|
Advanced Search Options
Indian Laws - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 25 Records
More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote and Decision etc.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1573
... ...
... ... ..... eof has not occasioned any failure of justice. The other issue that the witness examined under section 200 Cr.P.C. did not fall among those enumerated in the petition of complaint, in my view, does not affect the jurisdiction of the Court to examine such witness produced by the complainant in support of his case. It is not the requirement of law that names of all witnesses are to be exhaustively stated in the petition of complaint. Examination of a witness produced by the complainant, though not named in the petition of complainant, cannot be said illegal in law. The petitioners would get an opportunity to cross-examine such witness in the course of enquiry under section 244 Cr.P.C. and accordingly I am of the view that examination of such witness though not in named in the petition of complaint does not cause any prejudice to them in any manner whatsoever. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the instant application. The application is accordingly dismissed.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1566
... ...
... ... ..... rprint and handwriting experts or forensic questioned documents examiners, who are qualified and skilled to practice this profession on full time basis. The State Governments should check their qualifications and credentials and confirm their credibility in this field. A register of such practitioners should be drawn and rules be framed. A Code of ethics and conduct for their working should also be framed. Besides this, regulatory authority comprising of qualified concerned registered professionals and others related to field be also established to deal with the situations where there are conflicting opinions of experts and the consensus opinion of the Board of experts under the supervision of expert regulatory authority should be binding on the contesting parties. Copy of this order be sent to the Administrative Secretaries of the Departments of Justice and Home Affairs of the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh for compliance. To come up on 28.02.2014.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1561
Trade Union Registration obtained by fraud or mistake - Minimum Number of Workers required for Registration - Powers of Registrar to Cancel Registration - The petitioner received a certificate of registration under Trade Union Regulations, 1927.Soon thereafter, 88 workers of the 4th respondent submitted individual letters informing the 3rd respondent that they were not the members of the Union, their I.D. Cards and other documents were obtained without their knowledge and were used for the purpose of registration of the Trade Union. The 4th respondent submitted representations to the Management that they had no knowledge of the registration of the Union by the so called office bearers, which needed urgent enquiry to ascertain the real facts; and a proper enquiry should be made regarding membership of the petitioner Union, and their registration cancelled.
HELD THAT:- The petitioner's Certificate of Registration was cancelled, is set aside. Sec.9A of the Act relates to the minimum requirement of membership of a Trade Union and, thereunder, a registered Trade Union of workmen shall at all times continue to have not less than ten per cent, or one hundred of the workmen. Sec.10 of the Act relates to cancellation of registration and, thereunder, a certificate of registration of a Trade Union may be withdrawn or cancelled by the Registrar. As the petitioner Union was neither put on notice nor were they informed of the proposal to cancel their registration under Sect.10(b) of the Act, the requirement of affording the petitioner Union a reasonable opportunity to show cause, as stipulated under the proviso to Section 10 of the Act, cannot be said to have been complied with.
Sec.4(1) of the Act obligated the Registrar to ascertain whether the Petitioner-Union had the minimum required strength of 10% of the workmen, or 100 workers, in the establishment of the 4th respondent on the date of its registration. He ought to have verified whether the 88 workmen, who submitted a representation to him, were never the member of the Petitioner Union, and registration of the Union was obtained by fraud; or they had disassociated themselves from the petitioner Union between the date of the submission of the application and the date of registration of the Union.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1560
... ...
... ... ..... oceed on or find the petitioners to be wilful defaulters. WP No. 865 of 2013 is allowed by setting aside the decision of the Grievance Redressal Committee reflected in the notice of May 27, 2013 and by setting aside the decision of the screening committee of the bank as reflected in the minutes of the meeting held on January 8, 2013, limited to the case of the petitioners. However, the bank is left free to start the process afresh in accordance with law by adhering strictly to the procedure as laid down in clause 3 of the RBI Master Circular. Since the bank had been put on notice at the initial stage and before affidavits were called for, that costs would follow if the bank could not sustain its decision on the basis of the procedure as recognised in the Master Circular, the bank will pay costs assessed at 300 GM to the petitioners. Certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be urgently supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1559
... ...
... ... ..... to be rejected by this Court is the contention. 4. In the light of the fact that even as per the communications produced along with the application in IA.No.1/2013 since the petitioner-company has not shown their bonafides by making any payments, the question of this Court extending the time to the petitioner to pay the amount would not arise. However, taking note of the exchange of correspondences between the petitioner and respondent No.2 and that respondent No.2 had indicated that the settlement could be possible in the terms as indicated therein, it would be open for the petitioner to make substantial payments out of the said amount to respondent No.2 and thereafter request respondent No.2 for time to pay the balance amount and in such event it is for the respondent No.2 to consider such representation as per procedure. With the said liberty, the petition stands disposed of. In view of disposal of the main petition, the application in IA.No.1/2013 also stands disposed of.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1557
... ...
... ... ..... the plaint makes it clear that the same is vexatious and meritless. The plaint and the accompanying documents clearly show that in the period from 1993 to 1996 plaintiff had full knowledge about the flat in question having been taken over by defendant No. 2 and having been sold to defendant No. 3. She has chosen not to take any step at that stage but has woken up almost 15-16 years later to file the present suit claiming declaration, possession and injunction. The plaint stresses on the communications received from DDA in 2009 to 2010, trying to camouflage the real issues i.e. documents allegedly executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No. 2 and by DDA in favour of defendant No. 4. There is clearly merit in the application of defendant No. 4. The application is allowed. CS(OS) 509/2011 In view of the above orders passed in IA No. 5642/2011 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the suit is dismissed as barred by limitation. All other pending applications also stand disposed of.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1556
... ...
... ... ..... olved in the criminal cases relied on by the detaining authority, does not in any manner invalidate the order of detention issued against the detenu in this case. 18. Insofar as the contention that the offences are not grave enough to initiate proceedings under the Act is concerned, we must first of all say that Section 2(j) of the Act defines 'goonda' and it includes 'depredator of environment'. The expression 'depredator of environment' is defined under Section 2(g) of the Act and the offences, which are charged against the detenu, are squarely covered by this definition. The depredation of environment is a penal offence and is certainly grave one and therefore, we are not prepared to accept the contention of the petitioner that the offences are not grave enough justifying an order of preventive detention. In the result, we do not find any substance in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition will stand dismissed.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1529
... ...
... ... ..... he plaint, by supplying advance copy of the amended plaint, limited to the said aspect, to the counsel for the appellant/defendant or to the appellant/defendant within four weeks of today. The amended plaint be filed before the Trial Court on the date of first appearance of the parties before the Trial Court. The appellant/defendant to, on the same day file written statement to the amended plaint, confining the response to the amended paragraphs. The Trial Court to thereafter proceed to record evidence and decide the said issue. 16. The parties to appear before the Addl. District Judge, Central-14 on 7th December, 2013. The Trial Court file be forthwith returned to the Trial Court. 17. The appellant/defendant to continue to deposit the amount subject to deposit of which the interim order was granted in this appeal, in this Court. 18. The appeal to be listed after the findings with reasons have been received back from the Trial Court. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J OCTOBER 8, 2013 pp..
-
2013 (10) TMI 1510
... ...
... ... ..... al jurisdiction of the Principal Bench and the Lucknow Bench of this Court have been determined. (2) The principle of law enunciated by the two Division Benches of this Court in the case of Dr. Balram Dutt Sharma and Sanjay Somani that for deciding the territorial jurisdiction, it is the location of the Court which has passed the impugned order or where the proceedings are pending, which shall be the determinative factor is totally against the provisions and object of the Clause 14 of the Amalgamation Order, 1948 and the judgement of the Apex Court in Nasiruddin (supra) and para 14 of U.P. Rashtriya Chini Mill Adhikari Parishad, Lucknow (supra). 55. Thus, in view of the above, we have no hesitation in holding that the Division Benches of this Court in the cases of Dr. Balram Dutt Sharma and Sanjay Somani (supra) do not lay down the correct law on the issue. 56. Reference is answered accordingly. The matters are now remitted to the learned Single Judge for decision on merits.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1485
... ...
... ... ..... (d) Right of appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. is available in all cases where the judgments are rendered after 31/12/2009. (e) In case of acquittal in a private complaint by the Sessions Court, if the complainant is also the victim, he has a statutory right of appeal as per proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. and the stipulation in Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. to obtain special leave may not apply in such a case. Hence, it is held that in all cases where the judgment is rendered after 31/12/2009, appeal lies to the Court made mention of under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. The Registry will return the records to the respective parties to enable them to prefer appeals before the appropriate forum. If they so choose to file appeals within a month from the date of this order before the competent forum, the time during which the matter was pending before this Court will be taken note of in applying Section 14 of the Limitation Act. These matters are disposed of as above.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1484
... ...
... ... ..... (d) Right of appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. is available in all cases where the judgments are rendered after 31-12-2009. (e) In case of acquittal in a private complaint by the Sessions Court, if the complainant is also the victim, he has a statutory right of appeal as per proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. and the stipulation in Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. to obtain special leave may not apply in such a case. Hence, it is held that in all cases where the judgment is rendered after 31-12-2009, appeal lies to the court made mention of under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. The Registry will return the records to the respective parties to enable them to prefer appeals before the appropriate forum. If they so choose to file appeals within a month from the date of this order before the competent forum, the time during which the matter was pending before this Court will be taken note of in applying Section 14 of the Limitation Act. These matters are disposed of as above.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1479
... ...
... ... ..... ni, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Kakumanu Pedasubhayya and another vrs. Kakumanu Akkammaa and another, reported in AIR 1958 SC 1042, specially paragraph 14 therein, to urge that a right of the minor is involved and the proposed amendment directly reflects upon the right of the minor. He, therefore, submits that the amendment needs to be allowed on that count. It is not in dispute that it was a joint written statement filed by the defendant nos. 1 to 5. The plea raised by way of amendment could have been raised when the written statement was filed. Apart from this, no such case is made out in the application for amendment of the written statement. Hence, under the garb of protecting rights of a minor, the circuitous way cannot be adopted, to get the amendment allowed at the instance of the defendants. In the result, no interference is called for in the order impugned. The writ petition is dismissed.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1478
... ...
... ... ..... are disposed of with the following directions - (i) the copies of office notings recorded in the file of UPSC as well as the copies of the correspondence exchanged between UPSC and the Department by which its advice was sought, to the extent it was sought, shall be provided to the respondent after removing from the notings and correspondence, (a) the date of the noting and the letter, as the case may be; (b) the name and designation of the person recording the noting and writing the letter and; (c) any other indication in the noting and/or correspondence which may reveal or tend to reveal the identity of author of the noting/letter, as the case may be; (ii) if the notings and/or correspondence referred in (i) above contains personal information relating to a third party, such information will be excluded while providing the information sought by the respondent; (iii) the information in terms of this order shall be provided within four weeks from today. No order as to costs.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1476
... ...
... ... ..... ers from this Court within three weeks from today. b) Till the respondent furnishes bank guarantee of the amount as directed, all the assets which are hypothecated in favour of the petitioner by the respondent shall be continued to be charged in favour of the petitioner. Respondent shall not create any further encumbrances in respect of the immovable properties of the respondent and other assets including the shares and current assets. c) Respondent is restrained from finalizing and/or implementing in any manner Corporate Debt Restructuring Scheme in terms of prayer clause (k) of the petition. (d) In the event of the respondent furnishing bank guarantee as directed, liberty is granted to the respondent to apply for modification of this order. In case of the respondent failing to comply with the direction aforesaid, petitioner would be at liberty to apply for further interim measures. (e) Both the petitions are accordingly disposed of in aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1465
... ...
... ... ..... ch that the goods cannot be supplied by the appellant/defendant no.1 concern, it takes help from its sister concerns to make up the deficiency and in this way the goods are supplied. 30. In my view, the said explanation does not meet the argument of the counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. The sole witness of the appellants/defendants in the same breath had also admitted that the debit notes on the basis of which the payments admittedly due to the respondent/plaintiff were sought to be avoided had no concern with the transactions between the respondent/plaintiff and the appellant/defendant no.1. It was for the appellants/defendants to plead and prove the constitution of the other concerns and an agreement with the respondent/plaintiff of adjustments of dues of one concern against the dues of the other. Neither any such plea has been taken nor any such evidence led. 31. No other argument has been raised. 32. There is thus no merit in the appeal which is dismissed with costs.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1429
... ...
... ... ..... any one of the categories with respect to whom L.O.C. orders are being issued . 14. In Crl.O.P.No.8864 of 2010 (A.ARUMUGARAJA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ADYAR, CHENNAI AND ANOTHER), dated 21.04.2010, in Crl.O.P.No.21441 of 2010 (A.ARUMUGARAJA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ADYAR, CHENNAI AND ANOTHER), dated 23.09.2010 and in Crl.O.P.No.30704 of 2012 (R.VISWANATHAN Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE KILPAUK, CHENNAI), dated 04.01.2013 in certain matrimonial matters enabling persons to go abroad, this Court directed lifting of L.O.C. orders. 15. In the facts and circumstances of this case and due to the subsequent developments, so far as the petitioners are concerned, L.O.C. orders becomes irrelevant. 16. In view of the foregoings, the 1st respondent, namely, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Ambattur Range, Chennai is directed to withdraw the Look Out Circular order issued as against the petitioners. 17. Accordingly, this criminal Original Petition is disposed of.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1343
... ...
... ... ..... ly received under the Right to Information Act, the entire proceedings including the show cause notices may be quashed and the goods may be ordered to be released. 3. Counsel for the respondents submits that as the matter is pending adjudication, the petitioner may raise these pleas before the adjudicating authority, who would decide the matter within such time as this Court may deem fit. 4. We have heard Counsel for the parties and as the matter is pending adjudication before the adjudicating authority dispose of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to appear before the adjudicating authority, with liberty to raise all pleas raised herein including the plea based on information supplied under the RTI Act. The adjudicating authority shall grant personal hearing to the petitioner and conclude the matter within a week of the petitioner furnishing his reply/defence if any. 5. Parties are directed to appear before the adjudicating authority on 29-10-2013.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1206
Accommodation after appointment - Accommodation to retired officers employed after retirement - Held that:- It appears that there are large number of Administrative Tribunals which are required to dispense justice to a large number of persons in the State of Maharashtra. Apart from Sales Tax Tribunal, there are other Tribunals and it appears that so far the policy of the State Government is not to give official accommodation to members of such Tribunals if they are retired Administrative Officers / Police Officers / Judicial Officers. Official accommodation is being provided to only those who are in service before reaching the age of superannuation. This Court fails to understand why the State Government should not provide official accommodation to the members of Administrative Tribunals even if they have retired and are now employed after their retirement - The State Government shall therefore consider providing official accommodation to the members of Administrative Tribunals even if such members are employed after their retirement from Administrative Service / Police Service / Judicial Service - Decided in favour of Appellant.
Shortage of employees - Held that:- against the strength of 10, there are only 3 persons manning the post of President and members of the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal at Mumbai - retired Administrative Officers / Police Officers / Judicial Officers would be willing to accept the assignment only if they are given official accommodation and, therefore, let the State Government first decide the question of providing official accommodation to the members from amongst the retired persons - Decided in favour of Appellant.
-
2013 (10) TMI 1007
Title of property - Whether the learned court below misread the evidence of PW4 in concluding that the defendant was a trespasser on the suit land and that the plaintiff had right, title and interest therein, thus vitiating the impugned judgment and order by an error on a substantial question of law - Held that:- father of the defendant was a worker of the Tea Estate. The defendant, while examining himself as DW1, had stated that his father had constructed the house in the year 1955 but he never lived there. DW1 had also stated that he was born in the disputed house. He has further stated that he used to live in the house with his wife and other family members. From his own evidence, it appears that he was born sometime in 1946 as he had stated that in cross-examination recorded on 03.08.1991, he was about 45 years old. Therefore, his plea that he was born in that house cannot be accepted. It is on record that father of the defendant retired in the year 1973 and expired in the year 1984 - Evidence of witnesses of plaintiff discloses that father of the defendant was allotted the quarter which is the disputed house. Subsequently, the quarter was allotted to Rajesh, who is husband of PW2. After he had resigned from the services of the Tea Estate, the quarter was allotted to PW2. DW1 had also deposed that Rajesh and Nandi had separated after about 3 years of marriage. There is also evidence that all of them used to reside together in that disputed house and that the defendant forcefully evicted PW2 from the quarter - Decided against appellant.
-
2013 (10) TMI 680
Status of a Person - whether NRI or not - eligibility for admission in Post Graduate Medical Course (PG Medical Course) - Applicability of provisions of determination of NRI under the Income Tax Act, 1961 as well as under the relevant provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (the FEMA) - Held that:- The definition of word “NRI” was amended by the respondent/College whereby it included the provisions of the FEMA also, the petitioners, who are residents of India, as rightly pointed out by the respondent, have followed a devise to go out of country for work for some time on work permits that too as sales clerk, after having graduated in medicine, only with a view to get themselves admitted in NRI quota for admission in P.G. Medical course.
The decision taken by the respondent/College is violative of the principles of natural justice, on considering the record of the petition, the respondent/College had published only a provisional merit list, which does not create any indefeasible rights in favour of the petitioners and the respondent/College has authority to scrutinize the basis on which the petitioners have claimed NRI status - it is of the duty of the respondent/College to properly scrutinize such applications, as the Apex Court in the case of P. A. Inamdar and others Versus State of Maharashtra and others [2005 (8) TMI 614 - SUPREME COURT ] has emphasized that genuine NRI should get benefit of such quota.
In the academic years 2011-12 and 2012-13, the respondent/College has considered similarly situated students and have granted admission in P.G. Medical course, however, even if such mistake is committed by the respondent/College, which is not in accordance with the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in P.A.Inamdar case - the petitioners cannot claim any equity - The respondent has rightly relied upon the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. International Trading Co. [2003 (5) TMI 480 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA].
The genuineness of the status of NRI is to be scrutinized and examined by the respondent/College in its true letter and spirit - It is a fact that NRI quota is a reserve quota and, therefore, the respondent/College is duty bound to see that only genuine NRI gets admission in such quota and it should not be a devise to get out of turn admission by way of a backdoor entry as the same would affect other meritorious students, who are otherwise eligible - At the cost of repetition, in facts of these petitions well qualified medical graduates went to UAE, opted for post of clerks/salesman on a paltry salary and stayed there for hardly six months, without any intention to back clearly exhibits the method adopted is not but a devise to get claim NRI status and obtained admission, by a back door entry as other on merits it is not possible to get it. In light of this factual position, the petitioners cannot be considered as bona fide NRIs.
The decision of non-inclusion of the petitioners’ names in the final merit list is the subject matter of these petitions and no further aspects are being considered by this Court - the respondent/College should go to the root of the matter and should also inquire whether person claiming to have obtained job and have entered into a contract with the company situated outside India are genuine or not - The respondent/College has to find out whether the student is a bona fide NRI or not – the decision taken by the respondent/College is legal and proper and the same does not require any interference of this Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India – Decided against Petitioner.
|
