|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 630 Records
-
2000 (8) TMI 1107 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... able ground to admit the appeal. The appeal is, accordingly dismissed.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1106 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ion. But we cannot pass orders in this IA which virtually amounts to giving a disposal to her pending review petition 21/2000. We, therefore, reject this application however, permitting the applicant to move the Registry to have the Review application listed in Chambers. IA 3 is disposed of accordingly. Point 8 is decided accordingly. In the result, the IAs, 3 to 5 are disposed of as stated above and the W.P. 155/2000 is rejected permitting petitioner to move the High Court. The directions given under Point 6 shall be taken note of by the applicant Sri Gurdip Singh Uban and the respondents. The observations made under Point 8 will be taken note of by Mrs. Har Kiran Commar and the respondent, In the normal course, we should have imposed heavy costs on the applicant Sri Gurdip Singh Uban for filing application for 'recall', 'modify' and 'recall' after dismissal of review petition. But. as some relief is granted, on concession, we are not imposing costs.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1105 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... xercised in accordance with the provisions of the statute applicable in the matter and the rules framed in that regard. Therefore, no direction could be justifiably issued in the present proceedings which is relating to vesting of surplus land under the Act, for felling and/or removal of any forest produce from forest area. The resultant position from the discussions in the foregoing paragraphs is that the judgment of the Division Bench confirming the judgment of the learned single Judge of the High Court, that forest produce did not vest in the Government and that the landholders are entitled to compensation is unsustainable. Consequentially the direction to the State Government to determine and pay the compensation for the forest growth is also unsustainable. Accordingly, the Civil Appeal No.3013 of 1987 is allowed and the judgment under challenge is set aside. Civil Appeal Nos. 9617-18 of 1995 are dismissed. In the circumstances, however, there will be no order for costs.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1104 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... have considered the explanation. That is why we have taken pains to examine in depth whether the case fits into the exception. Thus, in our view, in the above peculiar circumstances, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that even if Mr. Mansoor Ali Khan had been given notice and he had mentioned this fact of job continuance in Libya as a reason, that would not have made any difference and would not have been treated as a satisfactory explanation under Rule 5(8)(i). Thus, on the admitted or undisputed facts, only one view was possible. The case would fall within the exception noted in S.L.Kapoor's case. We, therefore, hold that no prejudice has been caused to the officer for want of notice under Rule 5(8)(i). We hold against Mr. Mansoor Ali Khan under Point 5. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow the appeals, set aside the judgments of the Division Bench of the High Court in the case of both employees and dismiss the writ petitions. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1103 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e guidelines to the Government for exercising its power. Hence it is neither unbridled nor without any guidelines. (B) So far the impugned 62 GOs, each one of them, which has been annexed compositively under Annexure II to the writ petition, cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed. (C) Section 113-A as a one time measure brought in through the Tamil Nadu Town and Planning (Amendment) Act, 1998 is valid piece of legislation and not ultra vires. (D) The facts recorded in the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Amending Act indicates matter of serious concern which requires earnest consideration to salvage in future such recurring situation affecting public right with resultant hazard of traffic, public health, security etc. (E) To take effective measures, to check at the root level, at the very nascent stage and see that such situations does not recur. In view of the aforesaid findings and our conclusions both the writ petitions are partly allowed. Costs on the parties.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1102 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Commissioner will ensure that these illegalities do not occur in future. We accordingly direct the Commissioner, Trade-tax to charge-sheet the officials who had committed these illegalities and proceed department ally against them. The Commissioner shall also grant proper compensation to the petitioners in both these cases (commensurate to the loss they have suffered) preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law. The Commissioner shall also issue instructious to all Trade-tax authorities forthwith that such illegalities must stop immediately. 15. Both the petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid observations. The Registrar General of this Court shall send a copy of this judgment to the Principal Secretary. Institutional Finance (Trade-tax). U. P., Lucknow who in turn will forward it to all the concerned trade-tax authorities including the Check Post Officers to ensure strict compliance of this judgment.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1101 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 72, From the provisions in the other State enactments also it is clear that the legislatures have taken caution to exclude banks from the operations of the statutes presumably with a view to avoid any conflict with the Parliamentary enactment Unfortunately, the Assam Money Lenders Act, 1934 does not incorporate any such provision in it. It may be noted here that 'banking' is covered under item No. 45 in ListI of the Union List of the VII Schedule of the Constitution, while 'Money Lending and 'Money Lenders' Relief of Agricultural indebtedness comes under item 30 of List II State List of the VIIth Schedule. Adopting a purposive and meaningful interpretation of the provisions of the statute we are persuaded to take the view that 'banks' do not come under the purview, of the Assam Money Lenders Act. Therefore the High Court was right in holding mat the suit filed by the respondent bank is maintainable. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1100 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... pen to it to take into consideration subsequent events, if any, and decide whether the operating agency already operating is to be operative further or any variation in terms of the appointment of the operating agency is necessary. We make it clear we have not expressed any opinion on merits. Parties shall be free to move BIFR for protection of assets and if it is satisfied that there is in reality disposal of assets to defraud creditors, appropriate orders, can be passed in accordance with law and in the proper perspective. 7. To avoid unnecessary delay, let the parties appear before the BIFR on 12th September 2000 so that necessary orders can be passed by it. In the meantime, orders passed by the BIFR are stayed. Fresh orders, it goes without saying, has to be passed. 8. In view of our order setting aside the orders passed by the BIFR and the AAIFR, the provisions of Section 22 of the Act, so far as they are applicable, would apply. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1099 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sentence to the minimum period prescribed for the offence. The reason advanced by the Counsel in support of the aforesaid plea is mainly that the narcotic drug (brown sugar) was only 506 grams and such a quantity does not warrant a sentence of such a harsh dimension. In the peculiar circumstances of these cases, we are also of the view that the sentence can be limited to the minimum period prescribed under the provisions. We, therefore, reduce the sentence to Rl for 10 years and a fine of ₹ 1 lakh Under Section 21 of the Act for all the appellants. Regarding the offence Under Section 25 in respect of the first accused - Thomson also, we reduce it to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of ₹ 1 lakh. We direct the sentences for the aforesaid two counts to run concurrently as for the first accused. 8. In default of payment of fine the appellants shall undergo imprisonment for a further period of one year. 9. These appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1098 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... idelines and check in view of the Preamble, object and reasons and various provisions of the Act. (d) Requirement of mere placement of the Rules or the Notifications before the State Legislature is also one of the form of check on the State Government to exercise its powers as a delegatee. (e) In this case the impugned notification dated 28.9.1994 has not been placed as required by sub-section (3) of Section 28 of the Act. The State Government is directed to do so now at the earliest. (f) However, non-placement of the said notification would not invalidate the same, as said requirement is only directory. (g) The enhancement of royalty on the facts and circumstances of this case cannot be said to be arbitrary or otherwise illegal. In view of the aforesaid findings, we do not find any merit in these appeals and accordingly they are dismissed. We upheld the judgment of the High Court but on a different reasoning as recorded by us earlier. The appeals stand dismissed with costs.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1097 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the order of the prosecution had not been passed by an appropriate authority and that the cognizance could not have been taken as according to him the complaint was barred by limitation?
Held that:- We agree with the submissions made by Mr.Bahuguna that no sanction or consent is provided to be taken from the Government under Section 13(3) of the Act and the period spent in obtaining the orders for filing the complaint cannot be excluded under Explanation to Subsection (3) of Section 470 Cr.P.C.
No useful purpose would be served by again directing the complainant to approach the Trial Magistrate for the purposes of seeking extension of period of limitation. The complainant is held to have explained the delay in filing the complaint which required extension. The complaint is, therefore, held to be within time and the petitioner is not entitled to be discharged on this ground. Appeal dismissed.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1096 - SUPREME COURT
Whether when a search is made by a gazetted officer, is it obligatory for the prosecution to inform the accused of his right to be searched before a gazetted officer or before a Magistrate, as provided under Section 50 of the Act?
Held that:- The submission of Mr. M.N. Shroff, appearing for the State-respondent, that the requirement of compliance of Section 50 will not arise, if a search is going to be made by an empowered officer, who happens to be a gazetted officer, is devoid of any substance inasmuch as this Court in no uncertain terms has held that when an empowered officer or a duly authorised officer, acting on prior information is about to search a person, it is imperative for him to inform the person concerned of his right under sub-section(1) of Section 50 of being taken to the nearest gazetted officer or the nearest Magistrate for making the search. In view of the aforesaid position of law and in view of the evidence of PW1., as indicated in the earlier part of this judgment, the accused himself having wanted to be searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate and the same having been denied, there cannot be any doubt that failure on the part of the prosecution in complying with the provisions of Section 50, renders the recovery of illicit article suspect and vitiates the conviction and sentence of the accused, since the conviction in the case in hand is based solely on the alleged possession of Charas, which was recovered from his person, during a search conducted in violation of the provisions of Section 50 of the Act. In the aforesaid circumstances, the conviction and sentence is set aside and the accused be set at liberty forthwith, unless required in any other case. Fine amount, if has been paid, may be refunded to the accused. Criminal Appeal is accordingly allowed.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1095 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the offence of culpable homicide (amounting to or not amounting to murder) was committed?
Held that:- In the present case, the facts which prosecution proved including the proclaimed intention of the accused, when considered in the light of the proximity of time within which the victim sustained fatal injuries and the proximity of the place within which the dead body was found are enough to draw an inference that victim’s death was caused by the same abductors. If any deviation from the aforesaid course would have been factually correct only the abductors would know about it, because such deviation would have been especially within their knowledge. As they refused to state such facts the inference would stand undisturbed.
In the present case we have not come across any such serious flaw in the investigation which had affected the case or which would have impaired the core of the prosecution case justifying or warranting the pejorative remarks made by the Division Bench of the High Court against the investigating officers. In the result, we allow the appeal filed by the State and dismiss the appeals filed by the convicted persons. While maintaining the conviction of the offence under Section 364/34 IPC and restoring the sentence passed by the trial court on the accused we also convict the six appellants/accused of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and impose a sentence of imprisonment for life on each of them. The sentences under all counts will run concurrently. We direct the Sessions Judge, Calcutta City, to take immediate steps for putting the convicted persons back in jail for undergoing the remaining portions of the sentences imposed by this judgement.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1094 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Therefore, I set aside the aforesaid impugned order. The Deputy Commissioner concerned shall proceed afresh. The hearing shall not be fixed earlier than fifteen days from date. However the date of hearing shall be communicated to the petitioner. In so far as the question of limitation is concerned that shall not be taken by the petitioner because of the setting aside of this order and further because of the order passed herein giving liberty to proceed afresh. 6.. The other points are kept open. The petitioner shall be heard in accordance with law. Therefore I set aside the notice for reassessment. 7.. There will be no order as to costs. 8.. Allegations contained in the petition are not admitted by any of the defendants. 9.. The Registrar is directed to do the needful as it has been disposed of at this stage. 10.. Supplementary affidavit be kept on record. 11.. All parties are to act on a signed xerox copy of this dictated order on the usual undertaking. Ordered accordingly.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1093 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n and quash the impugned notification to the extent it makes the brick kiln owners liable to pay higher rate of lump sum tax with retrospective effect. We also direct that the respondents shall not initiate proceedings for recovery of lump sum tax at the enhanced rates from the petitioners for the period between October 1, 1998 and March 31, 1999. If the proceedings for recovery of the lump sum tax have already been initiated on the basis of the impugned notification and See 1999 113 STC Statutes 129. order has already been passed by the concerned authority, then the same shall not be implemented. It is, however, made clear that the petitioners shall be liable to pay tax at the old rates for the aforesaid period and the concerned authority shall be entitled to recover the same in accordance with law. 5.. We also hope that this order will be given effect to qua other similarly situated persons so that necessity of filing of similar petitions is obviated. Writ petition allowed.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1092 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... as become the broker of the tea only after accepting the rules of the Tea Trade Association. Having so accepted to pay the sales tax, they not only acted as agent to sell the tea of the producers on behalf of the manufacturers, they had the privilege of concluding the sale by fall of their hammer and further, only by virtue of their auction sale, the purchaser gets the absolute right in the goods which the sellers themselves did not possess. Therefore, there is no doubt about their liability to pay tax under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act. The assessee failed in all the grounds raised by them and therefore, the revision is bound to be dismissed. Accordingly, confirming the order of the Appellate Tribunal, the revision is dismissed. And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 2nd day of August, 2000. Petition dismissed.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1091 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... nus to let in satisfactory evidence to prove that the transactions are not sales. Thus we find that the conclusions reached by the Appellate Tribunal are on appreciation of facts and there is no case of non-application of mind in passing order while considering the additional affidavits filed under regulation 12 of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Regulations, 1959. As regards penalty the quantum was reduced to the statutory minimum for 1992-93 and the penalty levied for the years 1993-94 and 1994-95 is in accordance with the slab specified under section 12(3)(b) of the Act. Thus we find that no error of law is involved in any of the tax revision cases and in such circumstances they are dismissed in the admission stage itself. And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 1st day of August, 2000. Petition dismissed.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1090 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rest is not to be paid on delayed payment of penalty amount. He points out that the matter dealt with the case reported in 2001 122 STC 310 (WBTT) (Hindustan Copper Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes) concerned amounts of tax and hence section 34 laid down that interest will have to be paid on delayed refund. Considering that the arrangement for refund is now completed not only by the respondent-authority, but also by the Government treasury, we need not pass specific direction to issue the refund payment voucher. That voucher has already been issued eight months back. Also we find that there is no provision in the law to grant interest in the case of refund of penalty amount not associated with assessment. We, therefore, dispose of this application finally with the direction that the respondent-authorities shall immediately give copies of relevant communications and informations about the refund payment voucher and the actions taken in the treasury within 24
-
2000 (8) TMI 1089 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... that the assessee-opposite party had been indulging in transaction outside its books of accounts. The said papers revealed the total transaction of Rs. 2,04,072.71. The Tribunal had held that the loose papers were not recorded in the books of accounts by the assessee-opposite party. It had maintained the determination of turnover made by the assessing authority in respect of other commodities except gur, where it had sustained the addition of Rs. 1 lac only. It may be mentioned here that out of the nine loose papers only one paper contained the entries of gur, the total of which came to about Rs. 90,000 including the debit and credit entries and, therefore, the enhancement by one lac made by the Tribunal after taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be said to be arbitrary or is based on irrelevant materials. The order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity. 6. The revision lacks merit and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
2000 (8) TMI 1088 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... h case where orders levying penalty under section 78(5) to the extent of 30 per cent of the value of the goods has been made is set aside and the same is sent back to assessing officer concerned to proceed in pursuance of notices issued by him for imposition of penalty for breach of section 78(2) of the Act in accordance with law keeping in view the position of law stated hereinabove. In other cases pending proceedings in pursuance of impugned notices may be continued and decided in the light of aforesaid decision. The interim orders passed in each case as to release of goods/vehicle shall continue until proceedings are disposed off by the assessing authority. The order shall not affect any other proceedings taken or intended to be taken under section 78(10) and (11) against the transporter or proceedings against the dealer under any other provisions of the Act. 115.. Accordingly these petitions stands disposed of with no order as to costs. Petitions disposed of accordingly.
........
|
