|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 305 Records
-
1995 (12) TMI 385 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... h has been approved by this Court in R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab, 1995 (2) SCC 945. We find no merit in this contention. In his writ petition respondent No. 1 has not challenged the promotion of Km. Badam Bairwa and Hari Ram Meena to the Selection Scale and therefore, this contention about the basis for reservation does not fall for consideration in this case. Moreover in R.K. Sabharwal (supra) this Court has directed that the interpretation given by the Court about the working of the roster and the findings on this point shall be operative prospectively which means that actions that have been taken prior to the decision in R.K. Sabharwal (supra) cannot be assailed on the basis of the law laid down in the said decision. For the reasons aforementioned, the appeals are allowed, the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court dated September 21, 1993 is set aside and the Writ Petition filed by respondent No. 1 is dismissed. But in the circumstances there is no order as to costs.
-
1995 (12) TMI 384 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 498A of the I.P.C. cannot be sustained. 17. The inferences drawn by the learned trial Judge, reproduced supra, are not deducible from the evidence present on record. These are not inferences but assumptions. Conviction cannot be based on assumptions. The circumstantial evidence brought on record, reproduced and discussed above, is not consistent with the guilt of the accused and does not exclude every reasonable hypothesis, consistent with his innocence. 18. The prosecution having failed to substantiate the charges, it is unnecessary to deal with the defence of the accused regarding his plea of his insanity and his defence that the gold ornaments were given by the deceased to his father. 19. For the reasons stated above, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The conviction and sentences recorded against the appellant-accused on all the charges are set aside. The appellant-accused be set at liberty forthwith unless required in connection with any other case. 20. Appeal allowed.
-
1995 (12) TMI 383 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ravity of the crime but not the criminal, which are germane for consideration of appropriate punishment in a criminal trial. The Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and victim belong. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to end be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should respond to the society's cry for justice against the criminal. In our view, if for such heinous crimes the most deterrent punishment for wanton and brutal murders is not given, the case of deterrent punishment will loose its relevance. We, therefore, do not find any justification to commute the death penalty to imprisonment for life. The appeal therefore must fail and is dismissed.
-
1995 (12) TMI 382 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... med in C.R.P. 3440 of 1977 dated 2.11.1977, which is the final decision inter-parties, (State of Kerala and respondents No. 3 and 4), it was not open to the Board to order impleadment of respondents No. 3 and 4 in the revised draft statement proceedings by order dated 29.7.1980 and in finally ordering the matter in favour of respondents No. 3 and 4, as it did, by order dated 9.1.1981. We are constrained to hold that the learned single Judge of the High Court committed a grave error in holding that the proceedings rendered inter parties between the State and respondents No. 3 and 4, which finally stood confirmed by the order in C.R.P. 3440 of 1977, is non est and can be ignored. We set aside the order passed by the High Court in C.R.P. No. 2538 of 1981 dated 1.7.1987. In consequence, the revised orders passed by the Board dated 29.7.1980 and 9.1.1981 will stand annulled. This appeal is allowed with costs payable by respondents No. 3 and 4 herein. quantified at ₹ 5000/-.
-
1995 (12) TMI 381 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f unrevised tariffs in a phased manner. The Company is an on going business concern and must have utilised the money, saved on account of the decision of the High Court, gainfully in its commercial activities. Similarly, other consumers have gainfully utilised the amount saved for being not required to pay on the basis of revised tariffs. The Board had to suffer financial loss because of the said erroneous decision of the High Court. In the aforesaid circumstances, it will be lawful, conforming to equity and well established principle of restitution for the Board to claim interest at 18 on the unpaid portion of the Bill drawn on the basis of revised tariffs. The Company had agreed to pay interest at 18 on the bills if not paid when it became due and payable. Even otherwise, claim of 18 interest per annum also appears to be just and proper. We, therefore, set aside the impugned decisions of the High Court by allowing these appeals. There will be, however, no order as to cost.
-
1995 (12) TMI 380 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed subsequently by Antulay against an order of the Bombay High Court made during the trial that the relief was granted to Antulay. While dismissing the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution filed by Antulay, in the judgment reported in 1984 (3) SCR 482 - Abdul Rehman Antulay vs. Union of India and Ors. etc. - this Court observed as under - "In my view, the writ petition challenging the validity of the order and judgment passed by this Court as nullity or otherwise incorrect cannot be entertained. I wish to make it clear that the dismissal of this writ petition will not prejudice the right of the petitioner, to approach the Court with an appropriate review petition or to file any other application which he may be entitled in law to file." These undisputed facts appear from the decision in Antulay itself on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioners. Consequently, the writ petition has no merit and it is dismissed, accordingly.
-
1995 (12) TMI 379 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rticle 14 of the Constitution, as contended for the respondents, does not apply since we have already held that the order of the CAT, Madras Bench is clearly unsustainable in law and illegal which can never form basis to hold that the other employees are invidiously discriminated offending Article 14. The employees covered by the order of the Madras Bench may be dealt with by the Railway Administration appropriately but that could not form foundation to plead discrimination violating Article 14 of the Constitution. We, therefore, have no hesitation to hold that the officers, employees and servants appointed by the Railway Co-operative Stores/Societies cannot be treated on par with Railway servants under paragraph 10B of the Railway Establishment Code nor they can be given parity of status, promotions, scales of pay, increments etc. as ordered by the CAT, Hyderabad Bench. The appeals are accordingly allowed and the OAs stand dismissed but, in the circumstances, without costs.
-
1995 (12) TMI 378 - SUPREME COURT
Whether there is any manifest arbitrariness in prescribing a distributor licence which can be granted only to a company owned by the State; and in compelling the appellants to sell their product to the distributor? - Held that:- No question of any hardship being caused to the appellants by reason of the fact that their sales have to be channelled through an intermediary. Depending upon the orders received by the MSIL, it in turn, places orders with the suppliers or manufacturers concerned. The business activity of the appellants cannot, therefore, be said to be curtailed in any manner. Nor can there be any hardship on the appellants. Once the Rules oblige the manufacturers to supply their product only to the company holding the distributor licence, a corresponding duty is cast on the distributor to place orders with the suppliers concerned whenever demand for a particular product is received by it. Looking to the channelizing role of MSIL, the fear of discrimination between different suppliers expressed by the appellants does not appear to be justified. Appeal dismissed.
Whether there is no quid pro qua between the increased label fee and the services rendered? - Held that:- The licence fee which the State Government charged to the licensee through the medium of auctions or the fixed fee which was charged to the vendors of foreign liquor holding licences need bear no quid pro quo to the services rendered to the licences. The word `fee' in this context is not used in the technical sense of the expression. By `licence fee' or `fixed fee' is meant the price or consideration which the Government charges to the licensees for parting with its privileges and granting them to the licensees. As the State can carry on a trade or business, such a charge is the normal incidence of a trading or business transaction. The contention, therefore, of the petitioners that there is no quid pro qua between the increased label fee and the services rendered also has no merit. It is based upon a misconception of the nature of the levy. Appeal dismissed.
-
1995 (12) TMI 377 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in the appellants own business premises and the entire transactions of M/s. Sakthi and Company, was operated from the appellants place of business. The assessing authority have rightly stated that the right of cross-examination is not understood or recognised as an invariable attribute of the requirement of reasonable opportunity under section 17(3) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act or of natural justice. Even the appellate authority took into consideration the position of law with regard to the right of cross examination. Consequently the appeals are dismissed. 5. Taking into consideration the two orders in my judgment it is not possible to exercise extraordinary and exceptional jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the position that the conduct of the petitioner to evade tax stares in the face of the record as established by the two fact-finding authorities. Petition therefore stands dismissed at the stage of admission. Petition dismissed.
-
1995 (12) TMI 376 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cond sales in the hands of the buying dealers, it cannot be concluded that the pipes in question were meant to be used or put to use for the purposes mentioned by the Supreme Court in G.S. Pai Company s case 1980 45 STC 58. On the other hand, the contention of the respondent-assessee is that they were for use as underground pipes for discharging the drain water, etc. What exactly is the nature of the goods and whether they are suitable for one or the other purpose has not been discussed at all by the revisional authority. As we have already observed, the material gathered by the Deputy Commissioner is not at all sufficient to come to the conclusion that the pipes sold by the respondent were meant for use or actually used as sanitary fittings connecting lavatories, urinals, sinks and wash basins in the buildings. We are, therefore, not inclined to disturb the order of the Tribunal allowing the appeal. 8.. Tax revision case is therefore dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1995 (12) TMI 375 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... se in favour of the appellants, the authorities should have considered whether the penalty should remain in abeyance in view of the prima facie case made out by them. 3.. It was then suggested by Shri. T. Karunakaran Nambiar, Additional Advocate-General, for Taxes, that the revisions can be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and a direction to the second respondent in this context to that effect would be useful. Having considered the matter in detail, we are of the opinion that all these writ appeals can be disposed of by directing the second respondent (revisional authority) to dispose of all the revision petitions (Nos. 118, 119, 123, 124 and 125 of 1995 pending before the second respondent) within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. We direct that orders impugned before the revisional authorities will remain in abeyance until the disposal of those revisions. Writ appeals are disposed of accordingly. Writ appeals disposed of accordingly.
-
1995 (12) TMI 374 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the clause in the contract gives rise to an arbitration?
Held that:- A careful reading of the clause in the contract would give us an indication that the Public Health Engineer is empowered to decide all the questions enumerated therein other than any disputes or differences that have arisen between the contractor and the Government. But for Clause 25, there is no other contract to refer any dispute or difference to an arbitrator named or otherwise. Thus Clause 25 of the agreement does not contain an arbitration agreement nor it envisages any difference or dispute that may arise or had arisen between the parties in execution of the works for reference to an arbitrator. The decision of the High Court, therefore, is clearly unsustainable in law. The appeals are accordingly allowed. Appointment of the arbitrator in furtherance of the orders of the Subordinate Judge stands set aside
-
1995 (12) TMI 373 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... roducts and they are entitled to the benefit of the notification of the State Government in No. FD 107 CSI 89(XII) dated March 31, 1989. Consequently, contrary view of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes expressed in Circular No. CLR. CR. 171/89-90 dated August 10, 1989 is liable to be quashed and accordingly a writ of certiorari is issued to quash the impugned circular dated August 10, 1989. Accordingly a direction is issued to the respective assessing authorities wherever pre-assessment notices are questioned to withdraw the same and issue fresh notices in accordance with law and in accordance with the observations made by this Court and further orders of assessments framed by the respective assessing authorities are quashed with liberty to redo the assessments in accordance with law and in accordance with the observations made in these writ petitions. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. Petitions allowed.
-
1995 (12) TMI 372 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... SC 1 (Sital Prasad Saxena v. Union of India). In our opinion the said decisions have no application to the present case. It may be noted that U.P. Act No. 28 of 1991 amended section 4-A retrospectively from 1983. Hence we have to deem it that the amended law existed in 1983. A retrospective amendment amounts to a legal fiction, and regarding legal fictions it has been held by Lord Asguith in East End Dwelling Co. Ltd. v. Finsbury Borough Council (1952) AC 109 that if one is to treat an imaginary state of affairs as real then one s imagination must not boggle when it comes to the inevitable corollaries of that state of affairs. This decision has been approved by our Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Teja Singh 1959 35 ITR 408 AIR 1959 SC 352. Hence even assuming that there was any vested right in the petitioner it can be destroyed by a retrospective amendment. For the above reasons, the petition is dismissed. Interim order, if any is vacated. Petition dismissed.
-
1995 (12) TMI 371 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... eparately construe that part of the production which is sold within the restaurant and that part of it which is commercially marketed. 9. In the view that we have taken, the appeal partially succeeds. The order of the reviewing authority is modified to the extent that the assessing authority shall after giving an opportunity to the appellants to produce whatever material they so desire hear them and reassess the incidence of tax as far as the concerned items go taking into account however the fact that as far as that part of the turnover which is confined to their restaurant or eating house is concerned, that it would necessarily have to be exempted. It is clarified, that the exempted part of the turnover would be limited only to that which is consumed within the premises and not that part of it which is commercially marketed. 10. The appeals partially succeed and stand disposed of. In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. Appeals partly allowed.
-
1995 (12) TMI 370 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s where the herbs, roots and barks of various types of trees were put in any particular combination or proportion along with other chemical ingredients in order to render the same for use as a preparation. That was why this Court held herbs, roots and barks in their raw form could not be classified as medicinal preparation but only as medicine. That is not the position in these cases at all. In these cases, we have referred to the various percentages and different kinds of ingredients that go in the preparation of Vajradanthi and such a preparation cannot be said, by any stretch of imagination, a mere herb, root or bark of tree as was done in Rajappachetty s case 1991 81 STC 109 (Kar). Therefore, that decision cannot be of any assistance to the State. Hence, we allow these appeals setting aside the order made by the Commissioner in revision and restore the order made by the appellate authority in appeal. No order as to costs in the circumstances of the case. Appeals allowed.
-
1995 (12) TMI 369 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... admitted that those goods were despatched to a destination in Bihar against the railway receipts referred to earlier along with 57 tins of mustard oil purchased in Agra, the penalty if any could have been imposed in the hands of the consignor. The assessee was not liable to any penalty. The Tribunal has not given any decision on this aspect of the matter as well. The documents referred to hereinabove, and other aspects to which the Tribunal has not addressed itself, have an important bearing on the question whether or not the impugned penalty could be sustained in law. For these reasons, the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal cannot be allowed to stand and it is accordingly set aside with the directions to the Tribunal to decide the appeal giving rise to this revision afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. In the result, the revision succeeds in part and is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition partly allowed.
-
1995 (12) TMI 368 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e Commissioner under the amended provisions of law was tenable in law and was within limitation? 6.. Accordigly we allow these reference applications in part and direct the Tribunal to state the SE and refer to this Court the aforesaid two questions for our opinion. 7. The Tribal is called upon in terms of section 44(4) of the State Act to state the case properly and refer the aforesaid questions of law for our answer. 8.. A copy o this order shall be sent to the Tribunal under the seal of the court and signature of the Registrar in terms of section 44(5) of the Act. As the matter is quite old, we further direct the Tribunal to make an endeavour to comply with this order within a period of sc months from the receipt of the copy of the order. 9.. The Paris are, however, left to bear their own costs as incurred. 10. This order shall be retained in Misc. Civil Case No. 277 of 1986 and its copy shall be placed in therefore of connected case, as noted above. Applications allowed.
-
1995 (12) TMI 367 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ays the tax which according to him is due on the basis of information supplied in return filed by him, there would be no default on his part to meet his statutory obligation. The honourable Supreme Court further observed that it would be difficult to hold that the law envisages the assessee to predict the final assessment and expect him to pay the tax on that basis to avoid the liability to pay interest. In this case the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) had held that the claim of the dealer that the sales were not completed was bona fide. This finding was reversed solely following the judgment of the honourable Supreme Court in Associated Cement Company s case 1981 48 STC 466 1981 UPTC 1329 which is no longer good law. For the above reasons, this revision petition is allowed. The Tribunal s order dated 31st March, 1989, is set aside and it is ordered that the Commissioner s second appeal No. 592 of 1983 for the assessment year 1974-75 stands dismissed. Petition allowed.
-
1995 (12) TMI 366 - PUNJAB HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... case. In order to do substantial justice between the parties, it would be in the interest of justice to condone the delay in filing the petitions and to issue a direction to the Tribunal to refer the same question of law which was ordered by this Court in S.T.C. No. 1 of 1986, pertaining to the earlier assessment year. In view of the above, it is held that the following question of law does arise from the order of the Tribunal Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in setting aside the order of the Additional Excise and Taxation Commissioner-II dated December 12, 1983 passed under section 40 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973? Tribunal is, accordingly, directed to refer the abovesaid question of law together with the statement of the case for opinion of this Court, within a period of three months from today. On receipt of the reference from the Tribunal, the same be put up along with G.S.T.R. No. 14 of 1988. Applications allowed.
........
|
