|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 699 Records
-
2004 (3) TMI 813 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t of contractual tenancies as well as statutory tenancies. That the scheme of the Act was different from the Bombay Rent Act. On close reading of the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act, this Court found that the fair rent Was required to be fixed for the building which was something like an incident of tenure regarding the building. This conclusion was based on the scheme of the Tamil Nadu Rent Control Act. Hence, the judgment of this Court in the case of M/ s. Raval & Co. (supra), has no application to the facts of this case. 7. In any event of the matter where there is an agreed rent between landlord and tenant either prior or earlier to the Amending Act providing that the provisions of Rent Act will not apply to the premises whose monthly rent exceeded ₹ 3,500/ -, the tenant is estopped from taking a plea that it is not the standard rent. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in this civil appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
2004 (3) TMI 812 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... emanded under Rule 9 then the demand is referable only under Rule 36A and there the establishment charge can be demanded only with regard to those who are solely engaged for the aforesaid purpose. 15. From perusal of the demands annexed to the writ applications, it is not clear that the establishment charge has been demanded by referring to the excise staff exclusively engaged in compounding, blending etc. In that view of the matter, the demand notices in the aforesaid four cases are also quashed with the direction that concerned authority will determine as to number of the excise staff engaged solely for the aforesaid purpose and issue a fresh demand. It goes without saying that if any payment has been made in excess to the actual demand determined, then the same payment should be refunded and in case of any further demand, the authorities will take steps for recovery of the same. 16. In the result, all the writ applications are allowed with the direction as mentioned above.
-
2004 (3) TMI 811 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f the Criminal Procedure Code. Finally, after the pronouncement of the Judgment of the Division Bench and the imprimatur granted to it by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the Respondents still continue with their illegal practice of not recording the actual possession of the land, resulting in the filing of a number of writ petitions and suits in Courts of law. Unless such attitude and conduct is tackled with a firm hand orders of the Court will not be followed causing not merely unbearable suffering to the citizens but also the explosion of legal dockets. Respondent No. 1, Shri B.S. Bhalla, has been served but has not filed any defense in writing. Appearance has variously been entered either for Respondent No. 2 (Respondent) or for the Respondents. I find the Respondents guilty of having committed Contempt of the Judgment of the Division Bench, pronounced on January 17, 1995. For sentencing, renotify on 12th March, 2004 on which date the Respondents shall be personally present.
-
2004 (3) TMI 810 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n its own merits, and in accordance with law and as per the provisions contained in Part II of the Act. Therefore, observations of the trial Court regarding clubbing of both the proceedings together are ordered to be deleted from the impugned order of the trial Court. 19. In view of the order passed in this Civil Revision Application, nothing further is required to be done in Special Civil Application No. 11866 of 2003 as the same has become infructuous and it is not necessary to give any further relief in the Special Civil Application. Accordingly, Special Civil Application No. 11866 of 2003 is also disposed of, as having become infructuous. 20. So far as Misc. Civil Application No. 1501 of 2002 for transferring execution proceedings to Gandhidham Court is concerned, there is absolutely no justification in the same, and therefore, Misc. Civil Application No. 1501 of 2002 is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. 21. Writ to be sent to the trial Court forthwith.
-
2004 (3) TMI 809 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ot press the cross-objection filed by him, which, however, according to Mr. Mukherjee, is not maintainable since it has been preferred only against part of the decree. Relying on Order 41, Rule 22, he submits that cross-objection lies against the decree not against a finding. The adverse finding may entitle the cross-objector to defend the cross-objection against the decree. He relied on Jowad Hussain v. Gendan Singh (1926) 53 Ind App 197 (AIR 1926 PC 93) where it was so held. It is not necessary to go into this question since Mr. Roychowdhury is opting not to press this cross-objection. The cross-objection is dismissed for non-prosecution. 5. In view of the above, the FMA No. 2817 of 2002 stands allowed and the order dated 9th January, 2002 passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 1 of 2002 in connection with TS No. 49 of 1990 is hereby set aside and C.O.T. No. 3116 of 2002 stand dismissed. 6. Urgent xerox certified copy, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on priority basis.
-
2004 (3) TMI 808 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... uld be lawful to do so. In a given case, the High Court or this Court may refuse to extend the benefit of a discretionary relief to the applicant. Furthermore, this Court exercised its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India which need not be exercised, in a case where the impugned judgment is found to be erroneous if by reason thereof substantial justice is being done. (See S.D.S. Shipping (P) Ltd. v. Jay Container Services Co. (P) Ltd. AIR2003SC2186 . Such a relief can be denied, inter alia, when it would be opposed to public policy or in a case where quashing of an illegal order would revive another illegal one. This Court also in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India is entitled to pass such order which will be complete justice to the parties." 18. These appeals are dismissed with the aforementioned observations; but in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2004 (3) TMI 807 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... urt and to prevent the same it was just and expedient for the High Court to quash the same by exercising the powers Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which it has erroneously refused. 8. It appears that though the complaint was filed against three persons one of whom Vijay Shankar has died as stated above, there is another accused Gopalika Financial Corporation Limited which has neither moved the High Court nor this Court for quashing the first information report relating to it. But in view of our conclusion that the first information report does not disclose any offence whatsoever and the prosecution is liable to be quashed, we are of the view that it would be just and expedient to quash prosecution launched against the aforesaid Corporation as well. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned order rendered by the High Court is set aside and police investigation and consequent prosecution of the Appellant as well as the Corporation are hereby quashed.
-
2004 (3) TMI 806 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, PRINCIPAL BENCH, CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... n Petroleum Corporation Limited has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Moreover, the reliefs sought by the petitioner cannot be granted by an arbitrator and are available under the provisions of Section 397 and 398 read with Section 402 and 403 from the Company Law Board alone and the statutory jurisdiction of the CLB cannot be ousted even by the consent of the parties as held recently in Sudharshan Chopra v. Company Law Board by a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana (supra). For these reasons, the prayer of the applicants to refer the parties to arbitration does not arise. There is, therefore, no need to go into the other claim and counter claim of either of the parties and the supporting decisions cited thereof. Accordingly the application is rejected. The respondents are directed to file counter by 30.04.2004 and rejoinder to be filed by 15.05.2004. The Company Petition will be heard on 21.05.2004 at 10.30 a.m. o p /o p
-
2004 (3) TMI 805 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... e appellant under the provisions of Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. On hearing both sides we find that the issue in dispute is no longer res integra as it has been settled in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Escorts JCB Ltd. v. CCE, Delhi wherein the Apex Court has held that factory premises of the manufacturer is the place of removal since transaction of sale, payment of price and delivery of goods to the carrier occurred at factory premises, even though transportation of goods and transit insurance was arranged by the seller, namely, the assessee. The Supreme Court reversed the Tribunal's order in CE/1154/1999 which was relied upon by the Commissioner for holding that insurance and freight charges are includable in the assessable value. 3. Following the ratio of the Supreme Court decision cited supra we hold that the duty demand and penalty are not sustainable, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
2004 (3) TMI 804 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e appellant that the compensation which he was paying to the respondent was very meager looking at the size of the premises and its admitted location in a busy commercial locality of a city bustling with business and commercial activity. Though, the suit must suffer a dismissal and as a result the appellant shall continue in possession but considering all the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant should pay ₹ 2000/- per month by way of rent of the suit premises from 1st April, 2004 till he continues to remain in lawful possession of the premises. 14. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the High Court is set aside. Instead, the decree of the trial Court as upheld by the first appellate Court is restored. The appellant shall remain liable to clear the previous arrears, if any, at the rate agreed upon between the parties and pay rent calculated at the rate of ₹ 2000/- per month for future w.e.f. 1st April 2004. Costs as incurred throughout.
-
2004 (3) TMI 803 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ncial Corporation taken with intention of recovery of its dues is not open to challenge unless it is malafide. The Supreme Court reversed its earlier decision in Mahesh Chandra v. Regional Manager, 1993 (2) SCC 279. 17. In our opinion, the Court should observe judicial restraint in such matters and not embarrass the Financial Institutions or Banks. Due to over-activism of the Courts tens of thousands of crores of recoveries have been stayed, which is having an adverse impact on the economy. When a loan is recovered it is advanced to new units, but if it is not recovered new units cannot be set up. Moreover, it is well known that unfortunately in our country many unscrupulous business borrow money from banks or financial institutions and divert it to secret accounts, and declare their unit sick. In this way the scarce financial resources of the country are siphoned off. This Court cannot approve of such malpractices. 18. For the reasons given above this petition is dismissed.
-
2004 (3) TMI 802 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Anr. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors., reported in (2003) 2 SCC 107, it is held that "The rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion". It is settled law that the alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and is not a rule of law. Where the question of law is involved then the writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be entertained and the alternative remedy can not be applied. Since, in this matter, pure question of law and interpretation of law are involved and no factual aspect is involved, the objection raised by the learned Additional Advocate General is without force and the same can not be accepted. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, the petitioner's petition is without force and the same is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, cost is made easy.
-
2004 (3) TMI 801 - COMPANY LAW BOARD CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... e new Board of Directors so constituted shall exercise all the powers in the conduct of the day to day affairs and business of the Company including the, power of sale of the properties of the Company in accordance with Articles 32-36, till then the interim order passed, in this behalf is made absolute. Towards this end, the Board of Directors will take appropriate steps in settlement of the outstanding statutory, contractual and the bank liabilities, keeping the interest of the, Company as well as its members. Any proposal for proportional representation for the minority shareholders on the Board falls within the purview of the general body of members and the Board of Directors of the Company. The petitioners' claim for the appointment of an auditor to investigate into the conduct of the respondents 1 & 2 and surcharging them not having been substantiated must fail. With these directions, the Company Petition stands disposed of however without any order as to costs.
-
2004 (3) TMI 800 - COMPANY LAW BOARD NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... and Shri Ram Narain Gupta from the Board of Director. Consequently, they are restored to their original position of 1994. Regarding allotment of 9507 equity shares, I am inclined to give benefit of doubt for allotment of 3943 shares as share application had been received which were in the knowledge of the petitioners as application money for allotment of these shares. However, the allotment of remaining 5564 shares have been allotted for which no explanation had been given by the respondent parties. Accordingly, I declare allotment remaining 5564 share as illegal and accordingly same is set-aside. 14. Either party being equal partners is given liberty to buy or sell the shares of each other. Either party can approach this bench for fixing valuation of the shares on the base line of 1995 when company was closed after getting evaluation from the independent valuer and sell the shares. 15. The petition is disposed of with the above directions and there are no orders as to cost.
-
2004 (3) TMI 799 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... at the application of the appellant lacks in bona fide. We fail to understand how this is so. If a party has a legal right to ask for dismissal of an infructuous suit, and pursuant to the said right it makes an application for dismissal of said suit, the same cannot be termed as an act in malice. 31. For the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that continuation of a suit which has become infructuous by disappearance of the cause of action would amount to an abuse of the process of the court and interest of justice requires such suit should be disposed of as having become infructuous. The application under Section 151 of CPC in this regard is maintainable. 32. For the reasons stated above, these appeals succeeds. I.A.No. 20651 of 2001 filed by the appellant in O.S.No. 4212/95 is allowed. Consequentially suit O.S.No. 4212/95 pending in the court of City Civil Court at Chennai is dismissed as having become infructuous. The appellant shall be entitled to cost throughout.
-
2004 (3) TMI 798 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... d either the quantum or the justification of any of the expenditure shown in the books of accounts. As for as sale of the premises is concerned, as rightly pointed by the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioners have not substantiated their allegation with any concrete material that the premises could have got better prices even to presume that there could have been some underhand dealings. In regard to write off of the credit balance, the petitioners have not shown as to how the company or the shareholders have been in any way affected and as a matter of fact, that action has resulted in declaration of substantial dividends. 7. An order of investigation cannot be made on mere suspicions or surmises without proper material to enable this Bench to form an opinion that the affairs of the company require to be investigated. From the contents of the petition, it is not possible to form such an opinion for want of particulars and accordingly the petition is dismissed.
-
2004 (3) TMI 797 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nothing to prevent the Court convicting an accused for the substantive charge even if the prosecution had failed to establish conspiracy. Looked at from any angle the judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. So far as the question of sentence is concerned, we find that the High Court has already taken a liberal view so far as A-2 is concerned. In a case when students use forged mark sheets to obtain admission thereby depriving eligible candidates to get seats and that too to a medical course and a doctor is involved in the whole operation, uncalled for leniency or undue sympathy will be misplaced and actually result in miscarriage of justice. Such types of crimes deserve as a matter of fact, deterrent punishment in the larger interests of society. If at all, the case calls for severe punishment. We find no substance in the plea relating to sentence or extending the benefits of the Probation Act. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
-
2004 (3) TMI 796 - COMPANY LAW BOARD NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... hli are restored to their original position as directors as on 27.3.1999. All subsequent actions taken by the company in this regard would also be null and void. 28. The petitioner having invested a substantial amount in the company feels oppressed, I am of the view that the petitioner should be given an option, in case he desires, to go out of the company on return of his investment in shares of the company. In case the petitioner is willing to part with his shares, then the company/respondent should purchase the shares on valuation to be made by an independent valuer. The valuation will be based on the balance sheet as on 31.3.1999 being the approximate date of the removal of the petitioner from directorship. In case the petitioner desires to go out of the company, then on an application made by him a suitable valuer will be appointed by this board in consultation with both the parties. With the above directions the petition is disposed of. There are no orders as to costs.
-
2004 (3) TMI 795 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a particular case. Circumstantial flexibility, on additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases (See Padamasundara Rao (dead) and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., JT (2002) 3 SC 1. It is more so in a case where conclusions relate to appreciation of evidence in a criminal trial. When the factual scenario is analysed in the background of legal position highlighted above, the inevitable conclusion is that accused-appellants Charan Singh, Dev Dutt, Virender. Kunwar Pal and Harkesh have been rightly convicted by application of Section 149 IPC. Their appeals are without merit and are dismissed. In the ultimate result, the appeal of accused- appellant Raj Pal is allowed while those of the other accused-appellants stand dismissed. Appellant Raj Pal Shall be released from custody unless required in any other case.
-
2004 (3) TMI 794 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... gh Court has not erred in allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent-Coal Company. So far as the finding recorded in its appellate judgment by the Division Bench that the Central Government is not entitled to recover the royalty and it is the State of Bihar which only is entitled to demand and recover the royalty from the respondent-Coal Company is concerned, we set-aside that finding but without recording any opinion of ours on that aspect for the short reason that such issue is not required to be adjudicated upon in the present case in view of the finding arrived at hereinabove. We hasten to add that requisite pleadings and necessary material are also not available on record to arrive at a definite finding in that regard. Before parting we make it clear that the appellant or the State of Bihar, as the case may be, is free to recover arrears of royalty by adopting such other method as may be available under the law. The appeal is dismissed. No order as to the costs.
........
|
