post of Junior Engineer is available. The appeal to the extent herein indicated is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1982 (10) TMI 207 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... dence. In the instant case it has not been established, before us that the findings recorded by the competent authorities under the Act are vitiated on any of the grounds mentioned above. In the circumstances we are unable to agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the findings arrived at by the authorities below that the confiscated gold pieces constitute primary gold is illegal or unsustainable. It has not been disputed that, when once it is found that the confiscated gold pieces constitute primary gold, there would be contravention of Sections 8 and 10 of the said Act. If so, it follows that the order directing confiscation of the gold pieces giving an option to the petitioner and others to redeem the articles on payment of fine of ₹ 18,000/- is legal, proper and valid and the same cannot be interfered with. 7. For all the foregoing reasons, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1982 (10) TMI 206 - SUPREME COURT
Whether such delay was justified by existence of any exceptional circumstances as required by s. 3 (3) of the COFEPOSA for in the absence of exceptional circumstances delay beyond normal period of five days would be a breach of the constitutional as well as the legislative mandate?
Held that:- In the instant case, for instance, if the alleged exceptional circumstances were communicated to the detenu at the time of the delayed supply of the concerned documents and statements in Urdu language he could have satisfied the superior authority or the Advisory Board that the exceptional circumstances did not really obtain in the case and the delay had vitiated his detention. In other words, what he has done before the Court now, he could have done before the superior authorities or the Advisory Board. In our view, therefore, the impugned failure in this case constitutes another breach of the safeguard contained in Art. 22(5) read with s. 3(3) of the COFEPOSA and vitiates the continued detention of the petitioner.
The documents recovered from three flats in three different societies, include, for instance, documents like bills and vouchers showing purchases made from some shops, while a large number of documents are in Hindi and Gujarati and relate to transactions in contraband articles like gold, silver, watches, etc., and comprise accounts of such transactions, the figures as well as recitals pertaining to which are entirely in Gujarati. All these, in our view, are material documents which have obviously influenced the mind of the detaining authority in arriving at its subjective satisfaction and these are all in a script or language not understood by detenu, and, therefore, the non-supply of Urdu translations of these documents has clearly prejudiced the petitioner in the exercise of his right to make an effective representation against his detention and hence the safeguard contained in Art. 22(5) is clearly violated. Having regard to the above discussion it is clear to us that the continued detention of the petitioner would be illegal and we accordingly quash the same and direct him to be released forthwith. Appeal allowed.
-
1982 (10) TMI 205 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... appended to the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. 3.. Shri Kulshreshtha, the learned Deputy Government Advocate, brought to our notice the decision of Full Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh v. Gyanmal Kesharichand 1984 55 STC 140 1982 15 VKN 132. After an elaborate and a very learned discussion on all the aspects of the matter, the Full Bench held that ice-cream and ice-candy are not cooked food and are not covered by item 8 of Part I of Schedule II to the Act. We are bound to follow the aforesaid decision in the absence of any decision of a larger Bench or of the Supreme Court on the point. 4.. Our answer to the question referred to this Court, therefore, is that on the facts and circumstances of the case, ice-cream and ice-candy are not cooked food and are not covered by item 8 of Part I of Schedule II appended to the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. 5.. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
........
|
