|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 655 Records
-
2002 (2) TMI 1342 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... all pervasive illegalities and irregularities committed by those who conducted the selection which may of course possibly be for the benefit of those who have been selected but there may be a few who may have deserved selection otherwise but it is difficult to separate the cases of some of the candidates from the rest even if there may be some. The decision in the case of Krishna Yadav (supra) applies to the facts of the present case. The Railway Board's decision to cancel the selection cannot be faulted with. The appeal therefore deserve to be allowed. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the orders passed by the Tribunal and the High Court are set aside and the order of termination of the services of the respondent is upheld. The copy of the CBI report has been placed on record. The administration shall do well in taking action pursuing the matter in the light of the report of the CBI, so as to bring it to a logical conclusion. There would be no order as to costs.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1341 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ated the principle in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. 's case (cited supra), and also in view of the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, I hold that the judgments of this Court (cited supra) cannot be made applicable to the present case 44. For the foregoing reasons, I hold that the accused is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and he is convicted for the said offence. Consequently, the impugned judgment is set aside. 45. So far as the sentence is concerned, both the Counsels represented that civil suits filed by both the parties against each other for recovery of money are pending. 46. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission of both Counsels, the accused is sentenced to pay a fine of ₹ 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only). In default of payment of said fine of ₹ 5,000/- the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 47. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1340 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... n, Sr. Adv., Mr. J.P. Shah, Adv., Ms. Ruchi Khurana, Adv., Mr. Rohit Mammen Alex, Adv. for, M/s. P H Parekh & Co., Advs. O R D E R The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1339 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... s dismissed both on the ground of delay as well as on merits.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1338 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... at the scheme as modified by the orders of the division bench at Bombay is working to the satisfaction of all but the state government is finding it difficult to implement the scheme in view of the subsequent order of the division bench of the same High Court. 6. In our view, the division bench of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad ought not to have disturbed the earlier order passed by a coordinate bench of the same High Court at Bombay. In order to maintain judicial discipline as the division bench at Aurangabad was in disagreement with the said order, the matter should have been directed to be placed before the chief justice for passing appropriate orders. 7. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the Aurangabad bench is not sustainable and accordingly it is quashed. 8. We, however, make it clear that the appointments of the respondents as primary teachers would not be effected. The appeal is allowed and impugned order is set aside. No costs.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1337 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ase, may be set right, but in such an eventuality if a party participated in the proceedings without any protest, he would be precluded from raising the point in the objection after making of the award. In the case on hand, it cannot be said that continuance of the proceedings and rendering of awards therein by the Arbitrator after his transfer was in disregard of any provision of law much less mandatory one but, at the highest, in breach of agreement. Therefore, by their conduct by participating in the arbitration proceedings without any protest the parties would be deemed to have waived their right to challenge validity of the proceedings and the awards, consequently, the objections taken to this effect did not merit any consideration and the High Court was not justified in allowing the same and setting aside the award. In the result, the appeals are allowed with cost, which is quantified at ₹ 10,000/-, and the impugned judgment passed by the High Court is set aside.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1336 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ions of the rules, we do not see any enforceable right with the petitioners for being permanently absorbed though we see sufficient force in the contention of Dr. Dhawan that the appropriate government should be well advised to consider the retention of these petitioners permanently in the bureau having regard to the case that they have already rendered services from 1991 till the 1999, and that the rules itself contemplate to man the post on transfer. While, therefore, we are unable to issue any mandamus to the state government requiring them to permanently absorb these petitioners in the bureau, we would observe that the state government may consider the case of these petitioners for absorption on transfer in accordance with the rules, if they are found otherwise suitable. In that case the administration would be better served on account of experience, the petitioners have already got in the bureau by serving for eight years. 2. The special leave petitions are disposed of.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1335 - ITAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... he cash gift was examined by the Assessing Officer. He did accept the factum of gift. With an intent to avoid any harassment to the donors, assessee agreed to pay the tax on the gifted amount. Assessing Officer did not record any finding that the explanation offered by the assessee was false and the bona fide was not proved. As such, the conditions precedent for invoking Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) did not exist in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Once it is held that the case of the assessee falls beyond the ken of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c), the conclusion is irresistible that case does not come within the sweep of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of K.P. Madhusudhanan (supra). It comes within the ambit of the decision laid down in the case of Suresh Chandra Mittal ( supra). On this factual backdrop I decide the issue in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 15. In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1334 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ng paragraphs the State Order of 1981 had been issued after the delegation of the power to the State Governments by the Central Government and with prior concurrence of the Central Government. Stock limits were provided in the tabulated form in Clause 3 and further State Government or its officers were authorised under Clause 24 (1) of the State Order of 1981 to issue directions regarding maintenance of stock, storage, display of prices etc.. Thus the State Government had the legislative sanction to promulgate the State Order of 1981 as well as the authority to issue directions to the dealers regarding maintenance of stock, storage, display or prices etc. under the provisions of the State Order. The impugned order of 26th July, 2000 had been issued in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred under the State Order of 1981 and therefore valid. For the reasons stated above we do not find any merit in these appeals. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1333 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... r clandestine removal as in the case of KrishnaBottlers , 1999 (32) RLT 845 . The above citations also deals witheach of the factors required to be proved and it has been laiddown very conclusively in the cited judgments that the scribe ofthe note book is required to be examined and details of thenotebook is required to be proved as in the case of CCE Vs. RamanIspat (P) Ltd. , CCE Mumbai Vs. Mira Silk Mills , CCE Patna Vs.Universal Polythene Industries , CCE Chandigarh Vs. Indian HumePipes Co. , Deepak Tandon Vs. CCE Bhubaneswar , Shree Vallabh GlassWorks Vs. CCE Ahmedabad , etc. (all supra). 8. In view of the Revenue not having proved any evidence of themanufacture or removal without payment of duty in this caseexcept the seized notebook which entries has not been provedincluding the scribe not having been examined, therefore applyingthe ratio of all the judgments noted supra, the impugned order isset aside and the appeals are allowed. Pronounced in open Court on 22.1.2002.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1332 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y also chose not to prefer an appeal from the decree itself. Not having adopted either course, the interpretation of the decree by the order dated 29th March 1990 was final inter partes. Paradip Port Trust and Others V. Unique Builders 2001 (2) SCC 680 relied on by the respondents has no application. In that case this Court was disposing of an appeal from an order passing a decree in terms of the award and itself granted future interest from the date of the decree till payment. Here the impugned order was passed in execution proceedings after the scope and import of the decree stood concluded. The High Court erred in ignoring the order dated 29th October 1990 and its effect on the rights of the parties. The issue of future interest had been raised and decided once and the respondents were barred by res judicata from reopening it. For the above mentioned reasons, the appeal is allowed and the decision of the High Court is set aside. There will however be no order as to costs.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1331 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ibunal. In question No. 4 also as no payment has been paid to the employees nor the superannuation fund has been created, again we answer that assessee is not entitled for the amount of rupees referred in question No. 4. So is the case in question Nos. 5 and 7 that neither the amount has been paid nor contributed in the fund. Assessee is not entitled for deduction of the amount claimed. We answer question Nos. 5 and 7 in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In question No. 8, the finding of the fact regarding amount of ₹ 12,467 by the Tribunal is that the amount has not been paid to the Provident Fund Commissioner, but was kept in the Post Office, assessee cannot claim deduction against the payment of gratuity fund or pension superannuating fund assessee is not entitled for deduction. W find no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal and answer this question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The reference, so made, is disposed of accordingly.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1330 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nts. Till 1972 at least, the High Court in Ghulam Mohamad's case (supra) found the State had not denied parity of status and the employees were granted the right to challenge any denial of status if and when it took place. The appellants were in fact treated on par with other Government employees till the impugned orders were issued on the basis of the 1980 Wage Committee Report. These were challenged in 1981 before this Court and in 1982 before the High Court by the appellants. The fact that the High Court took 16 years to dispose of the matter cannot operate against the appellants. The dismissal of the writ petitions on the ground of delay and laches is, in the circumstances, unsustainable. The decision of the High Court is accordingly set aside and the appeal is allowed by granting relief to the appellants as prayed for in their writ petition. Costs to be paid by the respondent-State to the appellants jointly assessed at ₹ 15000/-( Rupees fifteen thousand only).
-
2002 (2) TMI 1329 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... riod of 30 days from the date of this order, the respondent authorities shall not raise any objection on the question of limitation. On similar terms this petition filed by the Ahmedabad Textile Processors Association is also being disposed of with liberty to the members of the petitioner Association (mentioned in Schedule-1 of the petition at page 29-30) that they may prefer individual appeals in the Tribunal and if appeals are so preferred within a period of 30 days from the date of this order the respondents shall not raise objection on the question of limitation. 2. As directed in the cognate petitions, we also direct that till decision by the Tribunal on the stay application to be filed by the respective appellants in each of the appeal is taken by the Tribunal, no steps for coercive recovery of cess shall be taken by the respondents. 3. With these directions and observations this petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Direct Service is permitted.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1328 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... lary of a District Judge. From the records, it also transpires that such direct recruits, on completion of their probation as Additional District Judge, are appointed as District Judges, as was done in case of respondent No. 3 by order dated 8th of January, 1992. In the aforesaid premises, we have no hesitation to hold that the administrative decision of the Bombay High Court dated 6th of May, 2000, on the basis of the decision of the Committee dated 12th of January, 2000, is erroneous and we accordingly strike down the same. We further hold that the seniority of a promotee District Judge would reckon from the date of his promotion, from which date he is appointed to work as District Judge and in case of a direct recruit, the same would be the date from which he is appointed to work as a District Judge, after completion of the period or probation of two years and not from the initial appointment to work as Additional District Judge. This writ petition is accordingly allowed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1327 - CEGAT, DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... The contention of the Revenue is that the goods in question are classifiable under Heading 39.20 of the Central Excise Tariff as plastic sheet or foil separated by layer of aluminium foil. Revenue relied upon the Board's Circular No. 461/27/99-CX dated 11.6.99 reported in 1999 (33) RLT M2 for classifying the product under Heading 39.20 of Central Excise Tariff. 2. We find that this issue is already covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Calcutta Vs. Indian FoilLtd. , reported in 2000 (39) RLT 304 . This decision was followed by the Tribunal in another case of Indian Aluminium Co. Vs. CCE , reported in 2001 (133) ELT 759 . The Tribunal in the case of CCE,Calcutta Vs. Indian Foil Ltd. (supra), held that the aluminium foil backed on one side with printed polyester and with HDPE foil on the other side is classifiable under Heading 7607.60 of the Tariff. In view of the settled position we find no infirmity in the impugned Order and the appeal is rejected.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1326 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... tiated in 1989 to be completed more than 11 years later. The vacancy created by the setting aside the appellant's appointment will have to be filled and a fresh advertisement will have to be issued by NIMHANS in accordance with its Cadre and Recruitment Rules. The unfortunate consequence that the appellant will suffer by reason of the setting aside of his appointment as Assistant Professor in NIMHANS cannot be avoided on any equitable considerations although the harshness may be mitigated to some extent. Accordingly, while affirming the decision of the High Court, we modify it to the extent that the actual experience gained by the appellant by virtue of his appointment as Assistant Professor may be taken into account if the appellant applies pursuant to any future advertisement that may be issued by NIMHANS for the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychiatric Social Work. With this modification, the appeals are dismissed but without any order as to costs.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1325 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... J ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1324 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , the principles enunciated in the decision of this Court in Teherakhatoon vs. Salambin Mohammad, 1999(2) S.C.C. 635, cannot be applied to the case in hand. So far as the last submission is concerned, we are afraid that the validity of unamended provision of Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act which was there on the statute book since inception can at all be examined at a point of time when that provision no longer subsists since, 24.9.84, the date on which Act 68/1984 came into force. We, therefore, decline to entertain the petition under Article 32 at the behest of the claimants. In the net result, therefore, these civil appeals are allowed. The Judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court is set aside and it is held that the claimants-respondents would be entitled to compensation for the acquired land ₹ 30,000/- per acre, which they claimed pursuant to service of notice under Section 9. The writ petition filed by the claimants stands dismissed.
-
2002 (2) TMI 1323 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... of such a party. The civil appeal is dismissed, with costs. Civil Appeal no. 2185/2001 We find no reason to interfere in this appeal. The civil appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
........
|
