|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 391 Records
-
2000 (4) TMI 817 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... hough most of these cases were decided under Public law domain, it would not make any difference as in the instant case, two vital factors, namely, police negligence as also the Sub-Inspector being in conspiracy are established as a fact. Moreover, these decisions, as for example, Nilabti Behera vs. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746 1993 (2) SCR 581 AIR 1993 SC 1960; In Re Death of Sawinder Singh Grower, (1995) Supp. (4) SCC 450 JT 1992 (6) SC 271 1992 (3) Scale 34; and D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416 AIR 1997 SC 610, would indicate that so far as Fundamental Rights and human rights or human dignity are concerned, the law has marched ahead like a Pegasus but the Government attitude continues to be conservative and it tries to defend its action or the tortious action of its officers by raising the plea of immunity for sovereign acts or acts of State, which must fail. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed.
-
2000 (4) TMI 816 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... gh impugned in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.12013 of 1998 are set aside. (2) Similarly the judgments passed in Kameshwar Prasad Singh's case by the Single Judge and the LPA Bench which are impugned in this appeal arising out of SLP (C) NO.10653/98 are also set aside. (3) In view of setting aside the judgments in both the appeals mentioned above no orders are required to passed in Civil Appeal arising out SLP (C) NO.16740/98. (4) It is, however, made clear that despite setting aside of the impugned judgments the service benefits conferred upon Brij Bihari Prasad Singh consequent upon the judgments of the High Court shall not be withdrawn and his appointment/promotion in the IPS cadre not disturbed. (5) Consequent upon this judgment the appellant-State shall also not take any action against a person conferred with similar benefits as were conferred upon Brij Bihari Prasad Singh if that person has retired and is no more in service. Parties to bear their own costs.
-
2000 (4) TMI 815 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... oning of something or business and also putting in a particular place or location, anything. If the Form D had a column "sale", the licensee need only record that the goods have been consumed by them indicating local consumption in their factory premises and that it was not transported as timber simpliciter outside their factory. Even otherwise, the obligation to maintain and preserve accounts as envisaged in Section 10 of the Act and the Rules made thereunder with particulars specified in Form E cannot be disowned and this obligation is independent of even the liability to submit returns as envisaged under Section 9. Therefore, we find nothing in the Rules or Forms prescribed to justify any claim of immunity for the appellant from the liabilities and obligations cast upon it under the Act and the Rules. For all the reasons stated above, we see no merit in the challenge made to the order of the High Court. The appeal, consequently, fails and is dismissed. No costs.
-
2000 (4) TMI 814 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cumstances, Section 14(1) can legitimately be pressed in service by learned senior counsel for the appellants on the basis of legal right flowing to her under the relevant provisions of the Maintenance Act. Once that conclusion is reached, the result becomes obvious. The judgment and order passed by the High Court cannot be sustained and will have to be set aside. Instead, the decree of dismissal of the respondents suit as passed by the lower appellate Court will have to be confirmed, though on entirely a different set of reasoning, as indicated herein above, and not on the ground that the earlier part of the recitals in the will would supersede the later part of the recitals. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment and order of the High Court are set aside and the decree of dismissal of respondents suit as passed by the learned District Judge, Hoshiarpur on 16th August, 1976 is confirmed. There will be no order as to costs in the facts and circumstances of the case.
-
2000 (4) TMI 813 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... mitted. Tag with Civil Appeal Nos. 3725-26/1999 and connected matters. No stay.”
-
2000 (4) TMI 811 - SUPREME COURT
Whether there was no negligence on the part of the respondent-bank in dealing with its security of pledged shares of the appellant or its release in part to him and that the bank could also not be faulted on its practice?
Held that:- It is difficult to accept the contention of the bank that the correspondence that was exchanged between the appellant, the Nagpur Branch of the bank and its head office did not constitute an agreement between the parties under which the bank is agreed to sell the 500 shares of Castrol Ltd. pledged with it by the appellant. This agreement can be clearly spelt out from the correspondence exchanged between the parties.
The indicative price at which the appellant requested the bank to sell the shares of Castrol Ltd. was ₹ 2, 400 to ₹ 2, 500 per share. As to what is the price of share on any day is known to the bank and for that matter to any person interested in knowing value of the shares. On 29th July, 1992 the price of the share of Castrol Ltd. had fallen to ₹ 700 per share though it was more than the value of the share at the time these shares were pledged with the bank. The appellant has arrived at the figure of ₹ 8, 50, 000 as the loss occasioned to him. On 30th June, 1992 his overdraft account showed debit balance of ₹ 3, 40, 962.53 with the bank. The appellant, therefore, said that he suffered a loss of ₹ 5, 09, 037.45 after deducting the debit balance, which he, thus, claimed with interest and other charges like damage for loss of long standing business due to non-renewal of letter of credit; for non-releasing of securities; undue and unjust harassment, thus, making a total of ₹ 29, 56, 264.76. On the face of it apart from the claim of damages for loss in selling the shares other claims are too much overblown to be considered at all. The appellant would, thus, be entitled to the award of ₹ 5, 09, 037.47 with interest at the rate of 11 per cent per annum from 1st August, 1992. The bank is granted four weeks time to make the payment. In case of default, the appellant shall be entitled to further interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum on the amount of ₹ 5, 09, 037.47 from the date of the award till payment.
-
2000 (4) TMI 810 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ned. Undoubtedly, the accused has a right to pay the money within 15 days from the date of the service of notice and only when it fails to pay, it is open for the complainant to file a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. That being the position and in the complaint itself having not been mentioned that the notice has been served, on the assertions made in paragraph 8, the complaint itself is not maintainable. We accordingly quash the complaint. 3. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
-
2000 (4) TMI 809 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nt alone can raise any objection before the sales tax department. Even if the appellant is able to establish that he is entitled to the benefits under section 5(3) of the said Act, the appellant will not get the said benefits, if the forest department fails to prosecute the same by making effective objections regarding the same. So the reasonings given by the learned single Judge cannot be sustained and the order is set aside. 23.. It is relevant to mention here that the Forest Department is not making any serious step to solve the issue by providing proper guidelines though they are experiencing such difficulty year after year especially when the purchasers of sandalwood are claiming that they are purchasing the same in the course of export. 24.. Taking into consideration of the same, and also the facts of these cases, we issue the following directions to the respondents and the appellant 1.. The appellant should keep alive the bank guarantee for another 6 months from today
-
2000 (4) TMI 808 - WEST BENGAL TAXATION TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... sessee or the dealer had never any occasion to meet the case see paragraph 4 of the judgment (at page 265 of 71 STC) . In our opinion, in the instant cases, the competent authority who imposed the penalties, could not have done so at the rate of 40 per cent of the value of the seized goods without giving a specific notice to the applicants in that regard, because the applicants had no opportunity to meet any such possibility. 6.. Accordingly, the amounts of penalty imposed in these two cases are to be modified, bringing the same to the level of 25 per cent of the value of the seized goods. The respondent No. 1 is directed to modify the impugned orders of penalty accordingly and to refund the amounts which are in excess of such reduced penalty, to the applicant No. 1 within a period of six weeks from the date of this judgment. 7.. In the result, the application is allowed in part. No order for cost. 8.. D. Bhattacharyya (Technical Member).-I agree. Application partly allowed.
-
2000 (4) TMI 807 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... ertificate compelling the authorities to issue the impugned order, cancelling the deferral benefit. I do not find any error in the order for interference. The learned counsel K. Jayachandran referred to G.O. Ms. No. 500, which according to him, is the revised Government Order superseding all the earlier Government Orders. But the Government Order relied upon by the learned counsel does not supersede the condition of stoppage of production continuously for six months. Therefore, the contention that the G.O. Ms. No. 500, dated May 14, 1990 supersedes the condition No. VII(a) is unacceptable. I find no merit in this original petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. The original order, if any shall be returned to the petitioner. 2.. And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. 3.. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 17th day of April, 2000. Petition dismissed.
-
2000 (4) TMI 806 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... rs that the best judgment assessments have been made against the petitioner under section 17(5) of the Act. Admittedly, the petitioner has not been granted consolidated registration and as such for the period he has not been granted consolidated registration the general rule as contained under rule 3(1) has to be observed and the authorities have to proceed under the Act and take appropriate action in case of nonregistration in different circles or sub-circles. Only on the ground that matter regarding consolidated registration is pending, the assessment proceeding or the other action permissible under the Act cannot be stopped. 25.. In the result, the order of the Commissioner, as contained in annexure B and the consequential order as contained in annexure 18 are quashed and the matter is remitted to the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, respondent No. 2 for consideration of the matter in the light of the observations made above. D.P.S. CHOUDHARY, J.-I agree. Petition allowed.
-
2000 (4) TMI 805 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he petitioner has also led emphasis on this aspect of the case and contended that the case in hand is distinguishable on its own facts. I am however not persuaded by the argument. It is seldom that facts of two cases are similar. What is important is the ratio decidendi of a particular decision and which alone is binding. The decision in Steel City Beverages Ltd. 1999 112 STC 185 (SC), lays down the principle of construction as to how the word plant occurring in a particular rule or notification is to be construed. The ratio of that decision is relevant and applies with full force, in the present case. The question as extracted above thus, deserves to be answered against the petitioner and in favour of the Revenue. The impugned orders passed by respondent-authorities, call for no interference by this Court. 13.. The petition thus fails and is dismissed, but with no order as to costs. Security deposit, if any, be refunded to the petitioner on verification. Petition dismissed.
-
2000 (4) TMI 804 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... spects of the case, the contention of the appellant has to be rejected. It is not correct to say that the assessee acted bona fide in disclosing the return at the time of final assessment by filing a revised return. 13.. Regarding the reasons given by the appellant for not disclosing the purchase of cotton, we agree with the Joint Commissioner that sale is complete as soon as goods are delivered and the dealer ought to have disclosed the purchase of cotton in the monthly returns and also paid tax thereon. In this aspect of the case the assessee had failed and therefore, he has to suffer imposition of penalty. All the contentions are rejected and the order of the Joint Commissioner is upheld and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. 14.. And this Tribunal doth further order that this order on being produced be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned. 15.. Issued under my hand and the seal of this Tribunal on the 3rd day of April, 2000. Appeal dismissed.
-
2000 (4) TMI 803 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the order of the cancellation of registration passed by the Trade Tax Officer should have been set aside and the proper order whether to cancel the registration or not, should have been passed only after hearing the dealer. The Tribunal has also committed error in passing the operative portion, it should have only partly allowed the appeal of the dealer and should have set aside the order of the assessing authority by which the registration was cancelled. Such an intention of the Tribunal is evident from the order passed in the appeal filed by the department wherein the Tribunal justified the order of first appellate authority whereby the assessing authority was directed to reconsider the matter of cancellation of registration after affording opportunity of being heard to the revisionist. 4.. In the view of what has been observed above, the order of the Tribunal shall stand modified accordingly. With such a modification both the revisions are dismissed. Petitions dismissed.
-
2000 (4) TMI 802 - TAMIL NADU TAXATION SPECIAL TRIBUNAL
... ...
... ... ..... in form 14 and hence the assessee was liable to pay purchase tax under section 14 of the Act. 13.. Thus, in the present cases also what was sold by the petitioner was complete bus of which the chassis and bus body formed the components. Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal was right in upholding that the sale of bus is a separate assessable commodity under entry 3 of the First Schedule to the Act different from chassis and bus body which suffered tax locally though included as separate items under the same entry 3 of the First Schedule to the Act. 14.. In fine, we find that the levy of tax on sale of old bus at 15 per cent single point for the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85 is quite in order and there is no case to interfere with the orders of the Appellate Tribunal. Accordingly, the tax revision cases are dismissed. And this Tribunal doth further order that order on being produced be punctually be observed and carried into execution by all concerned. Petitions dismissed.
-
2000 (4) TMI 801 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... sessee before passing an order in conformity with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act and the Rules. Otherwise, they will be liable to be dealt with under the Contempt of Courts Act. 4.. We reiterate the directions given and observations made in the passages extracted above. We direct the post-dated cheques to be returned to the petitioner forthwith. We further direct that the amount already realised by way of encashment of cheques shall be adjusted towards the tax if any due, against the final assessment. We direct the first respondent to take up the final assessment proceedings and pass orders expeditiously. 5.. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of without costs. 6.. We may mention that the learned Additional Advocate-General who appeared on court notice stated that he will address the Government to issue suitable instructions to ensure the compliance with law and the judgments of this Court cited supra. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.
-
2000 (4) TMI 800 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s the alternative remedy of appeal on payment of full tax is an onerous remedy, this Court cannot refuse to exercise its discretion in giving relief under article 226 of the Constitution of India. We rely on the decision of Supreme Court in Paradip Port Trust v. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack in 1999 114 STC 178. 25.. Consequent to the discussions aforesaid, the petition succeeds and is allowed. All the impugned orders cumulatively marked as annexure A15 (1 to 8) are hereby quashed with liberty to the respondents as authorities of the Sales Tax Department of the State of Gujarat to assess the petitioner by regular assessment under section 41 of the State Act. We also grant liberty to the petitioner to raise all other grounds and contentions, which have been raised before us in the assessment proceedings. The petition is accordingly disposed of. The petitioner shall be entitled to costs of the petition counsel fees Rs. 5,000 if pre-certified. Rule made absolute. Petition allowed.
-
2000 (4) TMI 799 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y had been rightly rejected as admitted tax had not been paid. It is not in dispute that the admitted tax had not been paid. The reason for which admitted tax could not be paid had already been indicated by the assessee. Subsequently admitted tax has been paid. Considering the same we feel that this is a fit case where appeal should be admitted by the first appellate authority for disposal on merits, if the appeal is otherwise free from defects. T.R.C. is disposed of as indicated above. Petition disposed of.
-
2000 (4) TMI 798 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... whereby and whereunder the goods were directed to be released by the learned Tribunal, in asmuch as, the said order, according to the petitioner himself, has already been complied with. The impugned order cannot be said to have been passed also in exercise of the contempt jurisdiction of the Tribunal, inasmuch as, the same does not conform to the requirement of section 12 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act. 11.. For the reasons aforementioned, we quash the order dated December 16, 1999 and consequently the consequent order dated December 17, 1999. This order shall not, however, preclude the respondent herein to move the appropriate criminal court for release of the goods and the vehicles and/ or for any further order. 12.. Liberty is given to the learned counsel for the parties to take gist of the order and communicate the same to the authorities concerned. 13.. Xerox certified copy of the order be supplied on priority basis. M.H.S. ANSARI, J.-I agree. Appeals allowed.
-
2000 (4) TMI 797 - SUPREME COURT
Is that Divisional Engineer in the Telecom Department promotion to the next tier in the cadre (senior time scale in the Indian Telecommunication Service Group A) has been temporarily sealed on account of erroneously adhering to the Sealed Cover Procedure
Held that:- Appeal allowed. The Tribunal has erred in overlooking paragraph 7 of the Sealed Cover Procedure and hence the direction issued by it as per the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
........
|
