|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 315 Records
-
1987 (1) TMI 505 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... was not possible to identify the assailants of the deceased. All that P.W.8 has said is that the light was insufficient. But he had recorded the statement of P.Ws. 3 and 4 Further, during his cross-examination, P.W 8 denied that the electric light existing on the spot was out of order at the time of occurrence. It is, therefore, manifestly clear from the evidence of P.W.8 that the place was not at all dark although the light was not sufficient for filling up the inquest form. But, it cannot be said that there was no light and the place was dark. 11. The learned Sessions Judge was, therefore, justified in not finding any infirmity in the prosecution version that there was electric tube light burning near the place of occurrence at the relevant time in the night in question. The High Court has also come to the same conclusion. No other point has been urged in this appeal. 12. For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any substance in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
1987 (1) TMI 504 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... roversy as regards the date on which the legible copies of documents were actually given to the detenu. According to the detenu they were served on him on July 1, 1986, whereas according to the counter affidavit of Shri S.K. Chowdhary, Under Secretary in the Ministry of Finance, the documents were Supplied on June 21, 1986. It does not make any difference whether the documents were Supplied on June 21, 1986 or on July 1986, since we find that even before legible copies of documents were supplied to the detenu, the detention order was confirmed on June 14, 1986. The detenu was thus clearly denied the opportunity of making a representation and there was therefore a clear contravention of the right guaranteed by Article 22 of the Constitution. The detenu is entitled to be set at liberty. We are told that the detenu is now on parole. He need not surrender. 2. In SLP (Cri.) 2306/86 special leave is granted and the appeal is allowed in terms of the above order in the writ petition.
-
1987 (1) TMI 503 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... has no competence in this behalf. (6) One is an authority to an individual to 'prosecute' the alleged offender, the other is an authority to 'try' the alleged offender. 4. Therefore, a sanction under Section 132 is no substitute for a sanction under Section 197. Under the circumstances, the court could not have taken cognizance of the offence in so far as the appellant was concerned for there was no jurisdiction to do so in the absence of the requisite sanction. The appeal must, therefore, be allowed, the order passed by the High Court must be set aside, and the proceedings against the appellant must be quashed as lacking in jurisdiction. No doubt, this order will not operate as an acquittal on merits and the appellant can be proceeded against afresh. Whether or not to do so is for the competent authority to decide. So far as the proceedings giving rise to the present appeal are concerned, the same will stand quashed. 5. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
1987 (1) TMI 502 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... my mind is purely the article . In the light of the fresh circumstances and the developments detailed in this order. I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to bail. (25) It is Therefore directed that the petitioner shall be admitted to bail on his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of ₹ 10 lakhs with two sureties in similar amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. (26) The petitioner shall surrender his passport to the trial court and shall not leave India without the permission of the court. The petitioner shall further, in case he is permitted to go abroad at any stage, not remain there for a period longer than permitted by the court. The petitioner shall report to the investigating officer in the morning of every Saturday unless he is required to go outside Delhi or for a particular period he is permitted to go abroad by the court. In case the petitioner is required to go outside Delhi he shall give information of the same to the investigating officer.
-
1987 (1) TMI 501 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tion of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 for recovery of ₹ 20,482.78p. due on account of damages for unauthorised use and occupation of the flat in question from the respondent as arrears of land revenue, or have recourse to its remedy by way of a suit for recovery of damages. 14. Before parting with the case, we wish to add a few words. The Government should consider the feasibility of dropping the proceedings for recovery of damages, if the respondent were to forego his claim for interest. In this case, the deduction of the amount of ₹ 20,482.78p; from the commuted pension payable to the respondent was made as far back as October 30, 1976. since then, 10 years have gone by. Even if interest were to be calculated at 9% per annum, the interest alone would aggregate to more than ₹ 18,000. Since the Government had the benefit of the money for all these years, it may not be worthwhile in pursuing the matter any further. 15. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (1) TMI 500 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d Ex.P16 is the order passed in the writ petition. It was set aside in W.A. 9 of 1983, as per Ex.P158 dated 18.12.1972. From the aforesaid facts, it can safely be said without any fear of contradiction that the community has not only slept over its alleged rights but also accepted the terms of the compromise andcame to the writ jurisdiction belatedly on improper advice. Whatever be the nature of the compromise decree, in view of my rinding on the additional issue that the suit temple is not a denominational temple, no purpose will be served by answering this issue either in favour of the plaintiffs or in favour of the Department. However, I see no reason to set aside the compromise decree in view of the fact that the community has allowed the compromise decree to be acted upon for nearly five years. Till the 2nd defendant appoints new trustees the present trustees will continue and act as trustees. 36. In this result, I see no merit in the suit and it is dismissed with costs.
-
1987 (1) TMI 499 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on by the Tribunal on the question whether or not the selling dealers were liable to pay tax. If there was liability on the part of the selling dealers to pay tax, then obviously Section 3-AAAA could not be invoked against the assessee and, therefore, there would be no liability to pay interest. However, while redeciding the case, the Tribunal will bear in mind the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Nanak Chand & Company, SLP (Civil) No. 8828 of 1985 and the decision of this Court given in the case of R. P. Chemicals (supra). 6. In the result, the revisions are allowed, the Tribunal's combined order dated 20-12-1985 is set aside, the cases are sent back to the Tribunal with a direction that it will call upon the assessee to furnish the complete details of the selling dealers and then record a- clear finding whether or not the selling dealers were liable to pay tax, and thereafter all the cases will be redecided according to law.
-
1987 (1) TMI 498 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ered with in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. In this view of the matter, the decree for possession on the ground of subletting and non-user is liable to be confirmed. 24. In the result, decree for possession passed by the Courts below are confirmed and the petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. There shall be no orders as to costs. 25. Mr. Raghuwanshi on behalf of the defendant prays for time to vacate. He has also expressed desire on the part of the defendant to approach the Supreme Court. In the event of the defendant filing in this Court usual undertaking within two weeks from today to the effect that in the event of the Supreme Court not granting special leave, the defendant shall quit and hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff on or before 30th June 1987 decree for possession not to be executed upto 1st July 1987. If the undertaking is not filed within the time provided, decree to become forthwith executable.
-
1987 (1) TMI 497 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e of opinion that the claim made by the appellants for the relaxation of the Rules in their cases only because they happen to be the wards or children or relatives of the police officers has got to be negatived since their claim is based on 'descent' only, and others will thereby be discrim- inated against as they do not happen to be the sons of police officers. Any preference shown in the matter of public employment on the grounds of descent only has to be declared as unconstitutional. The appellants have not shown that they were otherwise eligible to be recruited as Consta- bles in the absence of the order of relaxation on which they relied. Hence they cannot succeed. We, however, make it clear that this judgment shall not affect the appointments of sons or wards of police officers already made by relaxing the Rules and they shall remain undisturbed. In the result the appeal fails and it is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
1987 (1) TMI 496 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ration was completed, and therefore, it could not be produced in Court. But, I find that the registration was completed on 11.7.1980 after the disposal of the suit by the trial Court. The appeal before the lower appellate Court was disposed of only on 26.3.1981. But, the appellants herein did not choose to produce the documents before the lower appellate Court. When the second appellant has not chosen to enter the witness box and clear the suspicion created by the various circumstances referred to already, it is not open to harp upon the onus of proof being on the plaintiff. I have no hesitation in holding that Ex. B15 has not been proved to be the document executed by Bysani Sundaramma in the sense that she understood the contents and signed the same willingly. 29. In fine, the conclusion of the lower appellate Court has to be upheld, though for different reasons. The second appeal fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (1) TMI 495 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... l before the Appellate Collector, it is not inconceivable that it might not have been pressed in the hearing before him and when he says so, there is nothing contra to disbelieve him; (h) various questions put during the course of the hearing to elucidate the correct position either on facts or in law cannot, justifiably, lead the counsel, in all conscience, to speculate or derive our final and inalterable conclusions on the issue debated, so that such impression as may have been left in the Counsel’s mind may be urged to assail our order which was, after all, not pronounced but reserved. If we had come to any categorical conclusion like e.g. remand in’ the course of the hearing, the order could have been pronounced then and there and not reserved. The impression in the mind of the Counsel is not conclusive on the ultimate order that may be, after due deliberation, passed eventually. 10. In the premises, the Application is misconceived and is dismissed.
-
1987 (1) TMI 494 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... port of the Valuation Officer under s. 16A obtained by the WTO after the original assessments were completed. The Tribunal following a decision of the Calcutta High Court held that the WTO, after completing the assessment, has no jurisdiction to call for the report of the Valuation Officer under s. 16A of the Act. He submits that this is a question of law. We do not express any opinion on this. But even assuming that the Valuation report was properly obtained that cannot justify the reopening of the assessment on the question of valuation which had been determined on proper principles earlier. This question is, Therefore, refused and these applications are disposed of. No order as to costs.
-
1987 (1) TMI 493 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ercial transaction of international character. The learned Chief Justice of Bombay High Court may constitute a Division Bench to hear this matter with a request to the Division Bench to dispose of the same expeditiously. VII The Division Bench constituted by the Chief Justice will afford reasonable opportunity to the parties to file their statements of claims, affidavits etc. and shall post the matter for directions within two weeks of the statements, affidavits etc. being filed. The Division Bench will direct that the matter is posted for hearing at the earliest and will hear the matter from day to day and dispose it of expeditiously, preferably within six months (excluding the time granted at the joint request of the parties or at the instance of the Respondent) of the commencement of the arguments. VIII There will be no order regarding costs. IX Parties will be at liberty to apply to this Court for further directions from time to time in case of necessity. Appeal Allowed.
-
1987 (1) TMI 492 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ant provisions of the Articles are quite clear and permit the increase of the Authorised Capital of the Company by passing of an ordinary Resolution as contemplated by Aricle 62. In view of this, it is not necessary to consider the past practice to arrive at the correct construction of the Articles. 11. In the result, there is no merit in the appeal and it is dismissed with costs. 12. As it is agreed that the suit also should stand disposed of in accordance with the decision in this appeal, we direct that the suit will stand dismissed with no order as to costs. 13. Mr. Cooper states that the statement made by him regarding the issue of new shares will be operative till 2.00 p.m. on 16th February, 1987. 14. Mr. Parekh applies for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. Mr. Cooper opposes the application. In our view, no such substantial question of law of general importance arises in this case which needs to be determined at the hands of the Supreme Court. Application rejected.
-
1987 (1) TMI 491 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)
... ...
... ... ..... e, could not have been relied upon by the learned S.D.O. after the proceedings were remanded to him. It was thus necessary for the petitioners to lead independent evidence in regard to the pot-kharab land which they failed to do. The learned S.D.O., therefore, after remand determined the pot-kharab land after perusing the khasra entries in respect of the field survey numbers in question in the instant ceiling case. The said finding rendered by him which is affirmed in appeal thus cannot be said to be illegal or perverse. If the petitioners claimed any pot kharab land it was necessary for them to lead appropriate evidence to prove the same particularly when the report of the Naib Tahsildar was excluded from consideration by the learned M.R.T. in its remand order. The finding in regard to pot-kharab land, cannot therefore, be interfered with. 16. In the result, the instant writ petition fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances, however, there would be no order as to costs.
-
1987 (1) TMI 490 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... out the same at 15 per cent of the total claim of ₹ 4,102. The action of the ITO was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). It has been contended by the learned counsel before us that the entire amount of ₹ 4,102 has been expended on the employees of the company and in fact pertained to maintenance of scooters used by the employees of the company for office purposes. It was also contended that the director of the company had his own personal car and the expenditure of ₹ 4,102 did not include any expenses of the director’s car. This statement of the learned counsel was not challenged by the learned departmental representative and we are accordingly inclined to accept the same. We further observe from the assessment orders pertaining to the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81 that no such disallowance has been made by the ITO. We are accordingly inclined to allow the claim of the assessee and we do so. 15. As a result, the appeals are partly allowed.
-
1987 (1) TMI 489 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed by the Tribunal is already the subject-matter of a decision by the Supreme Court in the case of Distributors (Baroda) (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India and Ors. (1985) 47 CTR (SC) 349 (1985) 155 ITR 120(SC). The Supreme Court has held that for the purpose of s. 80-0 the deduction has to be computed not on the basis of gross income but on the basis of net income. In view of the Supreme Court decision the question referred to us is answered in favour of the applicant and against the assessee. The question is answered accordingly. There is no order as to costs.
-
1987 (1) TMI 488 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rom 4-12-1979 the later part of Rule 77-A beginning with the words "and process served or given to the dealer" and onwards right up to the end has been deleted. Consequently after 4th December, 1979 no service can be validly affected on a lawyer of a dealer with regard to any notice under the Sales Tax Act. 3. I have heard counsel for the parties. In my opinion in view of the aforesaid amendment the Tribunal is clearly in error in holding that service affected on the counsel for the dealer on 2,th February, 1981 was a valid one. In this view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal suffers from a manifest error of law and the consequential proceedings under Section 21 of the Act also deserve to be set aside. 4. In the result the revision succeeds and is allowed with costs and the consequential proceedings under Section 21 of the U. P. Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1975-76, alleged to have been taken against the dealer, are quashed.
-
1987 (1) TMI 487 - ITAT PATNA
... ...
... ... ..... ears, following the decision in Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT 1985 156 ITR 585. The issue is covered by the decision' of the Supreme Court in Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd.'s case (supra). The Supreme Court has indicated that the provision for gratuity after introduction of section 40A(7) cannot be allowed unless conditions of section 40A(7) are satisfied by the assessee. Three conditions are mentioned in the Act. The Judicial Member and the Accountant Member have not discussed whether the conditions were satisfied by the assessee. They have gone simply on the ground that the provision can be allowed or cannot be allowed. After considering the Supreme Court decision in Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd.'s case (supra) the question is answered as follows "The provision for gratuity could be allowed under section 40A(7) provided the conditions of the said section had been fulfilled." 12. The matter is accordingly referred back to the Bench for passing the necessary order.
-
1987 (1) TMI 486 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... cient cause for the inadvertent delay which was not intentional (what was the appellant to gain by such delay ?). The Court should not have therefore made an injustice-oriented approach and rejected the application for condonation of delay. 2. The appeal is allowed, orders of the Courts below are set aside, delay is condoned. The matter will now go back to the learned District Judge who will dispose it of on merits in accordance with law expeditiously after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the sides. No costs.
........
|
