|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 355 Records
-
1995 (1) TMI 420 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ney, 104 US 621 the US Supreme Court ruled as follows - A writ of habeas corpus is not like an action to recover damages for an unlawful arrest or commitment, but its object is to ascertain whether the prisoner can lawfully be detained in custody, and if sufficient ground for his detention by the Government is shown, he is not to be discharged for defects in the original arrest of commitment. 14. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that where a competent Court having jurisdiction has taken cognizance of an offence on the basis of a charge-sheet or otherwise or where a case is pending for trial in a Court haying jurisdiction a writ of habeas corpus cannot be issued for the release of an accused under detention on the grounds of defects or illegality in the arrest or order of commitment or in passing of the orders of remand at any stage of the 'proceedings. 15. For the reasons discussed above, there is no merit in these petitions and they are accordingly dismissed.
-
1995 (1) TMI 419 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ere with the award of the Collector, though the Collector had committed palpable error of law in separately awarding the compensation to the land as well as fruit being trees, it is an offer which cannot be disturbed because of Section 25 of the Acts. The rate of compensation should have been less than what the Collector has awarded, we cannot reduce the amount to less than the amount offered by the Collector, yet we have to hold that the Collector, civil court and the High Court should have applied 8 years multiplier and determined the compensation. They awarded much more than what the claimant would justly and fairly be entitled to. Therefore, further enhancement of 60% by the High Court on the basis of the Price Index is clearly illegal. 5. The appeals are accordingly allowed. The Judgment and decree of the High Court is set aside and the award and decree of the reference Court is affirmed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.
-
1995 (1) TMI 418 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... -bailable warrant in terms of Section 70(2) Code of Criminal Procedure before the Court which issued the same within a period of three weeks from the date of this Order. 2) The concerned Court shall dispose of the said petition on merits and in accordance with law. 3) In order to redress the grievance of the Petitioners and their apprehension that if they appear in person, the concerned Courts may invariably remand them to judicial custody, the Petitioners may file petitions for cancellation of non-bailable warrant, before Courts below, without personally appearing before the Court and the concerned Magistrate/Trial Court are directed to pass orders on merits in accordance with law. It is made clear that the above direction shall be confined to this batch of the cases and by no means, it can be taken by the Courts below as a precedent for non-appearance of the accused in respect of other cases. In view of the order passed in these Crl.O. Ps., all the Crl.M. Ps. are dismissed.
-
1995 (1) TMI 417 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d accused 9, named, Ramaverma Thirumulpad, for their offence under Section 326 to imprisonment for life. In view of this, we are not interfering with sentences awarded to them for other offences. 53. For the reason aforesaid, all the appeals stand dismissed and rules of enhancement stand disposed of by enhancing sentences as ordered above. The appellants shall surrender the bail bonds and undergo the sentence as awarded by us. The trial court is directed to issue warrants to arrest all the appellants and accused 9, Ramaverma Thirumulpad. The concerned District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police are directed to execute the warrants. SLP (Crl.) No. 1198 of 1990. 54. In view of the judgment delivered today in Criminal Appeal No. 42,2 of 1990 and connected appeals, no separate order is required in this petition and it stands disposed of in terms of the judgment in those appeals, a copy of which would be transmitted to this petitioner by the Registry within a week from today.
-
1995 (1) TMI 416 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e Government indicates that the person whose land was acquired means the owner as on the date, notification was notified for acquisition, and he alone will be entitled to allotment of alternative site. A person who purchases land subsequent to the Notification may be entitled to claim compensation by virtue of sale made in his favour, namely, the right, title and interest the predecessor had but, he cannot be said to be the owner for allotment since the right of ownership would be determined with reference to the date on which Notification under Section 4(1) was published. This was the view of this Court in another case while considering the Full Bench Judgment of the Delhi High Court. Under these circumstances, the appeal is allowed. The respondent cannot be considered to be the owner as on the date of Notification under Section 4(1) published in the Gazette. The direction given by the learned Single Judge is accordingly quashed. The Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
-
1995 (1) TMI 415 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... icer 1989 177ITR538(Mad) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kalinga Tubes (1991) 187 ITR 595 respectively in support of his contention that the word 'order' used in the expression "order sought to be amended" would mean the original order of the assessment. As against this, Dr. Shankar Ghose, learned senior counsel referred us to other decisions of the Patna and Karnataka High Courts in Bihar State Road Transport Corporation v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1986) ITR 162 114 at 130 and Commissioner of Income-tax, Kamataka-II, Bangalore v. Mysore Iron & Steel Ltd. 1986 157ITR531(KAR) respectively which decisions have taken the contrary view. However, in view of the decisions of this Court referred to above, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal in the present case is the correct one. We, therefore, set side the impugned order of the High Court and restore that of the Tribunal. The appeals are allowed accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1995 (1) TMI 414 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ort, New Delhi to submit its Explanation with regard to the time taken by it in sending its comments on the representation of the detenu. An affidavit in this regard will be filed by the sponsoring authority within five days. The sponsoring authority will be informed of this order by the second respondent who will ensure the filing of the affidavit within the stipulated time. It is clarified that no further opportunity will be given in this regard. (39) All points except the last submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner fail. The matter will be listed on February 10,1995 for considering the Explanation of the sponsoring authority and for disposal of the writ petition. (40) Office will send the extract of the penultimate paragraph of this order to the sponsoring authority. Collector of Customs/Additional Collector of Customs, New Delhi Customs House, Igi Airport, New Delhi and also give a copy of the same to the second respondent today itself for doing the needful.
-
1995 (1) TMI 413 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... not warranted by the policy. If the policy intended to give a benefit or facility, to a class of industries, he could not impose a further condition so as to create another class of industries out of the industries to whom the benefit or facility was intended, as that would be arbitrary and unreasonable. In these circumstances, these writ petitions are allowed. The Notification bearing S.O. No. 95 dated 4.4.94 (Annexure-3) is quashed to the extent that it imposes a condition that the facility of sales tax exemption on purchase of raw material will be available only to old industrial units whose investment on plant and machinery did not exceed ₹ 15.00 crores on 1.4.1993, and who had not availed of any facility/benefit under the earlier incentive policy. It is further declared that the petitioners are entitled to the facility of sales tax exemption on the purchase of raw material under paragraph 10.4(i)(b) of the Industrial Incentive Policy, 1993. N.K. Sinha, J. I agree.
-
1995 (1) TMI 412 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... would have been well advised to adopt the scaled cover procedure, a firmly established and well known practice in service law Murder by a police officer is provocative. The trial of the officer and conduct of the Government both are in public glare. It is not the competency or efficiency of the officer but his conduct and behaviour and approach of the Government towards such officer which is measured in social scale. Such unwarranted actions of the Government shakes the confidence of common man in the system. He loses faith in it when a person who is standing trial in appeal is promoted. 9. For the reasons stated above this appeal fails and is dismissed. The respondent shall deposit a sum of ₹ 5 lakhs within a period of one month from today with the Registrar of the High Court as was offered on his behalf earlier. Out of this amount, ₹ 3,50,000/- will be paid to the dependents of ASI Gumam Singh and ₹ 1,50,000/- to the dependents of constable Paramjit Singh.
-
1995 (1) TMI 411 - PUNJAB-HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... with regard to the comparison of signatures from a photo copy of the agreement. Original agreement has not been produced on the record. In my view, signatures cannot be compared from the photocopy of the agreement because in these days of advance technology, signatures of a person can be lifted from one document and put on another document by super imposition. 5. Accordingly the impugned order, is upheld to the extent that the plaintiff respondent shall be within his right to lead his evidence by way of rebuttal to examine a Hand Writing Expert but for that the original agreement has to come on record. If the original agreement comes on the record, after taking its formal proof, the plaintiff-respondent shall be permitted to produce and examine the Hand Writing Expert to compare the signatures of the defendant-petitioner from the original document to that of admitted signatures. 6. With these observations, this revision petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
1995 (1) TMI 410 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cheque for filing complaint under Section 142 subject to the restrictions contained in Sections 138 and 142 of the Act. Even if successive causes of action arise, only one prosecution and conviction or acquittal is possible in view of Section 300 of the Cr. P.C. since the complaint is bound to be on the basis of the dishonoured cheque which is bound to be produced in court as the basis for the prosecution. The cause of action may get barred or become ineffective if no complaint is filed in time. So long as cheque remains unpaid and the payee or holder in due course is able to establish all the ingredients of the offence and satisfy the other requirements of the provisions contained in Sections138 and 142 of the Act, a complaint will be maintainable in spite of the fact that he has not filed any complaint in time on the basis of one or more cause of actions accrued to him earlier. We would accordingly dismiss the Criminal Miscellaneous Case. There will be no order as to costs
-
1995 (1) TMI 409 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r place of investigation, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences”. Therefore, a Judicial First Class Magistrate or a Metropolitan Magistrate trying an offence under section 138 has power to impose fine in excess of ₹ 5,000 if the fact situation so warrants. 59. Before closing the case, we would like to place on record our grateful appreciation of the able manner in which the case has been argued by learned counsel for both the sides, especially, Sri Satyanarayana Prasad, Sri Innayya Reddi, Sri C. Padmanabha Reddi and Sri V. V. S. Rao. 60. For the foregoing reasons, subject to the guidelines indicated in regard to the interpretation of the impugned provisions, all the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Stay orders granted earlier shall stand vacated and the concerned Magistrates are directed to dispose of the cases expeditiously. 61. The Central Government advocate's fees in each case is fixed at ₹ 250 (two hundred and fifty)
-
1995 (1) TMI 408 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tent they help in the interpretation of Section 394(2) of the Companies Act. There is no authority on the point in so far as an order of the Company Law Board under Section 397 read with Sections 398 and 402 of the Act is concerned. Having regard to the nature of the grievance intended to be redressed by the Board and the nature of the powers conferred by the Act on the Board in that regard, I am of the opinion that the power to transfer properties is implicit in the exercise of that power and an order passed by the Company Law Board can effectively transfer property without the execution of a deed of conveyance or its registration under the Registration Act. I, therefore, hold that the Board had the jurisdiction to pass an order as it did and the same did not require any execution of document or registration thereof to make the same effective. 13. For the above reasons, I do not find any force in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with costs. 14. Appeal dismissed.
-
1995 (1) TMI 407 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... not absolve the appellant for violating the undertaking given to the Court as noticed by the learned single Judge in his detailed judgment but can be a circumstance to consider the quantum of punishment particularly keeping in regard to the circumstance that ultimately the order of the court has been substantially complied with, and the respondent has got his entire salary, the ends of justice will meet if the contemner appellant is punished only with imposition of fine and he may not be required to undergo civil prison. He has already deposited the fine in Court for which no fresh direction is necessary. 19. We accordingly partly allow the appeal and we modify the judgment of the learned single Judge only to the extent that the appellant contemner is sentenced to a fine of ₹ 2,000/ - only for committing contempt of Court's order as detailed in the judgment of the learned single Judge. He need not be detained in civil prison as directed by the learned single Judge.
-
1995 (1) TMI 406 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n enforce the right by a suit for rendering accounts and for realisation of the property of the dissolved firm pro rata. When that is permissible by an exception carved out by sub-section (3)(a) to Section 69, we are of the view that there is no prohibition to invoke arbitration clause under the deed of partnership, agreed to by and between the parties to invoke Section 20 of the Act. Thus considered, we are of the view that the suit under Section 20 of the Act is maintainable. The High Court has, therefore, committed manifest error of law in holding otherwise. 11. The appeal is allowed with costs of ₹ 5000. 12. Since we have allowed the appeal, we direct the trial court to send the reference immediately to the named arbitrators and we do hope that the arbitrators would immediately enter upon the reference and decide the dispute as expeditiously as possible within a period of 6 months from the date of the receipt of this order as this is a matter pending for long time.
-
1995 (1) TMI 405 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... In that case the assessee entered into a contract with a rubber estate which stated that the rubber trees on the specified land had become old and uneconomic and with a view to replant rubber in the said land, the vendor had agreed to sell the said trees to the purchaser with the roots standing on the vendor's land with all the rights to do with the trees in the manner the purchaser thought fit. The question was whether the income derived therefrom could be regarded as 'agricultural income'. The High Court held that the income, though derived from land, had been derived by the assessee who even though had not undertaken the basic operation relating to agriculture, nevertheless would come within the definition of 'agricultural income'. 7. In view of this, the law has been well-settled and, therefore, there is no referable question and, accordingly, we dismiss this petition. However, on the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
-
1995 (1) TMI 404 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... issioner has further stated that on the four sides of the disputed property it is vested forest. Based on that view the Tribunal found that the disputed property is part of a private forest. The Tribunal further found that the applicant is not entitled to the benefit of Section 3(3) of the Act since he has not proved his title and that he was not in personal cultivation of the property on the appointed day. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the applicant is not entitled to the benefit of Section 3(2) of the Act also. The appellant was given sufficient opportunity while considering the review petition. In the result the O.A. was dismissed and the review application was allowed. We do not find any infirmity in the factual findings of the Tribunal nor we find any other in reviewing the order passed earlier. In the circumstances of the case the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. A reproduction from ILR (Kerala Series)
-
1995 (1) TMI 403 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ions or any Conventions; (5) The Union and all the State Governments are directed to consider inclusion of such of those small scale factory or factories or industries to protect health hazards of the worker engaged in the manufacture of asbestos or its ancillary products; (6) The appropriate Inspector of Factories in particular of the State of Gujarat, is directed to send all the workers, examined by the concerned ESI hospital, for re- examination by the National Institute of Occupational Health to detect whether all or any of them are suffering from asbestosis. In case of the positive finding that all or any of them are suffering from the occupational health hazards, each such worker shall be entitled to compensation in a sum of rupees one lakh payable by the concerned factory or industry or establishment within a period of three months from the date of certification by the National Institute of Occupational Health. 34. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed. No costs.
-
1995 (1) TMI 402 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s adjective (sic). It has nothing to do with the contractual tenancy. In other words, the premises ought to have been held under a valid lease initially. ( 5. ) One other aspect may be noticed. In (S.J. Pande v. P.K. Balakrishnan)10, (1993)3 S.C.C. 297 1993(3) Bom.C.R. 134 1993(1) Mah.L.J. 1071 1993(2) Mah.L.R. 952, the attention of the Bench was not drawn to Gian Devi case. Of course, even otherwise that case dealt with a licence. The reason why we refer to this is such a licence falls under section 15(1) of the Bombay Act. The point was barred by the Constitution Bench judgment in Gian Devi case. Therefore, we find no support can be derived by the appellant from Ganapati Sitaram Balvalkar v. Waman Shripad Mage. In regard to other aspects, we agree with the findings of the High Court that neither section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act nor Order 21, Rule 102 C.P.C. could be invoked by the appellant. The civil appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
1995 (1) TMI 401 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... r negligence or otherwise in not carrying the orders of authorities in revision and when the facts came to the notice, this court having taken suo motu notice of the same, meet out justice. Accordingly suo motu notice is taken of Developed Nazul Land) Amendment Rules the cases concerned and they are treated as special leave petitions against the orders passed by the appellate authority and considered its legality by granting leave. Hence, we hold that the lands covered under Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-4 should be treated as lands held by the vendor and the vendee. The Land Reforms Tribunal concerned is, therefore, directed to reopen the CCs filed by the respective partners and the managing partners of the company and determine the surplus lands according to law and then pass the appropriate orders according to law. 6. The appeals are accordingly allowed. No costs. (A copy of this order be sent to Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, for taking immediate action in the matter).
........
|
