|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 655 Records
-
2006 (8) TMI 701
Issues: Violation of section 18(2) and 18(3) of FER Act, 1973 for not realizing outstanding export proceeds, liability of partners in a dissolved firm, imposition of penalty, rebuttal of presumption under section 18(3).
Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an adjudication order imposing a penalty for contravention of section 18(2) and 18(3) of the FER Act, 1973. The appellant, a partner in a firm that exported goods in 1980-81, failed to take reasonable steps to realize outstanding export proceeds. The appellant argued that the firm was dissolved in 1984, transferring all assets and liabilities to another partner, absolving her of any obligation. However, the Enforcement Directorate contended that the appellant, being a partner at the time of exports, remained responsible for realizing the outstanding proceeds. The appellant's plea was based on a personal agreement between partners, which was deemed insufficient to absolve her of liability under the FER Act.
The Tribunal noted that the appellant continued as a partner in the firm until 1984, failing to make any efforts to realize the outstanding export proceeds within the prescribed period. Despite the appellant's argument about a personal agreement, the Tribunal held her responsible for the firm's conduct during her tenure. The Tribunal emphasized that partners are jointly and severally liable for firm actions, rejecting the appellant's attempt to evade liability based on subsequent agreements made after the export transactions. The Tribunal found the appellant guilty of contravening sections 18(2) and 18(3) of the FER Act due to her failure to take necessary steps to realize the outstanding export proceeds.
Considering the appellant's financial hardships and the antiquity of the case, the Tribunal decided to reduce the penalty imposed from Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 50,000, which had already been paid by the appellant. The Tribunal allowed the appeal partly, modifying the penalty amount and directing the pre-deposited sum to be appropriated towards the reduced penalty. The judgment highlighted the appellant's ongoing liability as a partner in the firm during the relevant period, emphasizing the importance of fulfilling obligations under the FER Act despite subsequent changes in firm ownership or partnerships.
-
2006 (8) TMI 700
Issues:
- Appeal against adjudication Order imposing penalty under FER Act, 1973 and FEM Act, 1999.
- Validity of proof of import of goods submitted by the appellant.
- Interpretation of sections 8(3) and 8(4) of FER Act, 1973.
- Compliance with obligations under FER Act, 1973.
- Comparison with legal precedent in Sunil Engg. Corpn. v. Union of India [2005] DLT 117.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal against an adjudication Order imposing a penalty under the FER Act, 1973 and FEM Act, 1999. The appellant, M/s. Uttam Galva Steels Ltd., was penalized for a single remittance of foreign exchange. The appellant submitted a letter from their authorized banker, Canara Bank, explaining the bill of entries related to the remittance, which granted dispensation from pre-deposit of the penalty. The appeal was taken up for final disposal on merits.
The appellant's counsel argued that the bill of entries submitted by the appellant to the bank's Foreign Department proved the import of goods, fulfilling the obligations under the FER Act, 1973. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel contended that the impugned order should be upheld based on the RBI certificate and not the appellant's letter. After hearing both parties, the tribunal found that the appellant had imported the goods and fulfilled their obligations under sections 8(3) and 8(4) of the FER Act, 1973.
The tribunal referenced the case of Sunil Engg. Corpn. v. Union of India [2005] DLT 117, where it was held that the mere failure to file a bill of entry does not amount to a violation if the genuineness of the transaction is proven. In this case, the appellant had submitted proof of import of goods with their authorized banker, satisfying the requirements of the law. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order imposing the penalty was set aside.
-
2006 (8) TMI 699
Issues involved:
The petitioner challenged being summoned under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, arguing that the ingredients of Section 141 were not satisfied as there were no averments against him in the complaint.
Details of the Judgment:
1. The complaint filed by respondent No.2 accused the petitioner, who was Secretary of the Society, of involvement in the dishonour of cheques issued by the Society. The petitioner contended that there were no averments against him in the complaint, which is a requirement under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Supreme Court's ruling in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla clarified the necessity of specific averments in a complaint under Section 138 and 141. The court emphasized that the complaint must establish a case for the issuance of process, and the accused has no right to produce evidence at that stage.
2. The judgment further discussed the nature of averments required in a criminal complaint, citing the case of Monaben Ketanbhai Shah v. State of Gujarat. In that case involving a partnership firm, the court held that the primary responsibility lies with the complainant to make necessary averments to hold the accused vicariously liable. The court emphasized that there should be specific averments to establish that the accused was in charge and responsible for the conduct of the business. In the absence of such averments, the summoning orders against the petitioner, who was the Secretary of the Society, were quashed as there was no presumption of his involvement without specific allegations.
Conclusion:
The petition challenging the summoning of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was disposed of, with the court quashing the summoning orders against the petitioner due to the absence of necessary averments in the complaint to establish his vicarious liability.
-
2006 (8) TMI 698
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the Notice of Motion seeking interim orders in relation to the property left behind by the deceased.
2. Applicability of the Civil Procedure Code to testamentary suits.
3. Jurisdiction of the testamentary court to make interim orders for property protection.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Maintainability of the Notice of Motion:
The Plaintiff sought interim orders and the appointment of a receiver for the property left behind by the deceased. The Defendant objected, arguing that in petitions for letters of administration with a Will annexed or probate, the title of the deceased to the property is not the subject matter of the suit. Thus, the court lacks the jurisdiction to make interim orders regarding the property.
2. Applicability of the Civil Procedure Code to Testamentary Suits:
The Plaintiff argued that under Section 268 of the Indian Succession Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) apply to probate and letters of administration proceedings. Therefore, Section 141 of the CPC, which applies to all proceedings under the Code, should allow the court to make interim orders in testamentary suits. The Plaintiff cited several decisions to support this view.
3. Jurisdiction of the Testamentary Court to Make Interim Orders:
The court examined the Indian Succession Act, 1925, specifically Part-IX, which deals with probate and letters of administration. Section 269 of the Act authorizes the District Judge to interfere for property protection until probate is granted. However, this power is not applicable to Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, or Indian Christians who died intestate. Since the deceased in this case was Hindu, Section 269 was not applicable.
The court also considered Sections 192 and 193, which allow for summary proceedings to prevent wrongful possession of the deceased's property. These sections are part of Part-VII of the Act and are intended for urgent cases where ordinary civil suits are not feasible. The Supreme Court's interpretation in Uma Devi Nambiar v. T.C. Sidhan clarified that these provisions are interlocutory and summary in nature, meant to protect possession until a regular suit is filed.
The court noted that Section 247 allows for the appointment of an administrator pendente lite, but this does not involve making interim orders regarding the property itself.
The court concluded that the Indian Succession Act does not provide the testamentary court with inherent power to make interim orders for property protection during the pendency of a testamentary suit. The property mentioned in a Will is not the subject matter of the suit; the sole question is the genuineness of the Will. This was supported by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Kashi Nath Singh v. Dulhin Gulzari Kuer and affirmed by the Supreme Court in Shanta G.Z. Mehta v. Sarla J. Mehta.
The court dismissed the Notice of Motion, stating that previous interim orders in similar cases do not constitute a precedent as the question of the court's power to make such orders was not raised or decided in those cases. The judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Priyamvada Devi Birla was also found unconvincing as it assumed inherent power without considering the scheme of the Act.
Conclusion:
The court held that the Notice of Motion seeking interim orders for the property left behind by the deceased is not maintainable. The Indian Succession Act does not authorize the testamentary court to make such interim orders, and the property is not the subject matter of the testamentary suit. The operation of the ad-interim order was continued for four weeks to allow the Plaintiff time to seek appropriate relief.
-
2006 (8) TMI 697
Issues:
1. Impleadment of parties in a civil suit under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.
Analysis:
The revision petition was filed against the order declining the application for impleading the petitioners as parties to the suit. The petitioners claimed ownership of a plot and lawful possession, stating that the plaintiff raised a wall to block their passage illegally. The plaintiff argued that he cannot be compelled to litigate against a person not selected as a defendant and that the suit was for a mandatory injunction regarding a strip of land, not against the applicants. The trial court rejected the application, stating that the controversy could be resolved between existing parties. However, the High Court found that the plaintiff sought a mandatory injunction against the Improvement Trust for property allegedly owned by the applicants, making their presence necessary for adjudication.
The High Court noted that the applicants were involved in another suit with similar claims of ownership over the disputed property. The plaintiff sought a mandatory injunction against the Improvement Trust, despite their denial of ownership, directly impacting the applicants as claimed owners in possession. Therefore, the applicants were deemed necessary parties, and their application for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was allowed. The revision petition was accepted, setting aside the previous order and granting permission for the applicants to be impleaded in the suit.
-
2006 (8) TMI 696
Issues:
Challenging legality of judgment by Division Bench of Jammu and Kashmir High Court, legality of order passed by learned Single Judge, dismissal of Letters Patent Appeal, review petition dismissal, legality of dismissal from service under Section 20(1) of Army Act, violation of Rule 17 of Army Rules, violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Analysis:
The judgment in question involves the appellant, a former Havildar/Clerk in Ladakh Scouts, who was dismissed from service due to involvement in espionage activities. The appellant challenged the dismissal order, alleging it was illegal, unconstitutional, and violated procedural rules and constitutional rights. The respondent-Union of India defended the dismissal, stating that necessary approvals were obtained and procedures were followed. The High Court upheld the dismissal, ruling that the authorities were empowered to take action under Section 20 of the Army Act and Rule 17 of the Army Rules. The appellant's appeals and review petition were subsequently dismissed by the High Court.
The core issue revolved around the interpretation and application of Rule 17 of the Army Rules, specifically the proviso to the rule. The proviso allows for dismissal or removal without following the standard procedure if it is deemed impracticable, with a requirement to report such cases to the Central Government. The appellant argued that the dismissal order did not comply with Rule 17, while the respondent contended that the Chief of the Army Staff followed the necessary procedure and provided the required certification.
The judgment emphasized the significance of the proviso in Rule 17, stating that it carves out exceptions to the main provision and should be applied only in specific instances where compliance is impracticable. The Court reviewed the original records and noted that the Chief of the Army Staff had indeed followed the required procedure and provided the necessary certification, thus upholding the dismissal order.
Additionally, the Court addressed the appellant's argument regarding the continuation of the enquiry, clarifying that the enquiry was not specifically about the appellant but related to the incident in question. The Court cited precedent to support the notion that departmental action can proceed even after a Court Martial, as long as it is not a colorable exercise of power or an abuse of power.
Furthermore, the Court rejected the appellant's claim that Central Government approval was necessary for actions taken under the proviso to Rule 17, clarifying that reporting to the Central Government sufficed. Ultimately, the Court found no merit in the appeals and dismissed them, with no costs awarded.
In conclusion, the judgment delves into the interpretation and application of Rule 17 of the Army Rules, emphasizing the importance of following procedural requirements and the limitations imposed by the proviso to the rule. The Court's detailed analysis and reliance on legal precedents ensure a thorough examination of the issues raised by the appellant, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.
-
2006 (8) TMI 695
Issues Involved:
1. Vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Validity of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed by an unauthorized person.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Vicarious Liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The petitioner, a senior citizen and retired Air Chief Marshal, contended that he was unnecessarily impleaded as an accused in the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He argued that he was only a part-time Director of the company and was neither in charge of nor responsible for the conduct of its business, as required under Section 141 of the Act. The complaint merely stated that accused Nos. 2 to 9 were in charge of and responsible for the company's business without any specific allegations against the petitioner. The petitioner relied on Supreme Court decisions which held that mere incorporation of the magic words of Section 141(1) is insufficient for taking cognizance against a person on vicarious liability. There must be clear and specific allegations that the person was in overall control of the day-to-day business of the company. The affidavits from the Chairman-cum-Managing Director and Vice-President of the company supported the petitioner's claim that he was not involved in the day-to-day affairs of the company.
The court held that the complaint lacked specific allegations that the petitioner was in overall control of the company's day-to-day business. The Judicial Magistrate had summoned the petitioner without sufficient material or clear allegations against him, which was a grave illegality. The court emphasized that at the time of taking cognizance and issuing process, the Magistrate must apply his mind to see if a case is made out against the accused. The summoning order must reflect this application of mind. The court concluded that the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner was an abuse of the process of law.
2. Validity of the Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act Filed by an Unauthorized Person:
The petitioner argued that the complaint was not filed by the payee or holder in due course of the bounced cheques, as required by Section 142(1) of the Act. Instead, it was filed by the complainant's husband, who was neither a general nor special power of attorney holder but acted based on an authority letter. The Supreme Court had held that a general or special power of attorney holder can file a complaint under Section 138 but cannot become a witness. The authority letter in this case did not bind the executant to the acts done by her husband. The petitioner cited a similar case where a complaint filed on the basis of an authority letter was quashed.
The court agreed with the petitioner, stating that the complaint was filed by a person who was not legally and validly authorized. The authority letter did not qualify as a general or special power of attorney. Therefore, the complaint was not properly instituted in law and was liable to be quashed.
Conclusion:
The court allowed the petition, quashing the criminal complaint No. 115 of 1998, the summoning order, and all consequential proceedings against the petitioner. The court found that the complaint lacked specific allegations to establish vicarious liability under Section 141 and was improperly filed by an unauthorized person under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
-
2006 (8) TMI 694
The Municipal Corporation of Delhi challenged the order of Commissioner confirming the demand and recovery of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 45,73,771/-, along with penalties under Sections 75, 76, and 77. The Tribunal found that the decision to invoke the extended period for proceedings was not based on material evidence and granted interim stay of the order without any pre-deposit condition. (Case citation: 2006 (8) TMI 694 - CESTAT NEW DELHI)
-
2006 (8) TMI 693
Issues Involved:
1. Burden of proof on the accused under Section 139 of the N.I. Act.
2. Nature of the burden on the complainant and the accused in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
3. Interpretation of the Supreme Court decisions in Hiten P. Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee and Narayana Menon v. State of Kerala.
4. Evaluation of the evidence presented by both parties.
5. Consideration of the sentence imposed.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Burden of Proof on the Accused under Section 139 of the N.I. Act:
The court examined when the burden on an accused under Section 139 of the N.I. Act can be said to be discharged. It emphasized that the presumption under Section 139 is a presumption of law, which must be drawn where the factual basis for raising the presumption is established. The accused must prove the contrary to rebut this presumption, which means providing evidence that the cheque was not issued for the discharge of any debt or liability. The court noted that the burden on the accused is akin to that in a civil case, requiring proof by preponderance of possibilities and probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Nature of the Burden on the Complainant and the Accused:
The court discussed the nature of the burden on both parties in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The complainant must prove the execution and issue of the cheque, while the accused must rebut the presumption under Section 139. The court highlighted that the complainant is not required to prove the original transaction or consideration in every case, as this would undermine the purpose of Section 138, which aims to ensure commercial morality and the efficacy of cheque transactions.
3. Interpretation of Supreme Court Decisions:
The court analyzed the decisions in Hiten P. Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee and Narayana Menon v. State of Kerala. It concluded that the latter did not alter the former's dictum. The presumption under Section 139 remains a presumption of law, and the accused can rebut it using all available evidence, including improbabilities in the prosecution's case and defence evidence. The court reiterated that the burden on the accused is to prove the contrary to the satisfaction of a prudent mind, not merely to raise fanciful possibilities.
4. Evaluation of Evidence:
The court evaluated the evidence presented by both parties. The complainant's evidence included the cheque (Ext. P1) and the fact that the notice of demand did not evoke any response from the accused. The accused's defence included claims of a different loan transaction and the issuance of blank signed cheques. The court found the accused's version inconsistent and unconvincing, noting the lack of response to the demand notice and the introduction of new theories during cross-examination. The court also considered the improbability of the accused's claim that he handed over a signed blank cheque.
5. Consideration of Sentence:
The court considered the sentence imposed on the accused. It upheld the conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act but modified the sentence. Instead of imprisonment till rising of court, the accused was directed to pay Rs. 2,20,000 as compensation to the complainant, with a default sentence of three months' simple imprisonment. The court emphasized the need for just and fair compensation to the complainant, who had been fighting the legal battle since 2002.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the complainant had satisfactorily discharged his burden, and the accused had failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139. The conviction was upheld, but the sentence was modified to ensure adequate compensation to the complainant. The judgment reinforces the principles governing the burden of proof in cheque dishonour cases and the importance of commercial morality.
-
2006 (8) TMI 692
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the discharge order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
2. Evaluation of the evidence and materials by the prosecution.
3. Inclusion of the assets of other individuals as part of A.1's assets.
4. The requirement for the Investigating Officer to provide an opportunity to explain the disproportionate assets.
5. The application of legal precedents and principles in determining the discharge.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the discharge order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate:
The Criminal Revision Cases were filed by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, against the order of discharge passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Villupuram. The respondents/accused were discharged from the charges under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 109 IPC. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed the discharge petitions on various grounds, including the improper inclusion of assets and failure to provide an opportunity to explain the disproportionate assets.
2. Evaluation of the evidence and materials by the prosecution:
The prosecution recorded statements of 228 witnesses and relied on 318 documents. However, the prosecution failed to accept the income of A.2 (wife), A.3 (mother-in-law), and A.4 and A.5 (friends and trustees of Siga Educational Trust) when there were materials available in the form of Income Tax assessment orders. The prosecution included the incomes and earnings of A.2, A.3, and the Trust as part of A.1's income without proper justification.
3. Inclusion of the assets of other individuals as part of A.1's assets:
The assets of A.2 to A.5 were included as part of A.1's assets without evidence to show that A.2 to A.5 were benami of A.1. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate found that the prosecution had failed to establish the link between the assets acquired by the accused and the individual income earned by A.1. The prosecution's methodology to establish disproportionate assets was erroneous, and the clubbing of properties of other accused was incorrect.
4. The requirement for the Investigating Officer to provide an opportunity to explain the disproportionate assets:
The Investigating Officer did not issue a notice to A.2 to A.5 to account for the quantum of assets in their hands. Legal precedents, such as Vedagiri, In re, and N.P. Lotikar v. C.B.I, emphasize the necessity for the Investigating Officer to give an opportunity to the person investigated to explain the disproportionate assets. The failure to provide such an opportunity was a fundamental error in the investigation process.
5. The application of legal precedents and principles in determining the discharge:
The court referred to several judgments, including Vedagiri, In re, Ananda Bezbaruah v. Union of India, and others, to highlight that mere possession of disproportionate assets does not constitute an offense unless there is a failure to satisfactorily account for such possession. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate meticulously considered the documents and found that the prosecution had failed to assess the total income of the individual accused in a fair manner. The court concluded that the expenditures were within the known sources of income of the individual accused.
Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the discharge order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram, stating that there were no concrete materials to frame charges against the accused. The expenditures were found to be within the known sources of income of the individual accused. The Criminal Revision Cases were dismissed, and the connected Crl.M.Ps were also dismissed. The court emphasized the importance of providing an opportunity to explain disproportionate assets and the necessity for the prosecution to fairly assess the total income of the accused.
-
2006 (8) TMI 691
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the name of a dead person is a nullity.
2. The validity of the acquisition proceedings when the notification was issued in the name of a deceased individual.
3. The rights of subsequent purchasers of the land after the award was passed.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Notification Issued in the Name of a Dead Person:
The primary issue in this appeal was whether a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 issued in the name of a deceased person is a nullity. The appellants contended that the acquisition proceedings were vitiated because the notification was issued in the name of C. Kondappa Naidu, who had died before the issuance of the notification. The court acknowledged that the notification under Section 4(1) was indeed issued in the name of a dead person, but found that the authorities responsible for the notification might not have been aware of the death.
2. Validity of Acquisition Proceedings:
The court examined prior judgments to determine the validity of acquisition proceedings under such circumstances. In the case of Muthuswamy v. The State of Tamil Nadu, the court held that if the authorities were aware of the death of the original owner, the proceedings would be vitiated. Similarly, in V. Devaraj and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu, it was held that issuing notifications in the name of a dead person vitiates the entire acquisition proceedings. However, in the present case, the court found no evidence that the authorities were aware of the death of C. Kondappa Naidu during the relevant period.
3. Rights of Subsequent Purchasers:
The court noted that the appellants had purchased the plots after the award was passed and possession was taken. The appellants' purchase dates were 26.10.1994, 28.9.1992, and 24.2.1993, while the award was passed on 19.12.1991 and possession was taken on 13.8.1992. The court referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in U.P. Jal Nigam v. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd., which held that subsequent purchasers do not have the right to challenge the acquisition proceedings. Consequently, the court concluded that the appellants, as subsequent purchasers, were not entitled to challenge the acquisition proceedings.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the general principle that proceedings against a dead person are null and void cannot be imported into proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 unless it is established that the factum of death was brought to the notice of the acquiring authorities at the appropriate stage. The writ appeal was dismissed, and the connected WAMP was also dismissed without any order as to costs.
-
2006 (8) TMI 690
Issues Involved:
1. Right to full and free medicare for ex-servicemen as a fundamental right.
2. Discrimination between in-service defence personnel and ex-servicemen regarding medical facilities.
3. Legitimacy and validity of the Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS).
Detailed Analysis:
1. Right to Full and Free Medicare for Ex-Servicemen as a Fundamental Right:
The petitioner, Confederation of ex-servicemen Associations, sought recognition of full and free medicare for ex-servicemen, their families, and dependents as a fundamental right under the Constitution of India. They argued that this right should be treated on par with the rights of in-service defence personnel. The petitioner highlighted the historical context and various committees' recommendations that underscored the need for enhanced medical facilities for ex-servicemen. The petitioner contended that the refusal to provide such facilities was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14, 16, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
2. Discrimination Between In-Service Defence Personnel and Ex-Servicemen Regarding Medical Facilities:
The Union of India argued that in-service defence personnel and ex-servicemen belong to different classes and therefore can be treated differently. The respondents contended that medical facilities provided to in-service personnel are a service requirement for defence preparedness, while ex-servicemen are provided medical treatment subject to available resources. The court agreed that the classification between in-service and retired personnel is legal, valid, and reasonable, and does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. The court emphasized that Article 14 prohibits class legislation but allows reasonable classification.
3. Legitimacy and Validity of the Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS):
The Union of India introduced the ECHS, a contributory scheme for ex-servicemen, which extends medical benefits on payment of a one-time contribution. The petitioner challenged the scheme, arguing that ex-servicemen should not be required to pay for medical facilities. The court examined the scheme and found it to be legal, valid, and constitutional. The court held that while the right to medical aid is a fundamental right, the contributory nature of the ECHS is reasonable and does not violate the Constitution. The court noted that the scheme provides extensive medical facilities and the contribution required is not excessive.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS) is legal, valid, and constitutional. However, the court directed the Government of India to either waive the contribution amount or pay it on behalf of ex-servicemen who retired prior to January 1, 1996, and wish to avail the benefits of the ECHS. This decision was based on the recognition of the valuable services rendered by defence personnel and the need to provide them with adequate medical facilities. The writ petition was partly allowed, and the rule was made absolute to the extent indicated, with parties bearing their own costs.
-
2006 (8) TMI 689
Judgment: Supreme Court of India, 2006 (8) TMI 689 - SC. Justices: Mr. Arijit Pasayat and Mr. Lokeshwar Singh Panta. Verdict: Appeal dismissed, no merit found.
-
2006 (8) TMI 688
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the execution petition.
2. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the execution petition.
3. Allegation of abuse of the process of the Court.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Maintainability:
The judgment debtor argued that the execution petition is not maintainable because, under Section 44A of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), an application for execution of a foreign decree should be filed before a District Court and not the High Court. Section 44A of the CPC allows for the execution of decrees from superior courts of reciprocating territories in India as if they were passed by a District Court. However, the term "District Court" includes the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of a High Court, as per Section 2(4) of the CPC.
The decree holder contended that, according to Section 5(2) of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, the Delhi High Court should be considered the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction for suits exceeding Rs. 20.00 lacs. This section overrides the provisions of Section 44A of the CPC. The court referenced multiple cases, including Bakshi Lochan Singh and Ors. v. Jathedar Santokh Singh and Ors. and R.P. Sachdeva (deceased by L.R.) and Ors. v. The State, which established that the High Court could act as the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction for suits above a certain pecuniary value.
The court concluded that for the purpose of Section 44A of the CPC, the High Court is a District Court and thus has the jurisdiction to entertain the execution petition.
2. Jurisdiction:
The judgment debtor contended that the High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction since the judgment debtor's registered office and business were in Ontario, Canada, and both parties were foreigners. The court noted that Section 44A of the CPC does not require the District Court to have jurisdiction to try the suit; it only necessitates that the decree be from a superior court of a reciprocating territory.
The court dismissed the judgment debtor's reliance on the case of World Tanker Carrier Corporation v. SNP Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., which dealt with admiralty jurisdiction and was not applicable to execution proceedings under Section 44A of the CPC. The court also found that the judgment debtor had assets in Delhi, as evidenced by the registered office address of KEOPL and the operational activities of Mr. R.K. Naroola, a Director of the judgment debtor company, in Delhi.
Therefore, the court held that it had the requisite territorial jurisdiction to entertain the execution petition.
3. Abuse of the Process of the Court:
The judgment debtor argued that the execution petition constituted an abuse of the process of the court because the decree holder had already initiated proceedings in Ontario, Canada, and had entered into a settlement. The court examined the settlement agreement and found that it did not acknowledge the realization of any amount under the decree but merely provided security.
The court emphasized that the duty of the court extends to ensuring that decrees are translated into realized amounts and that there is no provision in the CPC preventing simultaneous execution of a decree by two courts. The court cited Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co. Ltd. v. CEC Ltd. and Anr., which supported the simultaneous execution of decrees.
The court also addressed the requirement of a certificate from the court passing the decree stating the amount recovered, if any. The absence of such a certificate does not preclude the execution of the decree, as other proofs of the amount recovered or due can be provided. In this case, there was no dispute that the entire amount under the decree was still due.
Conclusion:
The court found no merit in any of the objections raised by the judgment debtor regarding the maintainability, jurisdiction, or alleged abuse of the process of the court. Consequently, the execution petition was upheld, and E.A. No. 385/2005 was dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-.
-
2006 (8) TMI 687
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
2. Validity of the charge-sheet filed without the sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act).
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Entitlement to Statutory Bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.:
The primary question was whether the petitioner was entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner argued that the period of 60 days expired on 9th or 10th July 2006, and since the charge-sheet was filed on 11th July 2006, he was entitled to bail. The prosecution contended that the 60-day period should be counted from the date of remand, not the date of arrest, starting from 13th May 2006 and ending on the midnight of 11th July 2006. The court agreed with the prosecution, citing the Supreme Court's decision in *Chaganti Satyanaravana v. State of Andhra Pradesh* and a Delhi High Court ruling in *Banke Bihari Gupta v. State of Delhi*. These judgments clarified that the period is to be calculated from the date of remand, excluding the date of remand and including the date of filing the charge-sheet. Consequently, the charge-sheet filed on 11th July 2006 was within the 60-day period, defeating the petitioner's claim for statutory bail.
2. Validity of the Charge-sheet Filed Without Sanction:
The petitioner contended that the charge-sheet filed on 11th July 2006 was defective as it lacked the sanction required under Section 19 of the PC Act, arguing that without such sanction, the charge-sheet was incomplete and the court could not take cognizance. The prosecution countered that the sanction is not a part of the investigation and can be submitted subsequently with the court's permission, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in *Hitender Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra*. The court agreed with the prosecution, noting that the sanction is not part of the investigation and that a charge-sheet can be filed without it. The court can adjourn proceedings and take cognizance once the sanction is produced. Thus, the charge-sheet filed on 11th July 2006 was deemed proper for the purposes of Section 167 Cr.P.C., and the petitioner was not entitled to statutory bail.
Conclusion:
The court upheld the lower court's decision, affirming that the 60-day period for filing the charge-sheet should be calculated from the date of remand and that a charge-sheet filed without the sanction is still valid, provided the sanction can be submitted later. The application for bail was dismissed accordingly.
-
2006 (8) TMI 686
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the suit under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Legality of the levy of cess.
3. Relief entitlement of the plaintiff, including the grant of interest.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Maintainability of the suit under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The primary issue was whether the suit was maintainable in light of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The trial court held that the Customs Act is a complete code only if the authorities act within its scope. If the Customs authority acts beyond the scope of the Act, then the order cannot be treated as final, and Section 27 is not applicable when duty is realized unconstitutionally, illegally, or without any authority of law. The trial court concluded that the collection of export duty on cess was patently illegal and beyond the powers conferred on the authorities under the Customs Act, thus the suit was maintainable.
2. Legality of the levy of cess:
The second issue was whether the levy of cess was illegal. The trial court determined that the real value of the goods was their invoice price, and the customs authorities had wrongfully included cess in the price of the goods for the purpose of calculating customs duty. This inclusion was beyond their jurisdiction, making the levy of cess illegal. The court noted that the customs authorities had accepted this position by ordering refunds for certain items, indicating that the excess duty charged was without authority of law and therefore without jurisdiction.
3. Relief entitlement of the plaintiff, including the grant of interest:
The third issue was the relief to which the plaintiff was entitled. The trial court granted a decree for Rs. 1,05,745.25 along with interim interest and interest on judgment at the rate of 12% per annum, despite there being no claim for interest in the plaint. The court relied on Order VII, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows for general or other reliefs to be granted even if not specifically asked for. Additionally, Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides the court with discretion to grant interim interest and interest on judgment.
Appellate Court's Findings:
The appellate court, however, disagreed with the trial court's findings. It emphasized that a claim for refund must be made by following the procedure laid down in the Act, and not by filing a suit. The court referenced the Mafatlal Industries Limited case, which clarified that claims for refund must be processed within the framework of the respective enactment. The court also noted that the excess recovery by the Customs Authority, although erroneous, was not without jurisdiction as they had the authority to make the assessment.
The appellate court highlighted that Section 27 of the Customs Act requires the assessee to prove that the incidence of duty had not been passed on to another person. For claims made prior to the 1991 Amendment Act, any refundable amount should be credited to the Welfare Fund, not refunded to the assessee. The trial court had overlooked these statutory requirements.
The appellate court also pointed out that the majority view in the Mafatlal case barred the jurisdiction of civil courts in matters related to refund claims, emphasizing that such claims must be adjudicated within the provisions of the Customs Act. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the trial court's decree and the subsequent execution order.
Conclusion:
The appellate court allowed the appeal, setting aside the decree and the execution order, and concluded that the suit was not maintainable under the Customs Act. The court also rejected the prayer for stay made by the respondent.
-
2006 (8) TMI 685
Issues:
1. Appeal against conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Compounding of the offence under Section 138 during the trial or through the power of revision.
3. Effect of compounding the offence on the accused.
Analysis:
1. The petitioner was convicted and sentenced under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bhiwani. The petitioner's appeal against this judgment was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, leading to the filing of the present revision. The revision was based on a compromise reached between the parties, which was recorded in a settlement deed. The parties voluntarily agreed to the terms of the compromise, leading to the court directing their appearance before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani for recording their statements in terms of the compromise.
2. Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act states that the offence under Section 138 is compoundable. The compounding of the offence can be done during the trial or by the High Court or Court of Session while exercising its power of revision under Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The compounding of the offence has the effect of acquittal of the accused, as per Section 320(8) of the Cr.P.C. In this case, since the parties voluntarily settled the matter and agreed to compound the offence, the court found it appropriate to allow them to do so, resulting in the acquittal of the petitioner from the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner were set aside as a result of the compounding of the offence.
3. The judgment delivered by T.P.S. Mann, J. of the Punjab and Haryana High Court accepted the revision, leading to the acquittal of the petitioner from the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The decision highlighted the importance of voluntary settlement between the parties and the compounding of the offence, which ultimately resulted in the petitioner being acquitted and the conviction and sentence being set aside.
-
2006 (8) TMI 684
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of summoning a witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
2. Whether summoning the Collector amounts to filling in a lacuna in the prosecution case.
3. Consideration of the plea of alibi raised by the respondent.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality of summoning a witness under Section 311 Cr.P.C.:
The Supreme Court emphasized that Section 311 Cr.P.C. confers a very wide power on the Court to summon any person as a witness or to recall and re-examine any person already examined at any stage of any inquiry, trial, or other proceeding. The Section mandates that the Court shall summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. The Court cited several precedents, including *Ram Jeet and Ors. v. The State* and *State of West Bengal v. Tulsidas Mundhra*, to illustrate that the provision is mandatory when the evidence is essential for a just decision. The Court concluded that the learned Sessions Judge was within his rights to summon the Collector, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Silvassa, as his evidence was deemed necessary to find out the truth.
2. Whether summoning the Collector amounts to filling in a lacuna in the prosecution case:
The Supreme Court clarified that filling in a lacuna should not be confused with rectifying an oversight. The Court referred to *Rajendra Prasad v. Narcotic Cell* and *P. Chhaganlal Daga v. M. Sanjay Shaw* to assert that allowing the prosecution to summon a witness to rectify an inadvertent oversight does not equate to filling in a lacuna. The Court noted that the prosecution might not anticipate the defense's strategy and thus may not initially present evidence to counter it. The Court held that the learned Sessions Judge's decision to summon the Collector was not an attempt to fill in a lacuna but a necessary step to ensure a fair trial and just decision.
3. Consideration of the plea of alibi raised by the respondent:
The respondent had raised a plea of alibi, claiming he was present in the chamber of the Collector at the time of the incident. The respondent had examined two witnesses to support this claim. The Supreme Court observed that the evidence of the then Collector might support the respondent's defense. The Court concluded that the learned Sessions Judge rightly decided to summon the Collector to verify the alibi, as it was crucial for determining the truth. The Court emphasized that summoning the Collector would not prejudice the respondent since he had himself raised the alibi defense.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Bombay High Court's judgment and restoring the order of the learned Sessions Judge. The Court held that summoning the Collector was essential for a just and fair decision and did not amount to filling in a lacuna in the prosecution case. The decision reinforced the principle that the primary duty of a criminal court is to find out the truth and ensure justice is done.
-
2006 (8) TMI 683
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to a claim petition under Section 84(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Justification of the court's conclusion regarding the petitioner's right and title over the attached property.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to a claim petition under Section 84(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The primary question addressed is whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to a claim petition under Section 84(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). Section 84(1) Cr.P.C. stipulates a six-month period for filing a claim petition from the date of attachment. The petitioner argued that Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, which incorporates Sections 4 to 24 of the Act, should apply to the petition under Section 84(1) Cr.P.C., thereby enabling the court to condone delays.
The court examined the provisions of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, which states that the provisions of Sections 4 to 24 apply to any special or local law unless expressly excluded. The court noted that Article 137 of the Limitation Act prescribes a three-year limitation period for applications not otherwise specified, but Section 84(1) Cr.P.C. prescribes a different period (six months).
The court referenced Supreme Court judgments, including Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. L.N. Mishra, which clarified that "expressly excluded" does not necessitate specific exclusionary language in the special law. Instead, it must be determined if the special law forms a complete code that implicitly excludes the Limitation Act's provisions.
The court concluded that the provisions of Sections 83 to 86 of Chapter VI C of the Cr.P.C., while exhaustive, do not implicitly exclude the application of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to a claim petition under Section 84(1) Cr.P.C., allowing for the condonation of delays.
2. Justification of the court's conclusion regarding the petitioner's right and title over the attached property:
The Magistrate initially dismissed the claim petition on two grounds: it was filed beyond the six-month limitation period, and the petitioner failed to establish their right over the attached property. The court below did not collect oral evidence but relied on documentary evidence (Exts. C1 to C3).
The petitioner contended that the property was transferred to them via a registered sale deed before the attachment date, thus the first respondent had no rights over the property when it was attached. However, the Magistrate found that the petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence of mutation and revenue payment following the transfer, thus not satisfactorily establishing their title.
The High Court directed the Magistrate to reconsider the petitioner's right and title over the property afresh. The court emphasized the need for the petitioner to file a proper application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, detailing relevant circumstances for delay condonation. The Magistrate should then allow all interested parties to present additional data and contentions.
Conclusion:
The revision petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The Magistrate was instructed to reconsider the application, allowing the petitioner to file a proper application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and additional statements if necessary. The second respondent and any interested parties were also permitted to oppose the application. The parties were directed to appear before the Magistrate on 25.9.06, with the Magistrate endeavoring to dispose of the claim petition within 45 days from that date.
-
2006 (8) TMI 682
Issues:
1. Whether the High Court can entertain a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India when the remedy of filing a Revision Application under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has not been exhausted.
2. Whether an order issuing process on a private complaint can be challenged through a Revision Application under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
3. Whether the High Court can exercise its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 even after the aggrieved party has exhausted the remedy of filing a Revision Application under Section 397 of the Code.
Analysis:
1. The judgment involves a challenge to an order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai, where the Petitioner was arraigned as an accused in a private complaint alleging offenses under sections 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code. The Petitioner sought to recall the order issuing process, which was rejected. The Petitioner also filed a Revision Application in the Sessions Court. The issue raised was whether the High Court could entertain the petition under Article 227 when the Revision Application remedy had not been exhausted, citing precedents like V.K. Jain v. Pratap V. Padode.
2. The Petitioner argued that the remedy under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was broader than that under section 397, emphasizing that the High Court's powers were distinct. However, the court held that the Revision Application filed by the Petitioner would not survive due to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal & Ors., where the application for recalling the order issuing process was deemed not maintainable.
3. The judgment delved into the interpretation of the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasizing the need for sparing use of inherent powers. It referenced the case law, including State v. Navjot Sandhu & Ors., to establish that the High Court could exercise its powers under Section 482 even if there was a bar under Section 397. The court highlighted that the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 was discretionary and should not be used to circumvent statutory remedies, except in cases of gross abuse of process of law.
Overall, the judgment clarified the scope and limitations of the High Court's powers under Article 227 and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasizing the need for caution and adherence to legal principles in invoking these powers.
........
|
9911796707
