|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 226 Records
-
1992 (10) TMI 277
... ...
... ... ..... judgment in the above case where it is made clear that the law laid down there will apply prospectively. Admittedly, in the present ease, the order of dismissal was passed prior to the said decision. Hence the impugned decision of the Tribunal is set aside and he matter is remanded to the Tribunal for decision on merits on other points. 3. The appeal is allowed accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1992 (10) TMI 276
... ...
... ... ..... differed from the earlier case because the petitioner has come as a next friend. He also submitted that the sentiments of the entire Sikh community expressed through their leaders of all hues should be taken note of by the Court. We appreciate their sentiments but that cannot alter the legal position. Besides, as a matter of record we may also state that even Simranjit Singh Mann had in the earlier petition by his affidavit dated August 25, 1992 contended that he was filing the writ petition as the next friend of the condemned prisoners. That petition was dismissed for want of 'locus standi' and we see no distinguishing feature in the present petition to take a different view. 5. In the result, we hold that the petitioner has no 'locus standi' to move this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution for challenging the conviction and sentence awarded to the two convicts by this Court's order of July 15, 1992. The petition is, therefore, summarily rejected.
-
1992 (10) TMI 275
... ...
... ... ..... he process of the court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been intended only to prevent the abuse of the process of the court. Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be used only to prevent the abuse of the court but not to aid or abet the persons who want to abuse the process of the court by draging on the proceedings on one pretext or the other without any basis. Therefore, I fail to understand as to how the petitioner has filed this petition having conceded to make the payment. The very conduct of the petitioner in not making the payment and not even expressing the same after filing of the petition and finally filing this petition indicates that the petitioner abused the process of the court and he is not entitled to the relief under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 21. For all the above reasons, I see no grounds to quash the proceedings in C.C. Nos. 104 and 105 of 1991 on the file of the II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole. The two criminal petitions are accordingly dismissed.
-
1992 (10) TMI 274
... ...
... ... ..... ex nature of the work involved, the Administrator may require several other directions from the Court and it will be open to him to make applications to this Court for appropriate directions. 7. Considering the vast extent of the properties involved, which we are informed may be worth several crores of rupees, we are desirous that as far as possible the person appointed as the Administrator should be one in whom the parties have faith and confidence and in these circumstances, we adjourn the case to 22.10.1992 so as to enable the parties to make their suggestions as to who should be appointed as the Administrator, and in case they are unable to agree on any name, we shall nominate a person we consider suitable for the purpose. 8. The appellant will put the Administrator in the requisite funds in the first instance. Further orders for the costs, charges and expenses of the Administrator may be made by the Court hereafter. 9. Appeal allowed as aforestated. No order as to costs.
-
1992 (10) TMI 273
... ...
... ... ..... reported in 1992 (2) Crim 150where it was held that when the statute has not laid down limitation, on the number of times that a cheque may be presented within the period of six months or any shorter period under Clause (a) of Proviso to Section 138, it will not be desirable to read into the said clause any such restriction as to number of times a cheque may be presented. Similar view was followed by the Kerala High Court in the case of Ravindranathan v. Hussain, reported in II (1992) CCR 2129 where it was observed that the Act does not compel the petitioner to issue a notice immediately upon dishonour. Subject to the outer limit prescribed, there can be representation of the cheque and the cause of the action for the complaint would arise only when pursuant to the dishonor, notice was issued and there was refusal/failure to pay. (6) In view of my above discussion. I set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the Magistrate concerned to try it in accordance with law.
-
1992 (10) TMI 272
... ...
... ... ..... the detenu's right to make a detailed representation. 34. Incidently, Mr. R.K. Jain advanced an argument that this is a case of abetting the smuggling of goods but not smuggling goods and, therefore, the detention order should have been made under Section 3(1)(ii) of the Act but not under Section 3(1)(i). Admittedly, this ground has not been urged either before the High Court or in the grounds of appeal or in the writ petition. When it was pointed out to the learned Counsel, he did not press this contention. However, after going through the entire documents, we see no force in this submission. The impugned order is passed under Section 3(1) of the Act in general. 35. For the discussions made above we find no merit in any one of the contentions advanced questioning the legality of the impugned order of detention. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Writ Petition No. 76/92 36. For the reasons given above in the Criminal Appeal, this Writ Petition also stands dismissed.
-
1992 (10) TMI 271
... ...
... ... ..... a petition for habeaus Corpus as held in the case of Mahesh Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan 1985 Crl.LJ. 301. Though there is a Single Bench Judgment of our own High Court in the. case of Prof. Darshan Singh Vs. State in Crl.M.(M) 1306/86 dated 10th October, 1986 decided by M.K. Chawla, J. wherein the bail was granted taking this also as a factor but this was not the main ground for granting the bail. There is no quarrel with the proposition that this can also be a factor while considering for the grant of the bail. This is so far as the legal position is concerned. So far as the grant of bail is concerned the bail can only be granted if the person is in custody. But in the present case, Mr. Harshad S. Mehta is not in custody. Therefore, Mr. Saxena appearing for the C.B.I. fairly conceded that the person who is not. in custody cannot be granted bail and therefore, so far as the bail is concerned, it has become infructuous. With these observations the petition stands disposed of.
-
1992 (10) TMI 270
... ...
... ... ..... alue accepted by the partners in the dissolution accounts,-to bring to tax notional and unrealised profit. We find that the decision of the Supreme Court is not an authority for bringing to tax a notional and unrealised profit. As we have seen before. the proviso to section 145 empowers the ITO to deduce only the true profits and that power cannot be exercised for taxing a notional and unrealised profit. In other words, while it is possible for the ITO to substitute the cost by withdrawing the privilege to value the closing stock at a market value which is less than cost as on the date of the dissolution, we find no authority for the proposition that the cost as agreed to by the partners in the dissolution accounts could be substituted by market value which is higher. Hence we have no hesitation in deleting the addition. The ITO is directed to recompute the total Income and also authorise him to amend the assessments of the partners as a consequence. 9. The appeal is allowed.
-
1992 (10) TMI 269
... ...
... ... ..... fact, we uphold the order of the Tribunal as there is no material on record to show that the aforesaid finding of fact is incorrect. We, therefore, decide question No. 2 also in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 4. Lastly comes question No. 3 Whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the deletion of the disallowance of ₹ 1,669 being interest on delayed payment of provident fund ? This question is also fully covered by a decision of this Court in CIT v. Kamalapat Moti Lal 1988 UPTC 467 in which this Court held that payment of damages for late payment of provident fund under section 14B of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 amounted to penalty having been paid for infraction of law and, hence, was not allowable as business expenditure. Following the said decision, we answer this question in the negative, that is, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1992 (10) TMI 268
... ...
... ... ..... both the scales are not comparable. When a person is being governed by the Tamil Nadu Government pay scales while he was on deputation and therefore as on 1.2.1983, is absorbed central scales of pay, the definition in basic pay of the applicant is bound to occur. We also notice that even though the basic pay of the applicant rose to ₹ 604 from ₹ 510/- by virtue of the addition of the dearness pay of ₹ 214.70 with the existing basic pay of ₹ 390.00. Therefore, this is a case in which there has not been any real reduction in the basic pay of the applicant. 8. We are afraid we cannot subscribe to this reasoning. While upholding the view of Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Original Application No. 1680/89 in S.L.P.(C) No. 2196/92, we have pointed out how the basic pay cannot be reduced. The same principle will be applicable to this case as well. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1992 (10) TMI 267
... ...
... ... ..... was rejected by me. They wanted to withdraw the writ petitions on coming to know of the turn of events that has taken place in the present writ petitions during the course of hearing. I, however, part with this case with a heavy heart expressing my strong disapproval of their conduct and behaviour. 37. In the result, both the writ petitions are dismissed with costs of ₹ 5,000 i.e., ₹ 2,500 in each case. Out of the costs a sum of ₹ 2,000 (Rs. 1,000 in each case) is fixed by me as the fees of Mr. P. Shanmugham, Additional Government Pleader, for the reasons mentioned supra. As directed earlier, the respondents are at liberty to forthwith remove all the materials quarried by the petitioner pursuant to the order obtained by him by suppression of material facts in W.P. No. 9008 of 1991, sell the same and appropriate the sale proceeds towards the amount due to the State from the petitioner, and take further appropriate action for recovery of the balance, if any.
-
1992 (10) TMI 266
... ...
... ... ..... ts of this case we are to the view that the "sealed cover" containing recommendations of the DPC in respect of respondent Syed be not opened till the departmental proceedings against him are concluded. As mentioned above the enquiry report has already been received by Syed and it is matter of days before the disciplinary proceedings would come to an end. In case he is completely exonerated, the "sealed cover" shall be opened and if the recommendation is in his favour, he shall be notionally promoted with effect from the date when a person junior to him was promoted to the post of Chief Engineer. In that event, he shall be entitled to all consequential benefits including backwages. In case, respondent Syed Naseem Zahir is punished in the proceedings, then action would be taken in accordance with the guidelines as laid down by this Court in Jankiraman's case. 8. We set aside the judgment of the tribunal and allow the appeal in the above terms. No costs.
-
1992 (10) TMI 264
... ...
... ... ..... iled leave also. Therefore, while trying to determine what are the workman's dues for the purpose of Sections 529, 529A and 530 of the Companies Act, the word, "wages" will have to be understood in the same manner in which it is understood under the labour laws. I, therefore, hold that the workman's dues for the purpose of Section 529 and 529A of the Companies Act will include wages payable to workmen for the unemployed privilege leave. Of course, the extent of wages payable would depend upon the leave standing to the credit of the workman and which has not lapsed. It may also be stated that this priority with respect to wages in lieu of unemployed privilege leave is restricted to workman as defined by Section 529(3)(a). 4. The Official Liquidator is, therefore, directed now to consider the claims of the workmen under the said head and deal with them in accordance with law and submit a report so as to enable this Court to pass appropriate orders thereafter.
-
1992 (10) TMI 263
... ...
... ... ..... dicated in paragraphs (2) and (4) above and the action taken by the company. (8) Within 10 days from the date on which permission is received from the Reserve Bank of India, the company and the respondents will inform all the minority shareholders of the date for payment and transfer of shares to persons as approved by the Reserve Bank of India/other authorities. Interest earned on the deposits mentioned in paragraphs (2) and (4) above would be distributed pro rata among all the transferors. (9) Any transfer of shares belonging to the Saboo group after the date of this order will not be given effect to by the company. (10) Interim order dated April 16, 1992, stands vacated and the company may decide about Shri Saigal's further employment as per the rules. (11) Parties are at liberty to approach this Bench from time to time for any further order or appropriate directions which may become necessary for the purpose of giving effect to this order. (12) No orders as to costs.
-
1992 (10) TMI 262
... ...
... ... ..... the Magistrate. The fact that his father resides there and he visits that place from time to time is immaterial". Thus, considering the facts of the case and the ratio laid down in the above decisions, we have no hesitation in holding that this court is not having jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition as the cause of action either partly or wholly does not arise within the jurisdiction of this court. On the other hand, the Court which is having jurisdiction over the matter is that of Calcutta High Court within whose jurisdiction the act was committed by the detenu and he was detained and as such, the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of want of jurisdiction. Since we are taking the view that the petition itself is not entertainable by this Court, we do not propose to go into the merits of the case. 11. In the result, the writ petition fails and stands dismissed as this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. 12. Petition dismissed.
-
1992 (10) TMI 261
... ...
... ... ..... . Crl. W. No. 547/1991 Smt. Aisha Abdulla Hussain v. Union of India, decided on 3rd March, 1992 by Dalveer Bhandari, J. 6. Smt. Shalini Soni v. Union of India reported on 1980 Cri. LJ 1487. 7. Crl. W. 247 and 256/92 Sh. Trilochan Singh v. Union of India decided on 25th September, 1992 by Mohd. Shamim, J. 8. Crl. W. 193/92 decided on 16th October, 1992 By Mohd. Shamim, J. 11. On careful analysis of the judgments referred to above, I hold that in the present also the order of detention is vitiated on account of the detaining authority relying on irrelevant material. In fact this shows non application of mind and absence of subjective satisfaction. In other words the detention order was passed mechanically in a casual and perfunctory manner. In the result the petition is allowed, the rule is made absolute and the detention and continuous detention is declared illegal and bad in law. The detenu should be released forthwith unless required in any other case. 12. Petition allowed.
-
1992 (10) TMI 260
... ...
... ... ..... inst them. It is clear from the G. O. that the benefit of exemption of interest was available only to those who were in arrears of tax at the commencement of the scheme, which were to be paid during the period for which the scheme remained operative. No benefit of the scheme could be taken by those who had paid tax before the commencement of the scheme and who were not in arrears at the time the scheme was enforced. 2. Similar question come up before this Court in Shyam Sunder Garib Das v. Sales Tax Officer, Kashipur, Naimtal, 1991 UPTC 1258, when analogous Circular dated 28-5-1982 was issued and then this Court took the view that circular was applicable only to those dealers who had deposited the arrears after the issue of circular dated 28-5-1982. 3. For the reasons, we are afraid that no benefit could be taken by the petitioner of the aforesaid G. O. dated 12-5-1989 (Annexure No. 2 to the petition). 4. The petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
1992 (10) TMI 259
... ...
... ... ..... disclosure as voluntary, since the assessee has himself admitted the income and revised the return after detection, the Incomes Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding levy of penalty. The Income Tux Tribunal has found as a fact that there was concealment of income by the assessee by not showing the same in his books of accounts and, therefore, the revised returns which were submitted by way of settlement could not be considered as making the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act as inoperative. The rigour of Section 271(1)(c) comes into play the moment a return is filed and subsequently the Department comes in possession of positive evidence that there is a concealment of income. 13. In these circumstances, we are of the view that no question of law arises and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in rejecting the applications under Section 256(1) of the Income-Tax Act. 14. Consequently, the reference applications are rejected. No order as to costs.
-
1992 (10) TMI 258
... ...
... ... ..... f ₹ 2,00,000/ - (Two lakhs) shall be paid by the Union of India/Directorate of Enforcement to the widow of the deceased Sawinder Singh. In the event of a suit being filed for compensation, appropriate compensation may be determined in accordance with law after hearing the parties. The contentions of the learned Attorney General which he wishes to place before us at this stage, should be reserved by him for an appropriate stage. In the event a decree to be passed, the sum of ₹ 2,00,000/ - to be paid ex -gratia, shall not be taken into account. The payment of rupees two lakhs shall be made within three months from today. The amount shall be deposited in the Registry of this Court and the widow of deceased Sawinder Singh shall be at liberty to withdraw the entire amount on the identification to the satisfaction of the Registrar (Admn.). Any observation made by us in this order will not affect the investigation, prosecution and the trial. Notice is disposed of by us.
-
1992 (10) TMI 257
... ...
... ... ..... the parties belonged to the Irrigation Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh and were governed with different set of rules, but the controversy arising in these cases is amply covered with the view taken by us and determined in the manner indicated above. In these circumstances mentioned above, we are clearly of the view. that the Tribunal was wrong in determining the seniority from the date of acquiring degree of engineering and it ought to have been determined on the basis of length of service on the post of Sub-Engineer and the State the basis of length of service on the post of Sub-Engineer and the State Government was right in doing so and there was no infirmity in the orders passed by the Government. In the result, we allow these appeals, set aside the orders of the Tribunal dated 15.10.1991, 28.11.1991 and 17.9.1991 and 8upheld the orders passed by the Government in all these cases. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs. Appeals allowed.
........
|
