|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 383 Records
-
1996 (1) TMI 466
The Supreme Court allowed the main appeal and connected appeals, dismissing the suits for pre-emption due to the amendment to the Haryana Pre-emption Act, 1995 which removed the right of pre-emption for co-owners. The respondents lost their right of pre-emption as the law had changed.
-
1996 (1) TMI 465
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the interpretation of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 regarding dishonour of cheques for insufficiency of funds in the accounts of the accused.
Comprehensive Details:
Issue 1: Complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
The appellant filed complaints u/s 138 for dishonour of a cheque due to insufficient funds. The complaint detailed the presentation of the cheque, dishonour by the bank, issuance of a notice to the accused, and failure of payment as required u/s 138(c). The accused's dishonest intention in instructing the bank to stop payment was highlighted, leading to liability u/s 138.
Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 138 of the Act
Section 138 penalizes dishonour of cheques for insufficiency of funds, introduced in 1988 to address such cases. The provision outlines the conditions for an offense, including presenting the cheque within six months, issuing a notice to the drawer, and failure to make payment within 15 days. The explanation clarifies "debt or other liability" as legally enforceable.
Issue 3: Dishonour of Cheque and Legal Presumptions
Dishonour of a cheque drawn on an account for payment of a debt constitutes an offense u/s 138. The statutory presumption of dishonest intention arises if the drawer fails to pay within 15 days of receiving a notice post-dishonour. Instructions to the bank for non-payment after issuing the cheque amount to dishonour, fulfilling the requirements of Section 138.
Issue 4: Judicial Interpretation and High Court's Decision
The court rejected the argument that stoppage of payment does not constitute an offense u/s 138. The purpose of the provision is to prevent dishonesty in cheque transactions. The High Court's decision to quash the complaints was deemed incorrect as the ingredients of Section 138 were prima facie satisfied. The orders were set aside for expeditious trial without expressing an opinion on merits.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, emphasizing the importance of upholding the provisions of Section 138 to maintain credibility in banking transactions and prevent dishonest practices related to dishonoured cheques.
-
1996 (1) TMI 464
The High Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal against the refusal to entertain a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Tribunal under the Recovery of Debts Act, stating that an alternative remedy was available through an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The Court held that the Appellate Tribunal has jurisdiction over any order made by the Tribunal, including interim orders affecting the parties' rights. Therefore, the Court declined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
-
1996 (1) TMI 463
Issues:
Property dispute referred to arbitration, failure to file the award in court, application for decree after a long lapse of time, duty of arbitrator to file the award, circumvention of law by the arbitrator and parties.
Analysis:
The case involved a property dispute between the appellants and respondents, which was referred to arbitration. The Arbitrator made an award in 1986, but it was not filed in court by either party within the stipulated time frame. The Arbitrator, after a significant delay of six years, filed the award in court and applied for a decree in terms of the award, which was granted by the Civil Judge. The appellants challenged this decision before the Supreme Court, questioning the validity of the Arbitrator's actions after such a long delay.
The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Arbitrator had the authority to file the award and request a decree after such a substantial lapse of time, especially when neither party had taken steps to file the award earlier. The Court noted that there was no specific provision in the Arbitration Act requiring the Arbitrator to file the award in court suo moto. The Arbitrator's actions were deemed questionable, as he appeared to align with one party by seeking a decree long after the expiration of the time limit for filing the award.
The Court held that the Arbitrator's application for filing the award and seeking a decree, made after the statutory time limit, was impermissible. It was observed that the law should not be circumvented, and parties should not be allowed to obtain orders indirectly that they could not secure directly. The Court emphasized the importance of seeking remedies promptly and within the prescribed legal framework.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the decree passed by the Civil Judge and the High Court's order. The Court ruled that the actions taken by the Arbitrator and the parties to obtain the decree were not in accordance with the law, and there would be no order as to costs in this matter.
-
1996 (1) TMI 462
Issues:
- Assessment of compensation for injuries in a motor accident
- Reduction of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal by the High Court
- Award of interest on the compensation amount
Analysis:
1. The judgment involves three appeals by claimants injured in a motor accident. The accident occurred due to a head-on collision between the offending car and the car in which the claimants were traveling. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal initially awarded specific amounts to each claimant, which were later reduced by the High Court upon appeals by the respondents. The High Court reduced the compensation awarded to Dr. (Mrs.) Tandon, her husband, and their minor children, while maintaining the award for the injured maidservant.
2. The Supreme Court acknowledged the negligence of the first respondent and the liability of the second respondent as the insurer. The main issue was determining the correct compensation for the claimants. The Court noted that the High Court's reduction of compensation was too rigid, especially in the case of Dr. (Mrs.) Tandon. The Court considered the extent of her injuries and the impact on her quality of life, concluding that she deserved a higher compensation amount. The Court modified the awards, increasing the compensation for Dr. (Mrs.) Tandon, her husband, children, and the maidservant based on the injuries suffered.
3. Another aspect addressed in the judgment was the award of interest on the compensation amount. The Tribunal had awarded interest at 6% per annum, which the High Court reduced to 3% per annum. The Supreme Court disagreed with the reduction, emphasizing the need for adequate interest considering inflation and the eroding value of currency. The Court ordered interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the application, directing the Tribunal to calculate and adjust the payments accordingly. The parties were instructed to approach the Tribunal for payment within three months of determination.
4. In conclusion, the Supreme Court partially allowed the appeals by modifying the compensation amounts and ordering the payment of interest at the rate of 12% per annum. No costs were awarded in this case.
-
1996 (1) TMI 461
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of Revision Petition under Rule 36A of the Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in the Khasi and Janitia Hills, 1937.
2. Jurisdiction of the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner under the Arbitration Act.
3. Applicability of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code in revisional jurisdiction.
4. Interpretation of Section 39 of the Arbitration Act regarding appeals and revisions.
5. Applicability of the Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in the Khasi and Janitia Hills, 1937 to non-tribal disputes.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Maintainability of Revision Petition under Rule 36A:
The Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court held that under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, a second appeal from an appellate judgment and order is expressly barred. However, it noted that there is no provision in the Arbitration Act that bars the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court against the appellate order. The High Court relied on precedents from the Allahabad High Court and Pepsu High Court, which held that a revision lies before the High Court against an appellate order under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act. The Division Bench concluded that the revision application under Rule 36A of the Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in the Khasi and Janitia Hills, 1937, was maintainable and should be disposed of on merits by the appropriate Single Bench of the High Court.
2. Jurisdiction of the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner:
The Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner at Shillong was competent to entertain an arbitration award filed before it for the purpose of making it a rule of court. The Deputy Commissioner was also competent to entertain appeals from the decisions of the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner. The Supreme Court noted that the appellant had filed the arbitration award in the court of the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner and conceded to the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner in entertaining the appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act.
3. Applicability of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code:
The Supreme Court observed that the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, while exercising powers under the Arbitration Act, act as civil courts. Therefore, the High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code is applicable. The Court emphasized that the revisional power under Rule 36A of the Rules must be exercised in conformity with the revisional power under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code to avoid hostile discrimination.
4. Interpretation of Section 39 of the Arbitration Act:
Section 39(2) of the Arbitration Act explicitly bars a second appeal from an appellate order under Section 39. However, the Supreme Court clarified that this bar does not extend to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. The Court cited precedents to support the view that the bar of a second appeal does not oust the High Court's revisional jurisdiction. The Court held that the revisional application under Rule 36A was maintainable and should be considered in conformity with Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.
5. Applicability of the Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in the Khasi and Janitia Hills, 1937:
The Supreme Court rejected the appellant's contention that the Rules apply only to disputes between the Khasi or Janitia tribes. The Court noted that the Rules provide for the trial of civil disputes by village authorities and other competent authorities in the area where the Rules are applicable. The Court emphasized that the Rules extend to all indigenous inhabitants of the hills and are not limited to the Khasi or Janitia tribes. The Court concluded that the appellate order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, a civil court constituted under a special statute, is subject to the High Court's revisional jurisdiction.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the maintainability of the revision petition under Rule 36A of the Rules for the Administration of Justice and Police in the Khasi and Janitia Hills, 1937. The Court directed the High Court to dispose of the revisional application on merits as early as possible, within four months from the date of communication of the order. The appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.
-
1996 (1) TMI 460
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the judgment of the Madras High Court dated September 2, 1976, in O.S.A. No. 20 of 1976 operates as res judicata.
2. Whether the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated November 9, 1970, in A.S. No. 31 of 1967 operates as res judicata.
3. Whether there was a merger of TCC in the Church of South India in 1947 and if TCC ceased to exist thereafter.
Summary:
Issue 1: Res Judicata of Madras High Court Judgment
The Supreme Court examined if the judgment of the Madras High Court in O.S.A. No. 20 of 1976 operates as res judicata. It was held that for Section 11 of the CPC, the competence of the court refers to pecuniary jurisdiction and subject matter, not territorial jurisdiction. The Supreme Court concluded that the judgment of the Madras High Court, which had pecuniary jurisdiction and jurisdiction over the subject matter, operates as res judicata. Consequently, the decision regarding the merger of TCC with the Church of South India and the non-applicability of the Andhra Pradesh High Court's judgment as res judicata is binding on the respondent.
Issue 2: Res Judicata of Andhra Pradesh High Court Judgment
Since the judgment of the Madras High Court was held to operate as res judicata, it precluded the need to consider whether the Andhra Pradesh High Court's judgment in A.S. No. 31 of 1967 operates as res judicata.
Issue 3: Merger of TCC in the Church of South India
Given the resolution of Issue 1 in favor of the appellant, the Supreme Court did not need to address the question of whether there was a merger of TCC in the Church of South India in 1947 and whether TCC ceased to exist thereafter.
Conclusion:
The appeals were allowed, the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated June 16, 1992, in Appeals Nos. 623-624 of 1979 was set aside, and the suits (O.S. Nos. 41 of 1968 and 26 of 1970) were dismissed. No orders as to costs.
Additional Orders:
In S.L.P. (CC No. 21473/93), the delay was condoned, and the legal heirs of the petitioner were brought on record. The special leave petition was dismissed as the petitioner had no subsisting cause for grievance following the dismissal of O.S. 26 of 1970.
-
1996 (1) TMI 459
Issues:
1. Validity of amendment of the plaint seeking declaration of a gift deed.
2. Effect of limitation on seeking amendment of the plaint.
3. Accrued rights and refusal of amendment by the Court.
Analysis:
The case involves a Partition Suit where the appellant sought to amend the plaint to declare a gift deed as ineffective and not binding. The respondents contended that the appellant lost the right to seek the declaration due to limitation. The High Court set aside the order allowing the amendment, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.
The appellant argued that the amendment did not alter the nature of the suit or the relief sought, which was partition of the property. The respondents claimed that the registration of the gift deed was a notice to all parties and that the appellant delayed seeking the declaration, thus losing the right by limitation.
The Supreme Court analyzed the situation and referred to previous judgments. It highlighted that amendments are generally allowed unless they take away accrued rights. The Court emphasized that if an amendment merely clarifies an existing pleading without adding fresh allegations or reliefs, the question of limitation does not apply. However, in cases where accrued rights are affected, the Court may refuse the amendment.
In this case, the gift deed was executed and registered in 1978, providing notice to all parties. The Court noted that the appellant delayed seeking the amendment for three years after the respondents pleaded about the gift in their written statement. Allowing the amendment would defeat the accrued rights of the respondents. Therefore, the High Court was correct in refusing to grant permission for the amendment.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal without costs, upholding the High Court's decision to disallow the amendment of the plaint due to the impact on the accrued rights of the respondents.
-
1996 (1) TMI 458
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case include the substitution of legal representatives of the first respondent, the right of pre-emption under Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, the effect of an amendment to Section 15 of the Act, and the application of the doctrine of estoppel in cases of pre-emption.
Substitution of Legal Representatives:
The respondent had sold land from undivided joint family properties to strangers, leading to a dispute regarding the right of pre-emption under Section 15 of the Act. Despite litigation by the wife and children of the respondent, the sale was upheld. The subsequent sale of the land by the original buyers to the appellant triggered a pre-emption suit by the respondent.
Right of Pre-emption under Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913:
The respondent, as a co-owner, claimed the right of pre-emption over the land purchased by the appellant. The trial court initially dismissed the suit, but on appeal, it was decreed. The High Court upheld the decree, leading to the special leave appeal before the Supreme Court.
Effect of Amendment to Section 15 of the Act:
The appellant argued that the respondent, having sold the property to strangers, lost the right of pre-emption. The Haryana State legislature had amended Section 15, restricting the right of pre-emption to tenants of the vendor's land. The respondent, however, contended that as a co-owner, he was entitled to pre-empt the sale.
Doctrine of Estoppel in Cases of Pre-emption:
The Supreme Court considered the doctrine of estoppel in pre-emption cases, emphasizing that the plaintiff must establish various facts to succeed in the claim. The Court held that the respondent, having sold the land to strangers, could not later claim pre-emption over subsequent sales by the buyers.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court accepted the appellant's argument, ruling that the respondent, by selling the land to strangers, forfeited the right of pre-emption. The Court noted the amendment to Section 15 of the Act, which limited pre-emption rights to tenants. As a result, the appeals were allowed, and the trial court's decision was restored, dismissing the suit for pre-emption.
-
1996 (1) TMI 457
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment include the effect of an Amendment Act on customary rights, the applicability of Hindu Law in cases of alienation, and the right to contest alienations under statutory provisions.
Effect of Amendment Act on Customary Rights:
The Supreme Court considered the effect of the Amendment Act 1973 on the customary right of the Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Act, 1920. It was held that the Amendment Act is retrospective and applicable to pending proceedings. The court referred to previous decisions and concluded that the right under the Principal Act was a statutory right which has now been taken away by the Amendment Act.
Applicability of Hindu Law:
During the arguments, it was revealed that some appellants might have had the right to contest alienations under Hindu Law. The court discussed the preservation of customs by the Punjab Laws Act and the regulation of customary rights under the Principal Act. It was emphasized that the rights of the parties under Hindu Law remain unaffected even after the custom has been done away with by the Amendment Act. The court cited previous judgments to support the application of Hindu Law in cases of alienation.
Right to Contest Alienations under Statutory Provisions:
The court held that the appellant is entitled to raise the executability of the decree in execution, as the Amendment Act was applicable at the time of passing the decree by the appellate Court. It was emphasized that when a matter goes to the root of jurisdiction, it can be raised even in execution. Therefore, the High Court was not correct in rejecting the revision of the appellants on the grounds that they are not entitled to raise the plea of nullity. The appeal was allowed, the orders of the lower courts were set aside, and the execution petition was dismissed.
-
1996 (1) TMI 456
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the question of whether an arbitrator is required to provide reasons in support of their award under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1985.
Details of the Judgment:
Issue 1: Requirement of Reasons in Arbitrator's Award
The primary issue in this appeal was whether the arbitrator is obligated to provide reasons for their award under Section 7B of the Act. The Supreme Court referred to a previous case where it was held that an award under the Arbitration Act need not be remitted or set aside solely for lack of reasons unless required by the arbitration agreement or relevant law. However, in cases involving public interest or disputes concerning the government, it was emphasized that reasons should be given in the award. The Court highlighted the importance of reasons in ensuring transparency and accountability, especially when public funds or interests are involved.
Issue 2: Judicial Review and Public Interest
The Court reiterated that in cases affecting public interest, reasons must be recorded to facilitate judicial review and ensure fairness. Under Section 7B of the Act, the arbitrator's decision is final and cannot be challenged in court, making it crucial for the arbitrator to provide reasons for their determination. Lack of reasons would hinder the High Court's ability to assess the validity of the arbitrator's decision and understand the basis for their conclusions. Therefore, the Court held that in such cases, reasons are essential for proper adjudication and transparency.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Supreme Court ruled that under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, the arbitrator is required to give reasons in support of their award. Failure to provide reasons would impede the judicial review process and hinder the assessment of the arbitrator's decision. The Court set aside the arbitrator's award in this case and remitted the matter back to the arbitrator with instructions to provide reasons for the decision. Importantly, the Court clarified that this ruling applies prospectively and does not reopen previous awards made under Section 7B. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
-
1996 (1) TMI 455
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of appellant's hypothetical claim for medical reimbursement.
2. Applicability of State policy on medical reimbursement.
3. Determination of reimbursement rates based on recognized hospitals.
4. Emergency nature of the appellant's medical treatment.
5. Right to self-preservation under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of appellant's hypothetical claim for medical reimbursement:
The appellant, a retired Deputy Superintendent of Police, developed a heart condition and subsequently traveled to England for treatment. He incurred expenses for a bypass surgery and sought reimbursement from the State of Punjab. The High Court granted reimbursement based on AIIMS rates, but the appellant sought reimbursement based on rates at the Escorts Heart Institute. The Supreme Court examined whether the appellant's claim, hypothetically treated as having been operated upon at Escorts, was valid under the State's policy.
2. Applicability of State policy on medical reimbursement:
The State policy dated 25-1-1991 governs the reimbursement of medical expenses for treatments taken abroad or in recognized hospitals outside the Punjab government hospitals. The policy requires prior approval from the Director of Health and Family Welfare and examination by a Medical Board. However, in emergencies, immediate treatment is permissible. The policy recognizes certain hospitals, including Escorts Heart Institute, for specific treatments like open-heart surgery.
3. Determination of reimbursement rates based on recognized hospitals:
The appellant's claim for reimbursement at Escorts rates was supported by precedents where the High Court allowed reimbursement based on rates at recognized hospitals. The Supreme Court noted that the State policy recognized Escorts for open-heart surgery and that the appellant's hypothetical treatment at Escorts should be reimbursed accordingly. The Court referenced several High Court judgments that supported full reimbursement based on recognized hospital rates rather than AIIMS rates.
4. Emergency nature of the appellant's medical treatment:
The appellant claimed his treatment in England was an emergency, but no documentary evidence was provided to substantiate this. The State argued it was a planned visit. However, since the appellant reduced his claim to Escorts rates, the Supreme Court did not delve further into the emergency nature. The Court assumed the appellant could have been treated at Escorts under similar conditions.
5. Right to self-preservation under Article 21 of the Constitution of India:
The Supreme Court emphasized the fundamental right to self-preservation under Article 21, which includes the right to take necessary steps to protect one's life. The Court cited ancient texts and legal principles supporting the right to self-defense and self-preservation. It concluded that the appellant was justified in seeking immediate medical treatment without waiting for Medical Board approval or government hospital queues, given the urgency of his condition.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appellant's claim for reimbursement based on Escorts rates, acknowledging the right to self-preservation and the State policy recognizing Escorts for open-heart surgery. The appellant was entitled to the difference between the amount already paid and the Escorts rates, to be paid within two months. No interest was granted for the intervening period. The appeal was allowed without any order as to costs.
-
1996 (1) TMI 454
Issues:
Interpretation of the term "local authority" under the M.P. Nagariya Sthawar Sampatti Kar Adhiniyam, 1964.
Scope and applicability of Sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1973.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Interpretation of the term "local authority" under the M.P. Nagariya Sthawar Sampatti Kar Adhiniyam, 1964.
The Property Tax Officer imposed property tax on lands and buildings vested in the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Guna, which objected to the levy, citing exemption under Section 6(a)(iii) of the 1964 Act. The definition of "local authority" under the 1964 Act did not explicitly include a samiti. However, the Samiti argued that under Section 7(3) of the 1973 Act, every market committee is deemed to be a local authority "for all purposes." The High Court held that this deeming provision would make the Samiti exempt from property tax under the 1964 Act.
Issue 2: Scope and applicability of Sub-section (3) of Section 7 of the M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1973.
The crucial question was the interpretation of "for all purposes" in Section 7(3) of the 1973 Act. The appellants contended that this provision was intended to limit the Samiti's status as a local authority to purposes under the 1973 Act only, not extending to other statutes. They argued that the inclusion of "for all purposes" was deliberate and indicated a restriction to the 1973 Act. Conversely, the respondent-Samiti argued that "for all purposes" should be interpreted broadly, encompassing all purposes, not just those under the 1973 Act. However, the Supreme Court upheld the appellants' contention, stating that the provision's language and context supported a limited interpretation, restricting the Samiti's status as a local authority to purposes under the 1973 Act.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's decision and affirming the Property Tax Officer's authority to levy and enforce property tax on the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Guna.
-
1996 (1) TMI 453
The Supreme Court allowed the intervention application and upheld the levy of a licence fee for bottling of liquor under the U.P. Excise Act, 1910. The court ruled that bottling is a distinct activity requiring a separate licence, and the imposition of such a fee is within the scope of the Act. The appeals and petitions challenging the fee were dismissed with costs.
-
1996 (1) TMI 452
Issues Involved:
1. Cross-examination of respondents who filed affidavits.
2. Admissibility and necessity of oral evidence.
3. Applicability of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and Evidence Act to Company Law Board proceedings.
4. Principles of natural justice in Company Law Board proceedings.
5. Res judicata concerning previous applications for cross-examination.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Cross-examination of respondents who filed affidavits:
The petitioners sought permission to cross-examine all persons who filed affidavits in opposition. They argued that since the affidavits were already on record, only cross-examination was necessary, not examination-in-chief. The respondents countered that cross-examination should only occur if the respondents offer themselves for examination-in-chief. The Board concluded that cross-examination of all respondents who filed affidavits was unnecessary as the extensive affidavits already provided sufficient material for consideration.
2. Admissibility and necessity of oral evidence:
The petitioners argued that oral evidence was necessary due to disputed facts, citing the need to establish the veracity of the affidavits through cross-examination. The respondents contended that oral evidence should be led strictly according to the CPC and Evidence Act, and only if issues were framed. The Board noted that in proceedings under Sections 397/398 of the Companies Act, oral evidence is rarely necessary as most allegations can be adjudicated based on documentary evidence. The Board emphasized that oral evidence is generally unnecessary unless specific circumstances warrant it, such as contradictory statements by third parties.
3. Applicability of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and Evidence Act to Company Law Board proceedings:
The petitioners argued that the CPC and Evidence Act do not strictly apply to the Company Law Board, which should be guided by principles of natural justice. They cited Union of India v. T.R. Varma, where the Supreme Court held that the Evidence Act does not apply to tribunals. The respondents argued that the Company Law Board should follow the CPC and Evidence Act, as there were no specific provisions in the Company Law Board Regulations. The Board concluded that it is not bound by the CPC and Evidence Act but should follow principles of natural justice and its own regulations.
4. Principles of natural justice in Company Law Board proceedings:
The petitioners emphasized that the Company Law Board should be guided by principles of natural justice, allowing cross-examination to test the veracity of affidavits. The respondents argued that the Board should adhere to the CPC and Evidence Act. The Board reaffirmed that it is guided by principles of natural justice and has the discretion to regulate its own procedure, as provided under Section 10E(5) of the Companies Act. The Board emphasized that adherence to natural justice is sufficient for its decisions to be valid.
5. Res judicata concerning previous applications for cross-examination:
The respondents argued that the petitioners' application for cross-examination should be dismissed based on res judicata, as a similar prayer was made and not granted in an earlier application (C.A. No. 102 of 1993). The petitioners contended that the previous application was still pending and not disposed of. The Board observed that the petitioners had not reiterated their prayer for cross-examination over nearly two years, leading to the presumption that they had abandoned it. The Board decided not to entertain the application for cross-examination at this late stage.
Conclusion:
The Company Law Board dismissed the application for cross-examination and oral evidence, emphasizing that it is guided by principles of natural justice and has the discretion to regulate its own procedures. The Board noted that the extensive affidavits already provided sufficient material for consideration and that oral evidence is generally unnecessary in proceedings under Sections 397/398 of the Companies Act. The Board also highlighted that it retains the power to order discovery of documents and examine witnesses on oath if necessary.
-
1996 (1) TMI 451
Title: Supreme Court Judgment
Citation: 1996 (1) TMI 451 - SC
Judges: B.P. Jeevan Reddy and Mr. B.N. Kirpal
Decision: Civil Appeal dismissed as no ground to interfere based on Tribunal's finding.
-
1996 (1) TMI 450
Issues involved:
The appeal against the rejection of bail under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 based on the application of Section 37 of the Act and the interpretation of proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Bail Rejection based on Section 37 of the Act:
The appellant's bail plea was rejected by the High Court in line with Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, following the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the case of Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Kishan Lal and Others. The appellant's counsel argued that the statutory period for custody had expired as per proviso (a) to sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code, but the charge-sheet had been filed subsequently. The Court clarified that the right to be released on bail due to the failure to file a charge-sheet within the prescribed time is not indefeasible after the charge-sheet is filed, as established in previous judgments.
Interpretation of Proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code:
The appellant's counsel did not pursue the appeal on merit, contending that the City Sessions Judge should have found reasonable grounds to believe the appellant was not guilty under Section 37. The Court dismissed the appeal but directed for the expedited trial of the appellant.
This judgment clarifies the application of bail provisions under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and the interplay with the Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasizing that the right to bail is not absolute and can be affected by the filing of a charge-sheet within the prescribed time limits.
-
1996 (1) TMI 449
The respondent, a temporary Police Constable, was terminated from service. The Tribunal set aside the termination, which was challenged by the State in a writ petition. The High Court dismissed the petition due to delay. The Supreme Court held that there was no time-limit for filing the writ petition and ordered the respondent to be paid a consolidated sum of Rs. 30,000 within three months.
-
1996 (1) TMI 448
Issues:
Challenge to recovery notices dated 11-3-1992 and 6-11-1992 issued to Gujarat State Textile Corporation Ltd. regarding Priyalaxmi Mills and New Swadeshi Mills, interpretation of excise duty recovery under Gujarat Act No. 10 of 1986, consideration of Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 provisions, and examination of Rule 230 of Central Excise Rules.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The Gujarat State Textile Corporation Ltd. challenged recovery notices regarding Priyalaxmi Mills and New Swadeshi Mills, which were revived under Gujarat Act No. 10 of 1986. The Act transferred rights of textile undertakings to the State Government, raising questions on liability for dues.
2. The petitioner argued that dues should be handled by the Commissioner of Payment under the Act, suggesting that excise duty recovery is limited to State Acts, not Central Acts, as per Article 246 of the Constitution.
3. The respondents contended that excise duty referred to in Category II or III includes local Acts like the Bombay Prohibition Act, emphasizing Parliament's exclusive power for matters in the Union List under Article 248 of the Constitution.
4. Previous judgments by a Division Bench supported the petitioner's stance, highlighting the obligation of the Corporation to discharge liabilities under Schedule II of the Act, including excise duty, as per Section 11 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
5. The Court analyzed the constitutional provisions and exceptions under Article 246, stating that State legislatures can enact laws only for matters not in the Union List. It clarified that excise duty under the State Act differs from that under the Central Act, emphasizing Parliament's exclusive authority in levying excise duty.
6. Rule 230 of the Central Excise Rules was examined, particularly sub-rule (2), which addresses duty payment obligations in cases of business transfer or ownership change. The Court emphasized the distinction between voluntary transfers and acquisitions under the Act.
7. The Court set aside the recovery notices, directing authorities to reevaluate the duty payment obligations in light of the nationalization of Priyalaxmi Mills and the specific provisions of the Act. The authorities were instructed to consider the effect of ownership transfer post-nationalization.
8. The judgment allowed the petition, making the rule absolute to the extent specified, indicating a favorable outcome for the Gujarat State Textile Corporation Ltd. regarding the recovery notices and duty payment obligations.
-
1996 (1) TMI 447
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Sections 15, 16, 17, 29(5), and 144 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987.
Summary Issue-wise:
1. Constitutionality of Section 15:
Section 15 deals with the appointment of a Board of Trustees for charitable or religious institutions or endowments based on their annual income. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Section 15, stating that it aims to effectuate the legislative object of efficient and proper administration and governance of charitable and Hindu religious institutions and endowments. The legislative competence and policy involved were not questioned and were deemed constitutional.
2. Constitutionality of Section 16:
Section 16 abolishes hereditary trusteeship. The Court held that the legislature within its competence may amend the law, and the abolition of hereditary trusteeship is a permissible law under Article 25(2) of the Constitution. The Court found that hereditary trusteeship inherently led to mismanagement or misappropriation of property, and its abolition aimed to ensure proper and efficient management and governance of the institutions. Therefore, Section 16 was not declared unconstitutional.
3. Constitutionality of Section 17:
Section 17 provides the procedure for appointing trustees and their term. The Court held that the scheme for appointment of trustees and the constitution of the board of trustees is to ensure efficient and proper administration and management. The Court suggested that the board of trustees should be headed by the founder or a member of his family to generate greater responsibility and interest in its management. Subject to this rider, the validity of Section 17 was upheld.
4. Constitutionality of Section 29(5):
Section 29(5) deals with the appointment and duties of Executive Officers. The Court found that the legislative scheme aimed to ensure efficiency and proper management in a secular manner. The Court upheld the validity of Section 29(5), subject to the condition that the board of trustees should be headed by the founder or a member of his family to ensure proper and efficient management.
5. Constitutionality of Section 144:
Section 144 abolishes shares in Hundi and other rusums. The Court held that the object of the Act is to prevent misuse of the trust for personal benefit, founded on the report of the Challa Kondaiah Commission. The legislative judgment was respected, and Section 144 was not declared unconstitutional in relation to its application to charitable and religious institutions and endowments.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Sections 15, 16, 17, 29(5), and 144 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, subject to the rider that the board of trustees should be headed by the founder or a member of his family for Sections 17 and 29(5). The writ petitions and transfer cases were disposed of accordingly without costs.
........
|
9911796707
