|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 577 Records
-
2001 (3) TMI 1090 - CEGAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... issue relates to Modvat. Issue with reference to maintainability of the appeal in respect of Modvat credit has already been considered by us as per our earlier Order No. 249-299/2001 dated 27.2.2001. Following the ratio of the aforesaid decision, this appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. (Pronounced and dictated in open court)
-
2001 (3) TMI 1089 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... standing on the road whereas the other accused were busy committing the crime inside the house. The exaggerated version of PW3 regarding the participation of Pavitri Devi by allegedly catching hold of his mother's hair cannot be accepted as PWs 1 and 2 have not supported the aforesaid version. The High Court was, therefore, justified in holding that Pavitri Devi, A3 did not share the common intention with the other accused persons. By her mere presence near the place of occurrence at or about the time of crime in the absence of other evidence, direct or circumstantial, cannot hold her guilty with the aid of Section 34. But in case the prosecution had succeeded in proving on facts of her sharing of common intention with A1 and A2, she could not be acquitted of the charge framed against her only on the ground that she had actually not done any overt act. The appeal of the State filed against Pavitri Devi has no merit and has thus rightly been dismissed by Brother Thomas, J.
-
2001 (3) TMI 1088 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rection is issued. Conclusion 23. The petitioner in Probate C.P. No. 8 of 1998 respondent herein seeks letters of administration in regard to alleged Will of Muni Narayanappa. That was challenged and resisted by Anjanamma, wife of Muninarayanappa, by contending that she succeeded to the properties of Muni Narayanappa. She died and appellant claims to be the legatee in possession of the property which is claimed by the petitioner in Probate C.P. No. 8 of 1998, under the Will of Muni Narayanappa. If the appellant is not permitted to come on record, there Will be no one to continue the contest put up by Anjanamma. We therefore find that the appellant is a necessary party to the proceedings in Probate C.P. No. 8 of 1998. 24. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the order dated 6-1-1999 on I.A. No. VIII is Probate C.P. No. 8 of 1998 is set aside. I.A. No. VIII in Probate C.P. No. 8 of 1998 shall stand allowed. The respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 2,500.00 as costs to the appellant.
-
2001 (3) TMI 1087 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nce in the contention of the learned counsel for respondents that on the basis of Rule 49 of the CCS (Pension) Rules or on the basis of G.O., the respondents who have retired after completing qualifying service of 10 years but before completing qualifying service of 20 years by voluntary retirement, are entitled to get pensionary benefits. Respondents who were permitted to resign from service under Rule 19 of the BSF Rules before the attainment of the age of retirement or before putting such number of years of service, as may be necessary under the Rules, to be eligible for retirement are not entitled to get any pension under any of the provisions under CCS (Pension) Rules. Rule 49 only prescribes the procedure for calculation and quantification of pension amount. The G.O. dated 27.12.1995 does not confer any additional right of pension on the BSF employees. 22. Hence, the aforesaid appeals are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. There shall be no order as to cost.
-
2001 (3) TMI 1086 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 4 was dismissed though as withdrawn. 7. May be that the judgment debtor wanted to gain time first by moving the application under Section 34 of the Act and then by filing objections under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code thereby challenging the validity of the award. No doubt any judgment debtor has the right to challenge the validity of the decree when it is sought to be executed but in the instant proceedings such a recourse is provided under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act whereby the judgment debtor can challenge the validity of the award on the ground of its being in violation of any law and Therefore being a nullity. As a matter of fact, the provisions of Section 34 are substitute or provisions parallel to the provisions of Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. 8. For the aforesaid reasons I do not find any merit in the application and dismiss the same. 9. Since decretal amount was already been paid, the execution petition is disposed of having been satisfied.
-
2001 (3) TMI 1085 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nal proceedings on a finding that it does not tantamount to violation of any provisions of the Act. Needless to mention that if associations and political parties would be allowed to receive foreign contribution and would deposit the same in any bank they like notwithstanding their declaration with the Central Government at the time of registration, then the very purpose of conferring power on the Central Government to regulate, would be frustrated and all other provisions for inspections and auditing conferring power on the Central Government would be futile. In the aforesaid premises, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the High Court committed serious error by quashing the criminal proceedings in the impugned judgment on an erroneous interpretation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, as stated above and we, accordingly set aside the same. These appeals are allowed. The Magistrate is directed to proceed with the matter expeditiously.
-
2001 (3) TMI 1084 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cturer in another institution and after lapse of two years his re-transfer was permitted. In the present case, the petitioner had not left the institution after selection in another institution on substantive post. The nature of appointment in Balrampur Degree College, Gonda, in respect of the petitioner, is not on record. The extraordinary leave had been sanctioned by the college and, thus, there was no question of any break in service. 27. In view of foregoing discussions, the irresistible conclusion is that the petitioner was appointed on the post of lecturer (Biology) on 31.7.1970 and there has been no break in his service and on other hand, the respondent No. 5 had been promoted on the post of lecturer (Logic) only on 1.7.1972. Thus, the petitioner is senior to the respondent No. 5. Therefore, the impugned order dated 27.4.2000 passed by the Joint Director of Education, cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 1083 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... absolve himself from the criminal liability for the offence committed." 10. The Supreme Court has thus ruled that if the complaint is found to be premature, it can await maturity or be returned to the complainant for filing later and mere presentation at an earlier date need not necessarily render the complaint liable to be dismissed or confer any right upon the accused to absolve himself from the criminal liability for the offence committed. In view of this clear law so laid down by the Supreme Court, the objection raised for the petitioners-accused against maintainability of the complaint will have no legal force. For the same reason, the decision rendered by this court in the case of Ashok Hegde v. Jathin V. Attawan could be no longer a good law. 11. There was no other substantive objection or ground of attack raised against the criminal proceeding initiated against the accused, meriting serious consideration. 12. Therefore, the petition is bound to fail and it fails.
-
2001 (3) TMI 1082 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o the conclusion of the Tribunal about the proper method to be applied for valuation of the gifted property. The Tribunal held that taking into account the peculiar circumstances that the property was tenanted and the tenant was occupying house since long and was continuing even after the gift, indicated that rent capitalisation method was the proper method. The learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the position would be different after 1989, but when the proceedings related to an earlier period, the method adopted by the Tribunal would not be proper. 4. It is not in dispute that rent capitalisation method is one of the approved methods of the valuation of an immovable property, which is let out. Findings of the Tribunal to which we have made reference above are essentially factual. That being the position, in our view, no question of law arises which is to be answered. We, Therefore, decline to answer the question referred. 5. Reference is, accordingly, disposed of.
-
2001 (3) TMI 1081 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... se the amount from the defendant as per the accounts given in the plaint. The plaintiff further states in the plaint that the amount stated in the plaint is the amount due to him as per the dealings. 18. As already stated, the plaintiff was not able to establish his case. The cheque issued is not a cheque issued by the fourth defendant. It is a cheque of the Firm. It is true that the fourth defendant was not able to prove his case that the cheque was given as security for the loan granted to the fourth defendant. That does not mean that the plaintiff's to be given a decree. The plaintiff has not come with clean hands to the Court. He has not told the true story before Court. The only cause of action stated is business transaction with the plaintiff. Hence, according to us, the decree granted against the fourth defendant is wrong. In the above view of the matter. A.S. No. 105 of 1991 is allowed, A.S. No. 180 of 1991 is dismissed. Parties are to bear their respective costs.
-
2001 (3) TMI 1080 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ion, and thereby show mercy to the defendant by enabling him to try to prove a defence." The amount equivalent to the aforesaid amount shall be computed by the Prothonotary & Senior Master on the basis of the rate of exchange as prevailing today and shall be deposited within a period of 8 weeks from today, in this Court. 16. On such deposit, the suit be transferred to the list of Commercial Causes. The Defendants shall file their Written Statement within 8 weeks thereafter. Inspection and discovery will be completed within 8 weeks thereafter. 17. In the event the amount are deposited as aforesaid, the Prothonotary & Senior Master to initially deposit the said amount in a Nationalized Bank, for a period of one year and thereafter, for equal successive periods, till the disposal of the suit. 18. On failure to deposit the aforesaid amount, liberty to the Plaintiffs to apply for further orders. 19. Summons for Judgment is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
-
2001 (3) TMI 1079 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in the year 1972 and, therefore, the entry in the revenue record that the respondent was a tenant of the land in the year 1973 is incorrect. We do not dispute the legal position as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant, but the presumption of correctness of an entry in revenue record cannot be rebutted by a statement in the written statement. Mere statement of fact in the written statement is not a rebuttal of presumption of correctness of an entry in the revenue record. The respondent was recorded as a tenant in the revenue record in the year 1973 and under law the presumption is that the entry is correct. It was for the appellant to rebut the presumption by leading evidence. The appellant has not led any evidence to show that entry in the revenue record is Incorrect. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the contention. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2001 (3) TMI 1078 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... and government servants. On behalf of the State, it has not been challenged that the aforesaid statements of facts in the two judgments are incorrect. During the course of arguments learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State made an unsuccessful attempt to refer to a scheme prepared by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, but in view of the fact that neither any counter affidavit was filed before the High Court nor the said scheme was filed before this Court either along with the Special Leave Petitions or with any other affidavit, we are of the opinion that it is not possible for us to look into the said scheme as such the same can be of no avail to the State by its mere production in Court during the course of argument. 16. In view of the foregoing discussions, we do not find any infirmity in the judgments rendered by the High Court so as to be interfered with by this Court. 17. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2001 (3) TMI 1077 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... would out weigh the ‘Criminal outfit’. 14. Analysis of the complaint would show that the petitioners have entered into an agreement by way of Hypothecation Deed and have borrowed monies and repaid a portion of the same and a portion of the debt is yet to be satisfied. The complainant's grouse is that he attempted to take possession of the properties as per the clause contained in the Hypothecation Deed, but the petitioners obstructed to his taking possession. The case is not one for removal of obstruction but the case is registered under Section 403, 405, 420, I.P.C i.e criminal breach of trust and cheating. What the petitioners had complained is of breach of agreement in which case has to exercise his remedy in a Civil Court. He cannot adopt a short-cut method of preferring a complaint for criminal breach of trust, cheating with ingredients, which axe prima facie absent. 15. Hence the O.P is allowed, further proceedings in F.I.R No.459 of 2000 stands quashed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 1076 - CEGAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... in favour of the assessees. In this case order-in-original has been passed following the Board’s Circular made in No. 75/CEX/93, dated 15-12-1993 and this has been referred to in our earlier judgment dated 25-10-2000. Hence, following the said judgment, the issue is decided in favour of the appellant assessee and the order-in-appeal impugned before us is set aside with consequential relief, if any, according to law.
-
2001 (3) TMI 1075 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... earned counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that since the appellant has been honourably acquitted by the appellate court in respect of the criminal charges and the order of dismissal was because of criminal conviction recorded by the trial Judge, there was no reason to disentitle him to the backwages for the period in question. Mr. Iyer, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Corporation on the other hand contended that the appellant not having rendered any service would not be entitled to any backwages and as such there is no infirmity with the impugned order of the Division Bench of the High Court. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances we think it appropriate to modify the impugned order of the Division Bench of the High Court and we direct that the appellant would be entitled to 50% of the backwages for the period in question. The appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaid modification.
-
2001 (3) TMI 1074 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ss of reasoning and the High Court should not exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. In this connection the observations made by the Apex Court in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Malllkarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, need to be noticed. Where two views are possible and, the Trial Court has taken one view which is a possible and plausible view, merely because another view is attractive, the High Court should not interfere and would be in error in interpreting with the finding of the Trial Court or interfering under Article 227 of the Constitution over such decision. Conclusion 20. In the aforesaid view of the matter, I am clearly of the opinion that in view of the intention of the parties reflected through the document in question and facts and circumstances of this case, it was a lease and not a licence. The petition, therefore, fails and deserves to be dismissed. 21. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Rule stands discharged with no order as to costs.
-
2001 (3) TMI 1073 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ons. In this case, I find that the AMC failed to comply with that Regulation, which provided for restriction on the activities of the AMC. Thus I find that the AMC violated restrictory provisions contained in Regulation 29 and consequently that of Regulation 19 which read with Regulation 10 of SEBI (Mutual Fund) Regulations, 1996 provides to the effect that the AMC should comply with the Regulations." Emphasis Supplied 24. The Adjudicating Officer has thus come to the categorical conclusion that the appellant had failed to make certain material disclosures in the AOD, inspite of SEBI's direction and decided to impose a sum of ₹ 3 lakhs as monetary penalty. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case I do not consider that the decision of the Adjudicating Officer imposing ₹ 3 lakhs as penalty is unjustified. For the reasons stated above, imposition of penalty made by the respondent vide order dated 10-11-2000 is upheld. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 1072 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the mischief of the Act. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the contention of the defendant that the transaction in question is hit by the provisions of the Act and as such, no declaration in favour of the plaintiffs could be granted, There is no prohibition in law for declaring the plaintiffs along with the defendant as co-owners of the suit schedule property. For the foregoing reasons. I pass the following order 32. Appeal is allowed. Plaintiffs suit is decreed declaring that the plaintiffs 2 to 4 and the defendant are co-owners to the suit schedule property to the extent of their contribution as such, all of them are entitled to equal share. Consequently the plaintiffs are also entitled to a decree of injunction restraining the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. However, it is open to the defendant to take appropriate legal proceedings to carve out his share and possession of his share in the suit schedule property. No costs.
-
2001 (3) TMI 1071 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... answers of the respondent or the same supports the contention as raised by the applicants herein Incidentally, since the appeal is pending in this Court for adjudication, and since the matter under consideration have no bearing on such adjudication so far as the merits of the dispute are concerned, we are not expressing any opinion in the matter neither we are required to express opinion thereon, excepting however, recording that probabilities of the situation may also warrant a finding, in favour of the interpretation of the applicant. The doubt persists and as such in any event the respondents being the alleged contemners are entitled to have the benefit or advantage of such a doubt having regard to the nature of the proceeding as noticed herein before more fully. In view of the observations as above, we are not also inclined to go into the question of apology. On the wake of the aforesaid, this Contempt Petition fails and is dismissed without however, any order as to costs
........
|
