|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 320 Records
-
1996 (12) TMI 423 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... en belt as recommended by NEERI has been set up around Taj. Pursuant to continuous monitoring of this Court, the Green Belt has become a reality. (g) This Court suggested to the Planning Commission by order dated September 4, 1996 to consider sanctioning separate allocation for the city of Agra and the creation of separate cell under the control of Central Government to safeguard and preserve the Taj, the city of Agra and other national heritage monuments in the TT. (h) All emporia and shops functioning within the Taj premises have been directed to be closed. (i) Directions have been issued to the Government of India to decide the issue, pertaining to declaration of Agra as heritage city, within two months. 36. We are mentioning these issues dealt with by this Court because it may be necessary to monitor some of these matters to take them to a logical extent. This Court may look into these matters on April 4, 1997. 37. The issue relating to 292 industries is thus disposed of.
-
1996 (12) TMI 422 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... fficer, revoke his option from the commencement of any month following that in which the notice is given. 8. Thus it could be seen that he has been given an option for payment of the entertainment tax in the manner laid down in Clause (b). Under Clause 3(a), he is required to make an application as provided under Clause (e). Thus considered, it is a valid rule for the due collection of the entertainment tax when the proprietor of the video-recorder/video games entertains the persons admitted into the theater or exhibits the video recorder/video player in omnibus at the rates specified thereunder, Thus the Rule is valid and is not beset with any arbitrariness in the exercise of the power. Accordingly, we uphold Section 6-A and affirm the findings of the High Court declaring Rule 13(2) to be ultra vires. Rule 22 is void. Rule 14(2) is incidental to and consequence of enforcement of regulation. 9. The appeals are accordingly allowed, the writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs.
-
1996 (12) TMI 421 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... yak Nagar Adhikari who was originally appointed on ad hoc basis and whose service was regularised only on 17.5.85 as senior to the direct recruits who were appointed before that date. We also quash and set aside the order passed by the Government under Rule 40(2) of the Rules whereby the employees appointed on ad hoc basis and working continuously have been made permanent on those posts with effect from 2 years after the date of jointing on those posts. The Government is directed to consider the seniority of the appellants and respondents as stated above and further consider the case of the appellants for selection grade accordingly and also in accordance with the Government order dated July 29, 1986. The Government shall grant them the said benefit immediately if they are found to be eligible for the same. The Government shall complete the whole exercise within a period of two months from today. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1996 (12) TMI 420 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... required to reimburse the expenditure incurred for the period during which the patient stayed in the approved hospital for treatment. It is incongruous that while the patient is admitted to undergo treatment and he is refused the reimbursement of the actual expenditure incurred towards room rent and is given the expenditure of the room rent chargeable in another institute whereat he had not actually undergone treatment. Under these circumstances, the contention of the State Government is obviously untenable and incongruous. We hold that the High Court was right in giving the direction for reimbursement of a sum of Rs. 20,000 incurred by the respondent towards the room rent for his stay while undergoing treatment in Escorts Heart Institute, New Delhi. 11. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. In CA @ SLP (C) No. 18828/96 Leave granted. 12. Heard counsel for the parties. 13. The appeal is disposed of in terms of order passed in CA No. 16980/96 @ SLP (C) No. 12945/96.
-
1996 (12) TMI 419 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs. Civil Appeal Nos. 187-190 of 1980 5. These appeals have been directed to be tagged with Civil Appeal Nos. 2952-54 of 1979. No separate arguments have been addressed herein. In View of the decision in the said appeal, these appeals too are allowed and the question referred to the High Court is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The question which was referred for the opinion of the High Court reads Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the penalties Under Section 18(1)(a) for asstt. years 1965-66 to 1968-69 were liable to be calculated in accordance with the law as it stood before amendment on 1.4.69 even before the period of default after 31.3.69 and not as per the increased scale of penalty introduced with effect from 1.4.69 by the Finance Act, 1969? Answered accordingly. No costs.
-
1996 (12) TMI 418 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the net value towards cultivation expenses requires to be deducted. The award of the Reference Court/as confirmed by the High court stands set aside and the value of the crop as determined by the Reference Court at Rs. 2,050 as average annual income stands upheld. Multiplier of 10 years should be applied and deduction of 50% towards cultivation expenses should be made. After giving deduction, the balance will be the net value of the land. On that basis, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 20,500 per acre with solatium @ 30% on enhanced compensation and interest on enhanced compensation @ 0.9% per annum for one year from the date of taking possession and 15% per annum till date of deposit into the court under the Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984, namely 30% solatium on the enhanced compensation, interest on the enhanced compensation from the date of taking possession for one year at 9% and thereafter at 15% till date of deposit. 5. The appeals are accordingly allowed. No costs.
-
1996 (12) TMI 417 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he special tribunals, the civil court's jurisdiction must be held to be excluded, if there is adequate remedy to do what the civil courts would normally do in a suit. Such a provision, however, does not exclude those cases where the provisions of the particular Act have not been complied with or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure. 10. In the light of the findings of the courts below which we have extracted above, we do not think that the High Court has committed any error in holding that the suit was maintainable and also granting the modified relief. 11. Before parting with the case, we may observe that we gave an opportunity to the appellant to settle the matter outside the court but the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant after getting instructions reported that the settlement was not possible. It is unfortunate. In the result the appeal is dismissed. However, there will no order as to costs.
-
1996 (12) TMI 416 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... erstood by a common man cannot, therefore, be accepted. This Act is an Act of Parliament intended to deal with the particular technology and the commodities involved therein. We are, therefore, of the view that in this Act, "Water" has been used in both the senses, namely, that (i) it is a mineral; and (ii) the most common, readily and freely, available substance on earth. 29. That apart, on the second question, were fully endorse the view taken by the Gujarat High Court in holding that carrying of "Water" through the new pipelines would be an act for the utilisation of the pipeline within the meaning of "Section 7" of the Act and, therefore, permissible. 30. The whole Project under the Act is a Project of national importance and, therefore, any individual inconvenience has to yield to the national interest. 31. We do not find any infirmity in the judgment passed by the Gujarat High Court and dismiss the appeal, but without any order as to costs.
-
1996 (12) TMI 415 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the Magistrate had come up for examination. The point involved in present appeal, however, is relatable not to the power of the police to make further investigation but of the Magistrate to order for such investigation. 11. The aforesaid being the legal position as discernible from the various decisions of this Court and some of the High Courts, we would agree, as presently advised, with Shri Vasdev that within the grey area to which we have referred the Magistrate of his own cannot order for further investigation. As in the present case the learned Magistrate had done so, we set aside his order and direct him to dispose of the case either by framing the charge or discharge the accused on the basis of materials already on record. This will be subject to the caveat that even if the order be of discharge, further investigation by the police on its own would be permissible, which could even end in submission of either fresh chargesheet. 12. The appeal stands allowed accordingly.
-
1996 (12) TMI 414 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the end result in this case it is not necessary for this Court to monitor these matters any further. We are of the view that the Calcutta High Court would be in a better position to monitor these matters hereinafter. The "Green Bench" is already functioning in the Calcutta High Court. We direct the registry of this Court to send the relevant records, orders, documents etc. pertaining to the Calcutta tanneries to the Calcutta High Court before January 10, 1997. The High Court shall treat this matter as a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and deal with it in accordance with law and also in terms of the directions issued by us. We make it clear that it will be open to the High court to pass any appropriate order/orders keeping in view the directions issued by us. We give liberty to the parties to approach the High Court as and when necessary. The matter pertaining to Calcutta tanneries is disposed of with costs which we quantity as ₹ 25,000.
-
1996 (12) TMI 413 - ITAT CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... ecause, as stated in Explanatory Notes to HSN under Tariff heading 73.08, "these structures are characterised by the fact that once they are put in position, they generally remain in that position. They are usually made up from bars, rods, tubes, angles, shapes, sections, sheets, plates, wide flats including so called universal plates, hoop, strip, forgings or castings, by reveting, bolting, welding etc..." 'Guy rod' is a part of such a structure. We, therefore, uphold the classification of the 'guy rod' under Tariff Heading 73.08. Consequently, the demand of differential duty for six months backward from the date of show-cause notice is set aside. 7.5 In view of our finding on classification of the goods 'guy rod', we do not consider it necessary to go into another plea of the appellant that demand of duty should be effective from the date of show-cause notice in view of the longstanding practice of classification. Pronounced in Open Court.
-
1996 (12) TMI 412 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and anr., AIR 1989 Allahabad 45 Rajiv Lochan Pandey v. Madan Gopal Sharma and ors.. 13. All these authorities are beyond the issue to the proved facts, which are that the petitioner got the knowledge of the decree on 4.5.73. He moved his first application on 7.6.73 though it was prepared on 4.6.73, the application was barred by time. The petitioner could not explain why he did not file the application on 4.6.73 within limitation. His first application dated 7.6.73 was dismissed on 24.9.73 on which date he filed the 2nd application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. though legally not maintainable. 14. In this view of the matter, I do not see any infirmity in the impugned orders of the trial Court and of the first appellate court who vide their well reasoned orders dismissed the application under order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. Resultantly, this Court is also of the view that there is no merit in the present revision which is also hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1996 (12) TMI 411 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f Section 12(3) of the Act implies a power coupled with duty which can be enforced by writ of mandamus by the High Court or by writ of any other competent court but apart from such litigations and uncertainty underlying the results thereof, it would be more appropriate for the legislature itself to make a clear provision for due compliance with the report of Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta so that the public confidence in the working of the system does not get eroded and these institutions can effectively justify their creation under the statute. 21. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, it must be held that all the original writ petitioners whose writ petitions came to be allowed by the High Court were rightly held to be outside the purview and jurisdiction of the Lokayukta functioning under the Act. These appeals are liable to fail ' and are accordingly dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, however, there will be no order as to costs in all these appeals.
-
1996 (12) TMI 410 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... alty. We do not think that we can agree with this proposition. Once a notice is given by the Income-tax Officer that is good enough. It is not necessary for each succeeding Income-tax Officer to go on issuing fresh notices on the same subject. At the same time in view of the fact that the penalty amount is about ₹ 6,000 and these appeals are directed against the order of the High Court rejecting applications under Section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act and also having regard to the time that has elapsed since, we are not inclined to interfere. The proposition of law has, however, been corrected by us. 2. The appeals are disposed of with the above directions. No costs.
-
1996 (12) TMI 409 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... dships have held that an order rejecting an application for amendment of the written statement was not purely an interlocutory order against which no Lpa would lie. The test laid down by their Lordships in Jugal Kishore Paliwal's case (supra) does not shake the view taken by us hereinabove and rather supports the same. The test laid down by the Supreme Court in Shah Babujilal Khimji's case (supra) has been reiterated and their Lordships have held that the tests to determine whether an interlocutory order would amount to a judgment were (i) whether the order decides matters of moment, (ii) whether it affects the vital and valuable rights of the parties, and (iii) whether it works serious injustice to the parties concerned. Applying the tests to the case at hand, none of the tests is satisfied by an order rejecting an application for review so as to call it a judgment. (11) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. No order as to the costs.
-
1996 (12) TMI 408 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... clear that Rent Control Court and Appellate Authority are not civil Courts coming under the hierarchy of the Courts under the CPC and, therefore, Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable. In view of the discussions it is clear that even though Rent Control Court under the Rent Control Act is a 'Court' and is not a persona designata, it is not a Civil Court for the purpose of the provisions of Section 115 of the CPC. Therefore, against an interim order of the Rent Control Court no revision petition will lie. We are not considering whether an appeal will lie against the interim order in question or whether a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is maintainable. We are informed that a writ petition was already filed. This revision petition is dismissed as not maintainable without prejudice to the right of the petitioner in pursuing any other remedies legally available to him. C.M.P. No. 4232 of 1996 in C.R.P. No. 2419 of 1996 15. Dismissed.
-
1996 (12) TMI 407 - FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION APPELLATE BOARD
... ...
... ... ..... t proceeds even though the amounts might be outstanding in spite of such efforts. It has to be appreciated that non-realisation of export proceeds per se is not punishable under the Act; it is punishable only if the exporter fails to prove that he had taken reasonable steps to realise the outstanding amount. What is reasonable is to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case and the test is what a prudent exporter in the given facts and circumstances would do. He is not expected to make efforts that are likely to be futile or otherwise uncalled for. 10. In the result, all the appeals are allowed and the impugned order is set aside as against all the appellants. The case is remanded for fresh adjudication in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made hereinbefore. 11. The appellants are directed to appear before the adjudicating authority on 3-3-1997 at 11.00 AM in his office or such other date and place as the adjudicating authority may fix.
-
1996 (12) TMI 406 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d more. That is neither here nor there. Once it is found that the appellant was more meritorious as compared to respondent No. 7 and deserves to be, appointed on merits and his claim was not considered on a totally irrational and arbitrary ground the legal consequences resulting from the voiding of such an illegal exercise must follow. 8. In the result this appeal is allowed. The judgment and order rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna in O.A. No. 192 of 1994 are quashed and set aside. The said application is allowed. The impugned appointment of respondent No. 7 as Extra Department Branch Post Master is quashed and set aside. The authorities are directed to appoint the appellant as Extra Department Branch Post Master in the place of respondent No. 7 and allow him to work as such in accordance with rules and regulations of the Department, by running the Post Office on his premises. In the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.
-
1996 (12) TMI 405 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the impugned rule would be enforceable only in regard to the promotions to be made to vacancies arising after 17.3.1987. Promotions till that date have to be made in accordance with the rule of subject-wise promotion. 8. We are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of this case, especially in the absence of a validating clause in the 1988 Rules, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment of the Tribunal. 9. We, however, clarify that in view of our finding that the judgment of the Tribunal dated March 17, 1987 in A. No. 497/86 gives relief only to Joshi, the benefit of the said judgment of the Tribunal cannot be extended to any other person. The respondent C. K. Dharagupta (since retired) is seeking benefit of Joshi's case. In view of our finding that the benefit of the judgment of the Tribunal dated March 17, 1987 could only be give to Joshi and nobody else even Dharagupta is not entitled to any relief. 10. The appeal is disposed of. No costs.
-
1996 (12) TMI 404 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 30 days. The plaintiff-respondent No.1 is, Therefore, entitled to compensation being the loss of earnings for the notice period of third days instead of restoration of the distributorship." (105) In the light of the aforesaid decisions it is to be held that a contract which is in its nature determinable can never be enforced. In the present case also the agreement having been held by me to be determinable also cannot be enforced being an agreement covered by Section 14(1)(c) of the Contract Act. Therefore, since I have held that no specific performance of the agreement in question being permissible no declaration and injunction as prayed for by the plaintiff in the present suit could be granted to the plaintiff. The aforesaid two issues are, Therefore, held against the plaintiff and in favor of the defendant. (106) The aforesaid three issues having been held against the plaintiff and in favor of the defendant the suit filed by the plaintiff stands dismissed with costs.
........
|
