|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 286 Records
-
1994 (9) TMI 353 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... respondent has proved prima facie case for granting injunction in favour of enforcement of the bank guarantee, admittedly entered into by the respondent with the appellant. The learned Single Judge was quite right in refusing to issue the injunction in terms of clause 17 of the contract and the bank guarantee given by the respondent. 11. Pending appeal, this Court directed the respondent to deposit the amount in the Registry and the Registry was directed to keep the amount in fixed deposit which would earn interest. Since the amount has already been deposited and it is earning interest, it is open to the appellant to withdraw the same from the Registry. 12. The appeal is accordingly allowed. It is made clear that it shall not be taken that we have expressed any final opinion on the merits of the contract entered into between the appellant and the respondent. However, we award costs quantified at ₹ 20,000 and the same shall be payable by the respondent to the appellant.
-
1994 (9) TMI 352 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 1.4.1975 and which were not framed till the appellants entered the merged cadre. Learned counsel for the appellants lastly placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Union of India & Ory. etc. v. Dr. Krishna Murthy & Ors. etc., 1989 4 S.C.C. 689 for submitting that there is no fundamental right of anyone to a particular seniority. This decision also cannot be of any assistance to the appellants as in the present case as rightly found by the High Court if the appellants who entered the merged cadre of the Senior Branch only on 2.11.1975 are to be treated as senior to the respondents who had entered the Senior Branch as direct recruits prior thereto, the respondents would clearly get their constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 violated. For all these reasons, there is no substance in any of the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellants. In the result, the appeals fail and are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (9) TMI 351 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , as the case may be, then he has to be released on bail forthwith. The accused, so released on bail may be arrested and committed to custody according to-the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The right of the accused to be released on bail after filing on the challan, notwithstanding the default in filing it within the time allowed, as governed from the time of filing of the challan only by the provisions relating to the grant of bail applicable at the stage. (3) In view of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Kartar Singh on the meaning and scope of sub-section (8) of Section 20 of the TADA Act as extracted earlier, this question does not require any further elucidation by us. The question referred are answered in the above manner. This case, for decision of the petitioner's claim for grant of bail on merits, like any other bail matter, has now to be considered and decided by the appropriate Divisions Bench. We direct, accordingly. Petitions dismissed.
-
1994 (9) TMI 350 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... f Central Excise, Bombay Division III, 1989 (44) E.L.T. 598 (S.C.) 1989 Supp. (1) SCR 311, she does not wish to press the appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed as not pressed. No costs.
-
1994 (9) TMI 349 - ADVANCE RULING AUTHORITY
Whether any liability to pay income-tax in India under the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with the DTAA would arise on amalgamation of the applicant with its holding company whereby shares of an Indian company held by the company would vest in the amalgamated company ?
Whether the provisions of section 47(via) of the Income-tax Act be considered as satisfied with regard to the above scheme of amalgamation?
-
1994 (9) TMI 348 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ; under the Order, the appellant is obligated to sell only according to specifications of ISI. The note referred to in the table of ISI notification does not come in aid of Mr. Sanyal as it only empowers the ISI to specify different size ranges for special uses besides those specified in the table and has no bearing to the issue involved in the appeal. Coming now to impugned judgment we find that in negativing the contention of the appellant based on Note 14, the High Court observed that the said Note had no manner of application to the facts of the case as the respondent did not purchase special size of coal. Unfortunately, in making the above observation the High Court failed to notice the definition of 'size' under the Order and the report of the ISI in this regard. For the foregoing discussion we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and dismiss the writ petition filed by the respondent. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (9) TMI 347 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ced before us for the first time. A similar contention was rejected by the High Court in the impugned order on the ground that no such papers were available in the case. However, we have perused the reply but from that alone it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 197 Cr.P.C. are not attracted under the facts and circumstances of the case. Except stating that "the permission sought by him on the above subject is not necessary in accordance with the Govt. of India decision No. 10 under Rule 3 of the C.C.S. (Conduct) Rules" there is nothing else to indicate that the said customs authorities have considered the question from the point of view of Section 197 Cr. P.C. As discussed above it is for the criminal Court to see whether cognizance can be taken or not in the absence of such a sanction. In the view we have taken namely that the sanction is necessary, we quash the criminal proceedings in C.C. Nos. 113/83 and 124/83. Accordingly these appeals are allowed.
-
1994 (9) TMI 346 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ty Director, CBI, and above. The report shall be submitted in a sealed envelope to the Registrar-General of the Supreme Court and it shall be opened by us. 19. We direct the State of Punjab to ensure all assistance to the CBI for the purposes of the inquiry ordered as aforesaid in view of the observations made by us. 20.We appreciate that we are casting a considerable burden upon an officer who must, no doubt, be already heavily burdened but we think it imperative in the public interest to do so. 21. We make it clear that we shall be free to make such orders as are deemed necessary when we receive the report of the Director, CBI, including orders for payment of compensation by the respondents to the next of kin of the said 7 persons. 22. The Registry shall send copies of this order forthwith to the Director, CBI, the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, and the Secretary, Home Ministry, State of Punjab. 23. To be placed on Board after 4 weeks from today.
-
1994 (9) TMI 345 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he functionaries. We cannot assume that Dr R.M. Premchand did not know about the destruction of the answer books of Srinivas at the time when he moved the High Court in public interest. If this be our impression Dr R.M. Premchand had no locus standi to move the High Court in public interest at that belated point of time. Therefore, we allow the appeal of Srinivas, set aside the order of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 17-12- 1993 in WA No. 53 of 1993 and restore the operative part of the order of the Single Bench of the High Court, added with the ground that Dr R.M. Premchand had no locus standi to move the High Court, in view of the facts and circumstances aforementioned. As a sequel all remarks against Professor K.V. Ramana in the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court not only get expunged but the whole basis on which they rest stands effaced. His appeal too is allowed. 8.This is the end result of both the appeals. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1994 (9) TMI 344 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ollector as well (Section 15 of the Act). ORDER OF THE COURT (Per Majority) 111. In respect of acquisition proceedings initiated prior to the date of commencement of the amending Act 68 of 1984, the payment of the additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the Act will be restricted to matters referred to in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the said amending Act. Union of India v. Zora Singh (1992) 1 SCC 673 insofar as it holds that Ed. Signed by all the five Hon'ble Judges Constituting the Bench the said amount is payable in all cases where the reference was pending before the reference Court on 24-9-1984, irrespective of the date on which the award was made by the Collector, does not lay down the correct law. 112.The question referred to answered accordingly. The matters be now placed before the appropriate benches for consideration and disposal of the appeals in the light of this order and on the other contentions, if any, raised in the appeals.
-
1994 (9) TMI 343 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n inroad into the rights of the tenant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. We hold that the statutory tenancies regarding residential premises are distinct and different from statutory tenancies regarding commercial premises and the limitations or the restrictions placed by Section 2(1)(iii) of the Act on the rights of the heirs of the statutory tenants of residential premises are reasonable, fair and just in all 8 (1955) 1 SCR 1004, 1010 AIR 1955 SC 166 the circumstances of the case. There is no violation of the guarantee enshrined in Article 14 or Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 13. We hold that Section 2(1)(iii) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is not open to attack on the ground that it is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The said provision is not in any manner either unfair or unjust or absurd. There is no merit in this batch of cases. The writ petitions are dismissed with costs. The special leave petition is rejected.
-
1994 (9) TMI 342 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rs of those wells, having determined the market value of the acquired agricultural lands on the basis of nature of crops grown on them obviously taking into consideration, the water facility they had from the irrigation wells situated, in them, they have proceeded on a misconception that the market value of the irrigation wells had to be determined according to their construction costs and compensation was payable for them under the Act independently of the compensation payable for the agricultural lands. As the award of compensation for the irrigation wells of the appellants by the LAO, the Civil Court and the High Court was, in itself wholly unwarranted, question of granting by us further enhanced compensation for irrigation wells of the appellants situated in their acquired agricultural lands cannot arise. Hence, this appeal of the appellants, the owners of the acquired agricultural lands, must necessarily fail. 11. In the result, we dismiss this appeal but without costs.
-
1994 (9) TMI 341 - SUPREME COURT
Whether question of giving option to the accused in compliance with Section 50 of the Act is subject to the condition that the accused ’requires’ that he be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate but where the accused does not so ’require’ for whatever reason his conviction would not stand vitiated, in case the option was not given to him?
Held that:- The words ’if the person to be searched so desires’ are important. One of the submissions whether the person who is about to be searched should by himself make a request or whether it is obligatory on the part of the empowered or the authorised officer to inform such person that if he so requires, he would be produced before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and thereafter the search would be conducted in which this right has been conferred, it must naturally be presumed that it is imperative on the part of the officer to inform the person to be searched of his right that if he so requires to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. To us, it appears that this is a valuable right given to the person to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate if he so requires, since such a search would impart much more authenticity and creditworthiness to the proceedings while equally providing an important safeguard to the accused. To afford such an opportunity to the person to be searched, he must be aware of his right and that can be done only by the authorised makes it obligatory on the authorised officer to inform the person to be searched of his right.
n view of the law laid down in Balbir Singh case [1994 (3) TMI 173 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] there has been violation of the provisions of Section 50 of NDPS Act and consequently the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant
-
1994 (9) TMI 340 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... them outside municipal limits and had directly sold them to outside purchasers. Such a material having a reference to a plea which was never put forward for exemption of the disputed turnover cannot be of any assistance to the appellant. It is also pertinent to note that if form No. 39 was available with the assessing authority and if it was relied upon by the assessee in support of his case it would have found a reference in the assessment order. No such reference to form No. 39, is found in the assessment orders. Consequently, even this effort made by Mr. Kamath to rely on form 39 is also of no avail to him. 37.. In our view the aforesaid computation of taxable turnover as well as the tax payable thereon as arrived at by revisional authority for the relevant years is perfectly justified on facts and is legal and proper. It calls for no interference in these appeals. 38.. In the result appeals fail and are dismissed. No order as to costs in each of them. Appeals dismissed.
-
1994 (9) TMI 339 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... mil Nadu v. Mahi Traders 1989 73 STC 228 (SC) (1989) 28 STL 192 (SC) and a judgment of the honourable Madras High Court in Tax Case No. 896 of 1981 (Azeezur Rahman and Company v. State of Tamil Nadu). In my view because of the amendment of section 3-AAAA by U.P. Ordinance No. 7 of 1994 with retrospective effect from April 1, 1974 this controversy stands legislatively settled and by virtue of the explanation raw hides and skins sold after dressing and tanning them would be deemed to have been sold in the same form and condition. 14.. In view of the finding of facts that the dealer had failed to establish that the goods in question were purchased from registered dealers and in the absence of any evidence that they had already suffered tax the, sale of such goods was liable to be taxed in accordance with section 3-AAAA of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. 15.. For the above reasons, I find no force in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.
-
1994 (9) TMI 338 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . May be, or may not be. We leave the matters to be disposed of by the authorities under the Act in the light of the law declared by this Court in Murli Manohar 1991 80 STC 79 (SC) (1991) 1 SCC 377, Hotel Balaji 1993 88 STC 98 (SC) (1993) AIR SCW 3 and in this judgment. 12.. In this view of the matter, I do not find it necessary to express any opinion on merits of the matter. The petitioner is, therefore, granted liberty to avail of the remedy available to it by way of appeal or revision. In case such proceeding is initiated by the petitioner within 15 days from today, the same shall be treated as within limitation and the concerning authorities shall decide the same on merits in conformity with law, bearing in mind the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Sant Lal 1993 91 STC 321 (1993) 4 SCC 380. 13.. With grant of liberty as above, this petition stands finally disposed of without any order as to costs. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1994 (9) TMI 337 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... etitioner taking into consideration the various evidence filed before it in the light of the observations made above and also in the light of the observations made in the aforesaid cases of this Court as well as the Supreme Court. Until disposal of the review application further assessment proceedings for the assessment years 1986-87 to 1988-89 both under the Central and U.P. Sales Tax Acts shall remain stayed. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated June 19, 1990 (annexure 15 to the petition) passed by the respondent No. 2 is quashed. The respondent No. 2 will decide the review application afresh preferably within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the said authority. The petitioner will file a certified copy of this order within two weeks from today. A certified copy of this order shall issue to the petitioner on payment of usual charges within one week. Writ petition allowed.
-
1994 (9) TMI 336 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed elsewhere in this Act . These words cannot be interpreted to mean that no other provisions of the Sales Tax Act are applicable to an order under section 3-B. The non obstante clause operates only with regard to the liability of a dealer and not with regard to the manner of its determination, limitation, mode of recovery, etc. All such provisions would in my view apply with as much force as they applied to an assessment order made under the other provisions of the Act. For the above reasons, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated June 13, 1994 passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Varanasi, in Second Appeal No. 63 of 1992 for the assessment year 1983-84 is set aside and the said appeal is ordered to be allowed and the order dated May 18, 1992 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Assessment), Sales Tax, under section 3-B of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, is annulled. The revisionist will get its costs of this revision from the respondents. Petition allowed.
-
1994 (9) TMI 335 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... making assessment under section 10 of the RST Act attracted the provisions of section 12 of the RST Act and the assessing authority was perfectly justified to issue notices under section 12 of the RST Act. As such the notices annexure 3 cannot be quashed. 13.. It is left for the decision of the assessing authority whether wooden boxes are included in the item No. 5 (furniture and office equipment including metal furniture and cabinetwares) of the said list and actually they were sold by the petitioners or not. 14.. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed with costs. The petitioners will appear before the assessing authority (respondent No. 2) on October 4, 1994 who will decide the cases within six months therefrom. The stay orders dated December 20, 1988 (in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2334 of 1988), November 1, 1991 (in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5591 of 1991) and April 20, 1993 (in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1980 of 1993) stand vacated. Writ petitions dismissed.
-
1994 (9) TMI 334 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... P3 arose on December 30, 1980 under the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 23. 6.. Exhibit P5 making demand for penal interest right from February 20, 1977, on the entire amount demanded in the first instance and for the reduced amount subsequently is not sustainable. Petitioner s liability is only to the extent stated above. Accordingly we allow the writ petition in part and quash exhibits P5 and P6. The third respondent is directed to compute the amount of penal interest payable by the petitioner on the amount mentioned in exhibit P3 for the period from December 30, 1980 till date of payment. Since the petitioner has paid the entire amount demanded as per exhibit P5, the third respondent shall compute the amount payable by the petitioner by way of penal interest within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and refund the excess amount to the petitioner without any further delay thereafter. No costs. Writ petition partly allowed.
........
|
