Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 227 Records
-
1995 (5) TMI 275
... ... ... ... ..... cases and so, it should not be allowed to question the judgment of the High Court, when it has fixed the same valuation for the similarly situated lands of others. This point was sought to be brought home to us by referring to the table prepared by the Tribunal which is at page 211 of the C.A. 4237/95. We have gone into this aspect and after Shri Verma for the appellants, we cannot accept this contention of hearing Shri Jawa. Nor do we accept his contention that all the lands are similarly situate; the map at page 325 of this appeal does not establish the same. The appeals are, therefore, allowed. The judgments of the High Court and the awards of the Tribunal are set aside. The Tribunal shall decide the dispute in accordance with law as stated earlier. Several questions on merits had arisen but since not allowed to the canvassed, we are not expressing any opinion on merits. All the questions are kept at large to be dealt with in accordance with law. No costs. Appeal allowed.
-
1995 (5) TMI 274
... ... ... ... ..... ORDER The Civil Appeals are dismissed on merits.
-
1995 (5) TMI 273
... ... ... ... ..... . By indulging in such disruptionery manner as indicated herein above by my learned brother in the preceding paragraphs, the respondents Nos. 3 to 5 acted in most irresponsible manner giving an impression that they were not the defenders of truth and protectors of the citizens but violators of the law and justice and thereby defaced the name of the force to which they belong. They acted with gross impropriety and intentionally committed serious and grevious wrong of clearly unredeeming nature, while it was expected from the seniors of the rank of SSP and Addl. SP that they atleast would observe the high standards in maintaining impartiality and promote public confidence in the force. The Court expects condour and frankness from the parties to the litigation before it. We cannot allow the court proceedings to be triffled with. In the facts and circumstances of the case respondent Nos. 3 to 5 do deserve the punishment awarded to them to serve as a deterent to others in future.
-
1995 (5) TMI 272
... ... ... ... ..... en, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
1995 (5) TMI 271
... ... ... ... ..... r, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
1995 (5) TMI 270
... ... ... ... ..... , JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
1995 (5) TMI 269
... ... ... ... ..... reason as to why this classification would not, ordinarily, be given. Be that as it may, Rule 15(2) does not require the giving of any particulars in addition to what is slated therein. The aforesaid decisions of various Courts therefore, can be of no assistance to the respondents." We agree with and affirm the reasoning of the High Court and accordingly reject the contention. For the above reasons, the appeals are allowed in part. Regarding the maintainability of the appeals, we hold, disagreeing With the High Court, that the appeals filed by the tenants were maintainable provided the appeals are filed in accordance with the complying with the conditions prescribed in Sections 406 and 407 of the Municipal Corporations Act, as explained hereinabove. Insofar as the meaning and effect of proviso (aa) to the definition of "Annual Letting Value" in Section 2(1A) is concerned, it shall be given effect to the followed as explained in this judgment. Appeals allowed.
-
1995 (5) TMI 268
... ... ... ... ..... en, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
1995 (5) TMI 267
... ... ... ... ..... pondent-tenant that 14 persons of his family are living with him in the house. On the contrary from the evidence it is clear that at the most the respondent's family consist of six members including his wife who have been living in the demised premises and all of them have shifted in the house acquired by the respondent in the name of his wife. This fact is sufficiently established from the oral and documentary evidence on record. But surprisingly enough the learned Single Judge ignored this part of the evidence and disturbed concurrent findings for no good reasons, resulting into miscarriage of justice. 12. In the facts and circumstances discussed above we are satisfied that there were no reasons muchless cogent reasons for the learned Single Judge to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the two courts below. Consequently we set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court and restore the orders of the two courts below with costs of ₹ 1000/-.
-
1995 (5) TMI 266
Whether the applicant is liable to interest under sections 234B and 234C in respect of tax paid vide cheque No. xxxxx xxxxx dated March 10, 1994?
-
1995 (5) TMI 265
... ... ... ... ..... en, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
1995 (5) TMI 264
... ... ... ... ..... and unreasonable being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, and it is, therefore, unconstitutional. Since, we have found the impugned 1991 Amendment Act as unconstitutional in answering Point-5, for the reason that it is made, encroaching upon the judicial power of the State invested in Courts and tribunals, we have considered it unnecessary to decide on this point. As the answer we have given on Point-5 goes against the constitutionality of the Arbitration (Orissa Second Amendment) Act, 1991, the Rules issued in Writ Petitions are required to be made absolute. In the result, we allow the writ petitions, make the Rules' issued in them absolute and strike down the Arbitration (Orissa Second Amendment) Act, 1991, in so far as it nullifies the arbitral awards made by the Special Arbitration Tribunals constituted by respondent-State under the 1984 Amendment Act, including the awards of the petitioners which are made Rules of Court', as unconstitutional. No Costs.
-
1995 (5) TMI 263
... ... ... ... ..... have considered the submissions made on behalf of the Collector that in addition to the admitted duty, the redemption fine itself amounted to ₹ 30 lakhs’ besides penalty of ₹ 2 lakhs’. From the comments filed on behalf of the Collector before this Tribunal in the Deputy Collector’s letter dated 8-7-1992, it is clear that the goods have been cleared on payment of concessional rate of duty after mutilation. It is not clear whether the Department had proceeded further, or the judgment of the High Court has achieved the finality. Whatever the position, the mutilation and clearance at the concessional rate of duty had been ordered by the Single Judge confirmed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court. It would not, therefore, be appropriate for us to sit in judgment on this issue. That would amount to our sitting in judgment on the orders of the High Court. 11. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Consequential relief, if any to follow.
-
1995 (5) TMI 262
... ... ... ... ..... the High Court. It is well settled that this Court will not exercise its discretion and quash an order which appears to be illegal, if its effect is to revive another illegal order." We, therefore, are of the opinion that it is not a fit case where interference with the High Court’s judgment would be a proper exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. We would, however, request the High Court to consider the desirability of hearing both the writ petition as also the petition under Section 11 of the 1996 Act filed by the Respondent herein as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. It goes without saying that all the contentions of the parties shall remain open and any observation made by the High Court in the impugned order or by us herein must be considered to have been made for the purpose of disposal of the interim prayer. The appeal is dismissed. No costs.
-
1995 (5) TMI 261
Whether the proviso to sub- section (2) of section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be invoked by an accused arrested for commission of an offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the N.D.P.S. Act".) to claim release on bail on the expiry of the total period specified therein if the complaint is not filed within that period?
Held that:- Except for Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, no other provision of the N.D.P.S. Act is relied on to contend that there is any inconsistent provisions in the N.D.P.S. Act to exclude the applicability merely of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167 Cr.P.C. when sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code is made expressly applicable by Section 36-A of the N.D.P.S. Act.
In order to exclude the application of the proviso to sub- section (2) of Section 167 Cr. P.C. in such cases an express provision indicating the contrary intention was required or at least some provision from which such a conclusion emerged by necessary implication. As shown by us, there is no such provision in the N.D.P.S. Act and the scheme of the Act indicates that the total period of custody of the accused permissible during investigation is to be found in Section 167 Cr. P.C. which is expressly applied. The absence of any provision inconsistent therewith in this Act is significant.Appeal dismissed.
-
1995 (5) TMI 260
Whether a Hindu husband, married under Hindu law, by embracing Islam, can solemnise second marriage?
Whether such a marriage without having the first marriage dissolved under law, would be a valid marriage qua the first wife who continue to be Hindu?
Whether the apostate husband would be quilty of the offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)?
Held that:- All the four ingredients of Section 494 IPC are satisfied in the case of a Hindu husband who marries for the second time after conversion to Islam. He has a wife living, he marries again. The said marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of the first wife. We, therefore, hold that the second marriage of a Hindu husband after his conversion to Islam is a void marriage in terms of Section 494 IPC.
Answering the questions posed by us in the beginning of the judgment, we hold that the second marriage of a Hindu- husband after conversion to Islam, without having his first marriage dissolved under law, would be invalid. The second marriage would be void in terms of the provisions of Section 494 IPC and the apostate-husband would be guilty of the offence under Section 494 IPC.
-
1995 (5) TMI 259
... ... ... ... ..... ider the said question also. 23.. In view of the foregoing reasons we direct the sales tax authorities to reconsider and revise the impugned assessment orders being annexures 1 and 2 to the writ petition taking the benefits of 1980 policy and 1989 policy as available to the petitioner-company. If the petitioner-company raises any claim about the period of entitlement under the 1989 policy and the items on which exemption/ deferment is available, such claim will also be considered and disposed of at the time of passing revised assessment orders. The concerned authorities will also dispose of the refund application in the light of the observations made in this judgment. The authorities will give due opportunity of hearing to the assessee-company and complete the entire exercise within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. 24.. The writ petition is thus disposed of. No order as to costs. D.P. MOHAPATRA, J.-I agree. Petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1995 (5) TMI 258
... ... ... ... ..... has already deposited Rs. 20,000 with the Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority, Kaithal, on April 22, 1995 (per Mr. Goyal, the counsel for the petitioner). The petitioner to deposit the balance amount under the order dated March 29, 1991, annexure P-1 which comes to roughly Rs. 67,969 on or before July 10, 1995. The Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (A), Ambala, will hear the appeal only after the deposit of the amount as indicated above. In the event the petitioner fails to deposit the amount as indicated above, the writ petition to stand dismissed with no order as to costs. The Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (A), Ambala, to decide the appeal on merits on compliance of the deposit made by the petitioner, expeditiously and preferably within six months. It is also made clear that in the event the petitioner succeeds before the appellate authority, needless to add that the appellate authority will pass necessary order of refund. Ordered accordingly.
-
1995 (5) TMI 257
... ... ... ... ..... he petitioner succeeds in showing that no penalty is leviable under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, in respect of goods in question, the authority will refund the amount of bank guarantee which is already encashed. We are told that the Deputy Director, Excise and Taxation Enforcement, Chandigarh is vested with the jurisdiction or he may transfer the case to the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner in accordance with law. Since the bank guarantee has already been encashed, we direct the Deputy Director, Excise and Taxation Enforcement, Chandigarh to dispose of the proceedings expeditiously and preferably on or before August 14, 1995. The petitioner to remain present in the office of the Deputy Director, Excise and Taxation Enforcement, Chandigarh on May 30, 1995 and seek further direction from the said officer. The writ petition to stand disposed of in the above terms. In the circumstances of the case, no order as to costs. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.
-
1995 (5) TMI 256
... ... ... ... ..... he site of the existing factory or workshop it would be a new unit. In the present case the existing unit was manufacturing industrial oxygen and medicinal oxygen while the present unit is manufacturing dissolved acetylene gas which is different goods, hence the stand taken by the respondent is untenable. Accordingly, we find the rejection of the claim of the petitioner on the ground that this unit is not separately registered under the Factories Act, is not sustainable. Accordingly, the impugned order dated March 10, 1993, annexure 12 to the writ petition, is hereby quashed. Respondent No. 2 will now pass afresh order for granting eligibility certificate in the light of the observations made by us within a period of one month from the date the certified copy of this order is filed before it, petitioner is directed to file the certified copy of this order within two weeks. With the aforesaid observations the present writ petition is allowed with costs. Writ petition allowed.
........
|