|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 649 Records
-
2002 (1) TMI 1351 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... first claim of Rs. 9,30,132.40 is not a disputed amount and to that extent, the defendants should be directed to deposit that amount as condition to contest the suit. 21. There is no denying the fact that purchase orders in this case are written contracts. This view receives support form AIR 2001 Delhi 357 , AIR 1992 Delhi 1 . However, the nature of plea raised by the defendants shows that on the representation of Mr. Arun Nayyar, the defendants exported the goods directly to M/s. Sonakshi Exports. Accordingly, defendant no. 2 is granted unconditional leave as the defendant has raised triable issue with regard to export articles on the basis of letter of Mr. Arun Nayar that may entitle the defendant to prefer a counter-claim but subject to furnishing bank guarantee of Rs. 9 lakhs within a period of one month. 22. is is disposed of. S.1549/98 23. Let written statement be filed within six weeks. Replication be filed within four weeks thereafter. 24. Renotify on 24th May, 2002.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1350 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t is open to him to make a bequeath of his Bhumadhari land in favour of whomsoever he wants but he cannot create further succession contrary to the provisions of the Act. The second part of the will created succession in favour of daughters' sons which was contrary and repugnant to the provisions of the Act. In the present case, Smt. Sona Devi having obtained an absolute estate (interest in the Bhumadhari land) under the Will and not as a widow of Jamuna Prasad, the succession to such holding after the death of Smt. Sona Devi shall be governed by the provisions of Section 174 of the act and not under Section 172 of the Act. In that view of the matter, after the death of Smt. Sona Devi, her daughters' and thereafter their sons would succeed to the holding and not all daughters' sons of Jamuna Prasad. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal deserves to succeed. The judgments under challenge is set aside. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1349 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ppropriate direction so that litigations may be conducted in proper manner. As learned standing counsel submits, the Additional L.R. who is posted at Allahabad High Court is directed to communicate this order to the Chief Minister of the State forthwith. 3. It is true that the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is to be liberally construed but such interpretation on construing liberally has to be made on the basis of the materials disclosed. If no material is disclosed, it is not possible to construe the petition liberally because very valuable rights of the other party are involved and the same cannot be ignored. 4. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. 5. Since the delay condonation petition has been dismissed, the special appeal itself stands dismissed and the same need not be registered and shall be taken out of the file of this Court.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1348 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... jarat 1984CriLJ160 , very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order seeking cancellation of the bail. Even where a prima facie case is established, the approach of the court in the matter of bail is not that the accused should be detained by way of punishment but whether the accused would be readily available for trial or that he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favor by tampering with evidence. In this case, as noticed above, the allegations contained in the report lodged by the complainant at P.S. Punjabi Bagh have not been substantiated. Bail cannot be cancelled merely on the ground that articles of Istridhan have not yet been recovered. Petitioners have already suffered police remand and were granted regular bail. 7. For the foregoing reasons, revision petition is allowed. Order dated 18th January, 2002 cancelling the bail is hereby set aside. The order granting bail to petitioners is hereby confirmed. 8. Petition stands disposed of.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1347 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... recorded on behalf of the claimants need not be recorded afresh; 4. The Kerala Water Authority shall be allowed an opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses which have already been examined. However, such of the witnesses as are not available, and, therefore, cannot be called before the Court, their statements shall not be excluded from consideration and shall be read in evidence; 5. The claimants may adduce such other evidence as they may propose to do and both the State of Kerala and Kerala Water Authority shall have the liberty of cross-examining such witnesses who are now examined by the claimants; 6. The Kerala Water Authority shall have the liberty of adducing such evidence as it may propose to do. 12. The Kerala Water Authority shall not be entitled to a separate notice of the proceedings. All the parties present in this Court are directed through their respective counsel to appear before the Tribal Court on 05.03.2002. 13. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1346 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e can also reasonably doubt the very certainty of the risk because the petitioner had also produced before the Appellate Authority the technical specification by in serve Consultants which the Appellate Authority refused to look into because it doubted its genuineness. Thus, I find no ground to allow I.A. No. III and it is, accordingly, dismissed. Point No. (iii) 36. Thus, on an overall consideration of the various factors involved in the case, I allow this writ petition and quash the impugned orders dated 11-5-2000 (Annexure-Z) and 9-6-2000 (Annexure-P) respectively passed by the Appellate Authority as well as the Board. It is, however, open to the Board to make a detailed study of all the potential pollutants and direct the petitioner as provided under Section 25(5) of the water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Rules made thereunder to take all precautionary measures to offset any danger that may be caused by establishment of the college and hospital.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1345 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nding close, was noticed in the person or the clothes of the appellant. In the absence of any such material which would corroborate the evidence of PW-4, we think it highly unsafe to rely on the sole testimony of PW-4 to convict the appellant, as has been done by the two courts below. The courts below totally lost sight of these vitally material aspects which completely undermines the credibility of the prosecution case in its entirety. 11. For the reasons stated above, we are unable to place reliance on the evidence of PW-4. If the said evidence is eschewed then we do not find any other material to base a conviction. The improvements found in the evidence of PW-4 being material, the courts below erred in relying upon the same to convict the appellant. For the afore reasons, this appeal succeeds and the same is allowed. The conviction and the sentence imposed by the courts below are set aside. The appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless required in any other case.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1344 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , Commissioner of Police, Mysore; (c) He shall report his attendance to the Commissioner of Police, Mysore daily between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. and shall not leave the premises till he is permitted by the concerned police officer; (d) He shall accompany the police wherever he is called for further investigation; (e) He shall also attend the office of the Commissioner at any time other than the aforesaid if required for the purpose of investigation; (f) Petitioner shall not either directly or indirectly influence, intimidate or tamper with the witnesses in any manner; (g) He shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer. 42. This grant of bail is available to the petitioner only from 18-2-2002. Till then the petitioner is to be kept in judicial custody in terms of the order of the learned Magistrate. During his custody he has to be provided with cooked rice and during his custody police are not to violate Article 23 of the Constitution of India. 43. Ordered accordingly. No costs.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1343 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ORDER Delay condoned The appeals are dismissed.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1342 - CEGAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ence disclosed in the present case. 31. The facts in the appeals filed by the other assessees are identical to the facts in the appeal filed by M/s. Ajanta Transistor Clock Mfg. Co. which was discussed above. Therefore those appeals are also decided in favour of the assessees. 32. The appeals filed by M.U. Patel and R.B. Patel are taken up. In view of the fact that there is no clandestine removal of the final products, hence there cannot be applicability of change of violation of Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. Rule 209A will be applicable only any person deals with such confiscable goods with knowledge thereof. In view of failure to prove the case of clandestine removal and non-application of Rule 173Q, application of Rule 209A in these cases is ruled out and hence all the appeals of M.U. Patel and R.B. Patel are allowed. 33. In view of the above, impugned orders are set aside. Appeals are allowed with consequential relief if any in accordance with law.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1341 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ctions), Cont.Pet. (Civil) 326-327/1999 in Cont. Pet. (Civil) 209/1998 in Civil Appeal No. 366/1998, Cont.Pet. (Civil) 6-8/2000 in IA 5 in Cont. Pet. (C) 265-267/1999 (With appln. for stay), I.A. No. 7-9 (for directions) in Cont. Pet. (Civil) 265-267/99 in Civil Appeal No. 366/1998, I.A. No. 10-12 (for directions) in Cont. Pet. (Civil) 265-267/99, I.A. No. 13 (for directions) in Cont. Pet. (Civil) 209/1998 in Civil Appeal No. 366/1998, with Cont.Pet. (Civil) 320-322/2001 in IA Nos. 7-9/2000, in Cont. Pet. (C) 265-267/1999 in CA No. 366/1998 (For Prel. Hearing) with T.C. (C) Nos. 1 to 8 of 2002 ORDER All the matters are disposed of in terms of the signed order.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1340 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . Prassnna Kumar and Ors. 1990CriLJ320 , State of Bihar and Anr. v. P.P. Sharma I.A.S. and Anr. 1991CriLJ1438 , Rupan Deo Bajaj and Anr. v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill and Anr. 1996CriLJ381 , State of Kerala and Ors. v. O.C. Kuttan and Ors. 1999CriLJ1623 , State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma 1996CriLJ1878 , Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada (1997)2SCC397 , Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr. AIR1999SC3596 , Rajesh Bajaj v. State of NCT of Delhi and Ors. 1999CriLJ1833 . 10. The factual position highlighted above clearly shows commission of offences, and considered in the background of the legal principles enumerated above, the order of learned single Judge cannot be maintained. The same is set aside. The appeal is allowed. We, therefore, make it clear that whatever we have stated above should not be considered to be expression of opinion regarding the merits of the case, which it goes without saying, has to be considered by the concerned Court at an appropriate state.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1339 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... shaw. Though he stated that he knew about the handing over of the articles containing the contraband to A3, he would state that for helping her, he was given ₹ 100/- or ₹ 200/- on every occasion. Under those circumstances, I am unable to hold that A4 and A5 were parties to the main conspiracy merely on the basis of the confession given by them. 39. In such circumstances, the evidence available on record as against A4 and A5, in my opinion, is not sufficient to hold them guilty for the offences referred to above. Hence, the conviction and sentence imposed upon A4 and A5 are set aside and they are acquitted and they are directed to be released forthwith, unless they are required in some other case. Since it is reported that A4 is a Sri Lankan National, he must be sent to Sri Lankan Camp as prescribed in the relevant rules. 40. With the above observations, the appeal in C.A.No.893 of 1997 is dismissed and the appeals in C.A.Nos.590 of 1997 and 31 of 1998 are allowed.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1338 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 3 and 4 regarding the management of the school. In view of my decision in O.P. No. 32683/99. I do not think that it is necessary to pass any orders in this original petition. I have found that the appointment of the third respondent herein as the Manager of the school was proper and in accordance with law and she will have to continue as the Manager of the school. Moreover, the legal representatives of the deceased Hamsa Haji had already framed a Constitution for conversion of the Management to a Corporate one for the proper administration of the school. In view of the above circumstances, I do not think that it would be proper to direct respondents 1 and 2 to take over the administration of the school and as such this original petition has only to be dismissed. In the result, both these original petitions, viz., O.P. Nos. 32683/1999 and 26626/ 2001, are dismissed. 14. Order on C.M.P. Nos. 55301/99, 2303, 6610 & 59432/2000 & 16352/2001 in O.P. 32683/1999 N--Dismissed.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1337 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s of administration of justice and for preventing manifest injustice being done. This power must necessarily be sparingly used only in exceptional circumstances for furthering the ends of justice. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case where this Court should entertain the present petition of Harbans Singh and this Court should interfere." After bestowing our anxious consideration on the fact situation in this case and also the spirit of Article 21 of the Constitution we hereby order that the conviction passed on the second accused Jabbar shall also stand altered to Section 304 Part I, and a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years be awarded to him. This is done on a parity of reasoning and justice, otherwise glaring injustice would result as for him in a case where his role was by no means more serious than that of the present appellant who was A1 in the case. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1336 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he claimants under Ss. 10 and 11 of the Act. As noticed above, the Forest Settlement Officer after conducting enquiry envisaged under the Act and on appreciation of the evidence on record, recorded the finding that the claims of the claimants are well founded and they deserve to be admitted and allowed and the patta lands of the claimants have to be excluded from the proposed forest block. Secondly, the personal opinion of the Forest Settlement Officer, as reflected in his correspondence with the Registrar of this Court in a pending writ petition, which practice should be condemned as totally illegal and improper, cannot be a legally permissible aid for the Court in construing and interpreting a term in the statute or for that matter, even for the construction of the letter of the Forest Settlement Officer dated 16-10-1989. 10. In the result, and for the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this writ appeal and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1335 - ITAT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... has very categorically held that bagasse produced is neither a final product nor a by-product in the course of the manufacture of sugar and molasses and bagasse is chargeable to nil rate of duty under heading 23.01 or the CET. He has also discussed the provisions of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 57CC and analysed the whole matter and held that Rule 57CC Is not applicable in a case where inputs used both in the exempted goods as well as dutiable goods does not call for the assessee to maintain separate account both for the exempted goods as well as dutiable final product. In such a situation they have to pay duty @ 8%, As observed by us, bagasse is not a final product. Therefore, the provisions of Rule57CC would not be applicable in their case as held in the, case Rudra Bilas Kisan Sahakari Chini Mills Ltd. (supra) and respectfully following the above judgment, we reject the revenue appeal by confirming the orders in appeal. Ordered accordingly. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2002 (1) TMI 1334 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... found that when the previous incumbent, who had been selected, had left the post and vacancy being available, the appropriate course was to have appointed the respondent No. 1 and he had a right to be considered for the appointment, 3. We fail to understand the reasoning of the High Court in this regard. When once the selection process is complete and appointment had been made, that process comes to an end and if any vacancy arises on the appointee having joined the post leaves the same, it must be treated as a fresh vacancy and fresh steps in accordance with the appropriate rules should be taken. This view is fortified by the judgment of this Court in State of Punjab v. Raghubir Chand Sharma and Anr. . Any temporary arrangement made during the interregnum will not entitle respondent No. 1 to claim for permanent employment. In that view of the matter, we allow this appeal, set aside the order made by the High Court and dismiss the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1333 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... proceedings by cancelling the award granted to the 3rd respondent. This specific direction is made to avoid unnecessary delay in the matter. In the event of the respondents being not satisfied about the bid of the petitioner in terms of the contract, then there is no need for any cancellation of the award in favour of the 3rd respondent. However, it is necessary for this Court to direct the parties to maintain status quo for a period of 15 days for a decision in the matter. 29. In the result, this petition is allowed. Annexure-L is set aside. Matter is remitted back to the 2nd respondent for reconsideration within 15 days. A direction is issued to the 2nd respondent to take a decision within fifteen days from today with regard to the cancellation of the award in favour of the respondents only after reconsidering the petitioner's bid in terms of the bidding conditions and in terms of the observations made in the course of the order. Parties to bear their respective costs.
-
2002 (1) TMI 1332 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... elapsed since the seizure of the money, the amount is substantial. Yet there is no rival money claim till now. 3. Therefore, it would be appropriate that the money be released in favour of the petitioners subject to their furnishing security other than cash or bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the C.J.M., Jaunpur and also furnishing personal bond of the same amount for co-operation by them in the proceedings in the Income-tax Department. In view of what has been stated above, the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Parasnath v. Union of India 1996 87 Taxman 349 cited by the respondents, has no application in this case. 4. The writ petition is allowed as above.
........
|
