|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 257 Records
-
1995 (8) TMI 344 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... stains on the petticoat and in the vagina lend assurance to the story narrated by the prosecutrix. The submission that there was delay in lodging the complaint has to be stated to be rejected for the simple reason that immediately after the incident she had to go in search of her husband who was a Rickshaw Puller, narrate to him the incident, go down to the police station and then lodge the complaint. She has explained the absence of injuries by stating that she was laid on minute sand no marks of injury. The only explanation is by way of suggestion in the cross-examination of the prosecutrix to the effect that she was falsely implicating the appellant in order to grab money. Therefore, taking an overall view of the matter we are satisfied that it is safe to place reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix. Both the courts below relied on her evidence and we see no reason to take a different view. 9. For the above reasons we see no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same.
-
1995 (8) TMI 343 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... move the High Court or Sessions Court within whose jurisdiction offence is committed or the Sessions Court or the High Court where arrest is apprehended; but once he has exercised the option to move the Court where the occurrence took place or the Court in another State where arrest is apprehended he will be bound by the option. Such restriction is necessary to maintain judicial propriety and also consistency. Undoubtedly consistency is one of the important virtues of law; and naturally judicial pronouncements should promote the said ideal. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant Shri Chatterjee then submitted that he must be granted interim anticipatory bail so that he could move the Madhya Pradesh High Court. I am afraid, I cannot agree with the said submission because of the very reason on account of which I have arrived at the conclusion that the application is not maintainable. Therefore, the said prayer cannot be granted. Criminal Application is consequently dismissed.
-
1995 (8) TMI 342 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f civil proceedings, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition as Criminal Writ Petition and in this view of the matter, after holding that the present Criminal Writ Petition is not properly styled and maintainable as such, whether this Criminal Writ Petition should be rejected at its threshold or not. The procedure is always handmaid of justice and not its master and because of the mistake committed by the counsel in filing the present criminal writ petition, the litigant should not be allowed to suffer and in our view, interest of justice would be met if the petitioner is permitted to convert this criminal writ petition as civil writ petition. Necessary amendment should be carried out by the petitioner within two weeks from today and in case the amendment is carried out within two weeks the Registry is directed to register this writ petition as Civil Writ Petition and place it before the appropriate Bench for consideration. Order accordingly. 26. Order accordingly.
-
1995 (8) TMI 341 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ng claims during that interregnum. Since the award of the Reference Court is of December 14, 1981, i.e., much prior to the date when the Land Acquisition Amendment Bill was introduced, the claimants are not entitled to 30 per cent solatium on the enhanced compensation, additional amount @ 12 per cent per annum of the enhanced compensation from the date of award or taking over possession whichever is earlier and interest as provided in the proviso to Section 28 of the Act as amended under Act 68 of 1984, i.e., 9 per cent for one year and 15 per cent thereafter from the date taking over possession till date deposit or payment whichever is earlier. But the respondent-claimants are entitled to 15 per cent solatium on the enhanced compensation and 5 per cent interest per annum on the enhanced compensation as amended by the local Act, from the date of taking over possession till the date of deposit or payment, whichever is earlier. 5. The appeals are. accordingly allowed, No costs.
-
1995 (8) TMI 340 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d/applicant was about 17 years old. Though the victim on the date of the incident was 14 years old and the act done by the accused/applicant was indecent and against the public morality, yet looking to the age of the accused/applicant and the fact that he is not previously a convict or habitual offender, in my view, taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances, the accused/applicant deserves to be extended the benefit of probation under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 12. Consequently, this criminal revision is partly allowed. The conviction of the accused/applicant for the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained. However, instead of directing the accused/applicant to suffer imprisonment immediately, it is ordered that he be released on probation on his furnishing a P.R. bond in the sum of ₹ 5,000/- for maintaining good behaviour and conduct for a period of two years. Order accordingly. 13. Revision partly allowed.
-
1995 (8) TMI 339 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... fact that the defendants are residing within the jurisdiction of this court. When the suit itself is not maintainable, the question of granting injunction does not arises. Therefore, the preliminary point raised in the injunction application is decided to hold that the suit is not maintainable in this Court and therefore, injunction also cannot be granted and the injunction already granted has to be vacated and the plaint is to be returned to the plaintiffs presentation before proper Court. 7. In the result, A. No. 1234/1995, A. No. 1071/1995 and A. No. 1072/1995 are ordered as follows On the preliminary point as to whether the suit is maintainable in this Court, it is held that the suit is not maintainable. Without going into the rival contentions of the applicants and the respondents in these three applications, interim injunction already granted is vacated and the plaint is ordered to be returned to the plaintiffs for presentation in proper Court. Time one month. No costs.
-
1995 (8) TMI 338 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he lessor to obtain transfer of all the licences. That would clearly indicate the intention, namely, that the appellant shall remain in possession only for the period of twenty years and thereafter his possession becomes unlawful. The High Court, therefore, was right in its conclusion that the possession of the appellant is unlawful. The learned Single Judge of the High Court K. Ramaswamy, J., as he then was in M. Kameswara Somayajulu vs. State of A.P. 1989 (1) APL 82 (SN) was not correct in his holding that at the time of renewal, the licensee need not establish his lawful possession due to omission in Rule 12(B) (1) which was followed by another Division Bench. The Full Bench has reconsidered the controversy. For different reasons given by us, we think that the conclusion reached by the Full Bench is correct. The appeals are dismissed. No costs. The respondents are entitled to withdraw the amount deposited by the appellant pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court.
-
1995 (8) TMI 337 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e to prove the acquired land and the land covered by sale transactions bear similar or same potentialities or advantageous features. The courts below have relied only on the circular issued by the Government for fiscal purpose, viz., for stamp duty. The contra view taken by the High Court in that behalf is clearly illegal and the same cannot form basis for further enhancement. De hors the above judgment, there is no other evidence to enhance further compensation. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on the judgment of the High Court in relation to the motification dated 5th July, 1973 in which the compensation was awarded @ ₹ 68,000/- per bigha for village Tughlakabad. That is also founded upon the circular issued by the Government on 26th March, 1966 referred to earlier and relates to a notification issued after about 10 years of the notifiction at hand. So this judgment also renders little assistance. Accordingly, the special leave petitions are dismissed.
-
1995 (8) TMI 336 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e Act. Since the finding of the authorities was that there was no adequate consideration and the sale was within the prohibited period, the findings recorded are under s.7(1) (a) of the Act; consequently, the need to make enquiry as is necessary under clause (b) of s.7 (1) (ii) read with sub-s. (4) of S.6, does not arise. The final submission is that since 1974 the appellant has been in possession of the lands and he has improved the land, he is prepared to pay the prevailing market value as on date and a direction in this behalf may be given. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents has stated that his client is interested to get back possession of the land, and not money. In view of the finding that the transaction is vitiated, because of which it was set aside exercising power under s.7(1) (a) of the Act, we do not think that we will be justified to interfere with that order and give a direction to pay the market value. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
-
1995 (8) TMI 334 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... The second ground of departmental exoneration by the disciplinary authority is also not relevant. What is necessary and material is whether the facts collected during investigation would constitute the offence for which the sanction has been sought for. It is not appropriate at this stage to go into the merits of the culpability of the respondent though sought to be contended for by Shri Thopas Roy, the learned counsel. In fairness to the accused, we deem it inappropriate to go into the merits to express any opinion. The appeal is accordingly allowed, the order of the High Court is set aside and the trial court is directed to proceed with the trial against the respondent as expeditiously as possible and conduct joint trial, if trial is not already concluded, along with other accused. If the case has been separated and the trial of other accused has been concluded, then the trial court is directed to expeditiously conclude the trial of the respondent, not exceeding one year.
-
1995 (8) TMI 333 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... an earlier order passed by this court in W.M.P. Nos. 12555 and 12556 of 1984, the petitioner was allowed to clear the goods on payment of the customs duty, and the petitioner has paid the customs duty and cleared the goods. The only point that is open to the respondents is with regard to the levy of penalty under Section 124 of the Customs Act. In the instant case, the import has been in accordance with O.G.L. Order No. 1/83 and as the Public Notice dated 17-10-1983 has no legal effect of amending the O.G.L. Order No. 1/83, the import of Isoborneol is in accordance with law and levy of penalty does not arise upon the facts and circumstances of the case. 35. For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the impugned notice is without jurisdiction as the petitioner has imported Isoborneol strictly in accordance with the Open General Licence Order No. 1 of 1983, dated 15-4-1983. In view of the above the writ petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1995 (8) TMI 332 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f his having remained in exclusive possession of the house, but nowhere has he pleaded a single overt act on the basis of which it could be inferred or ascertained that from a particular point of time his possession became hostile and notorious to the complete exclusion of other heirs, and his being in possession openly and hostilely. It is true that some evidence, basically of Municipal register entries, were inducted to prove the point but no amount of proof can substitute pleadings which are the foundation of the claim of a litigating party. The High Court caught the appellant right at that point and drawing inference from the evidence produced on record, concluded that correct principles relating to the plea of adverse possession were not applied by the courts below. The finding, as it appears to us, was rightly reversed by the High Court requiring no interference at our end. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed. No costs.
-
1995 (8) TMI 331 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... allotted against ₹ 11,70,000 to the respondents for their original contribution to the promoters' equity. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 having been identified as the co-promoters of the project besides SM shall ensure the transfer of 68,000 shares either from out of their own holdings or out of the allotment made to others who are only part of their group over and above the original contribution of ₹ 11,70,000 as contemplated in the project report for a consideration of ₹ 6,80,000 lying with the company. The company is hereby ordered to rectify the register of members after, respondents Nos. 2 and 3 arrange for the above said transfer within 10 days' of the receipt of the copy of this order and, accordingly, the company shall delete the names of the transferors to that extent. The consideration shall be released to the transferors by the company. With this both the petitions, namely, C. P. Nos. 2 and 9 of 1994 are disposed of. No order as to costs.
-
1995 (8) TMI 330 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... espondent to make an application to the Registrar afresh either to decide the dispute himself or to appoint another arbitrator. It is needless to mention that since the dispute is pending for long, the Registrar or the arbitrator to be appointed would decide the dispute as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months. The first respondent would file the application within one month from the date of the receipt of this order and the Registrar is directed to withdraw the dispute. In case he intends to decide the matter himself, it would be open to him to do so and he would do so within six months If he considers appointment of an arbitrator afresh, then he should appoint arbitrator within one month from the date of the receipt of the application. The arbitrator, so appointed, shall decide the matter within six months of the receipt of the order of appointment from the Registrar. 19. The appeal is accordingly allowed but in the circumstances without costs.
-
1995 (8) TMI 329 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ere is no extenuating circumstance at all, as after promoting Venkatesh, nothing at all could have reasonably stood in the way of the petitioner to get appointed to the supernumerary post of Additional Chief Engineer created by the Corporation. It is only the defiant attitude of the Government which derived him that post. Accordingly, while finding the respondent guilty of committing contempt, we sentence him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. In addition, the Government is directed to give effect to the resolution passed by the Corporation with all the consequential benefits as ordered earlier. The contempt petition is ordered accordingly. The registry of this Court is directed to communicate this order to the Director General of Police, Government of Karnataka, on receipt whereof he would implement the order and submit its compliance to the Registry within one week from the date of its receipt and also within one week after sentence was served by the respondent.
-
1995 (8) TMI 328 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... set aside. It is held that Ex.75 is for sale of entire suit house for ₹ 16,000/-. The appellant-heirs of original plaintiff would, therefore, be entitled to the decree of specific performance for the entire suit house including the first floor portion. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court and as confirmed by the High Court are modified by directing the defendants to execute registered Sale Deed in terms of the agreement, Ext. 75, dated 16th July 1974 in favour of the heirs of original plaintiff for the entire suit house including the first floor thereof. The rest of the directions contained in the judgment and decree of the Trial Court would stand confirmed. Before parting with this case, we must place on record our appreciation for the trouble taken by learned senior counsel as well as learned Advocate on Record for assisting the appellants in this case at our request. In the result the appeal is allowed with costs throughout.
-
1995 (8) TMI 327 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ew that the petitioner has not made out any ground for stay of the winding-up under Section 466 of the Com-panics Act as enunciated in the judgments, cited hereinabove. I am also satisfied that the petitioner has not made out any ground foti setting aside the sale or stay of the sale in favour of Shiva Shakti Iron & Steel Industries. 27. In the premises, the instant application of Nilkanta Kolay is dismissed. All restrained orders against the respondents or any of them are vacated. In terms of the aforesaid order of the Appeal Court, the sale in favour of Shiva Shakti Iron & Steel stands confirmed. The said Shiva Shakti Iron & Steel will be entitled to give effect to the sale in its favour and to act in accordance with the sale held in its favour. 28. Stay is asked for on behalf of the petitioner and is declined. 29. All parties concerned are to act on a signed copy of the operative part of this judgment and order on the usual undertaking. 28. Petition dismissed.
-
1995 (8) TMI 326 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... . That decision has no application in the present case. That was a case of termination of service and, therefore, a case of one time action, unlike the claim for payment of correct salary according to the rules throughout the service giving rise to a fresh cause of action each time the salary was incorrectly computed and paid. No further consideration of that decision is required to indicate its inapplicability in the present case. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal has to be allowed. We make it clear that the merits of the appellant’s claim have to be examined and the only point concluded by this decision is the one decided above. The question of limitation with regard to the consequential and other reliefs including the arrears, if any, has to be considered and decided in accordance with law in due course by the Tribunal. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal for consideration of the application and its decision afresh on merits in accordance with law. No costs.
-
1995 (8) TMI 325 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ppellant and the other accused Ajit were entrusted with the dominion of the property of the firm in their capacity as partners of the complainant firm. On the other hand, the complainant firm entered into a contract with the first accused firm-M/s. Sapna Enterprises, entrusted the second film for exhibition and for accounting the sale proceeds in terms of the contract and to return the film. They had neither accounted for, not returned the film. The first accused, the appellant and Ajit, therefore, were alleged to have committed the offences in question. Under these circumstances, we do not think that the imputations alleged against the appellant have been done in his capacity as a partner of the firm. Whether the offence has been made out, whether he is liable and what are the defences open to him are not matters at this stage for consideration. It is for the learned Magistrate to proceed with the trial and to deal with according to law. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
1995 (8) TMI 324 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the master cannot escape the liability so far third parties are concerned on the ground that he had not actually authorised the particular manner in which the act was done. In the present case, it has been established beyond doubt that the driver of the vehicles had been fully authorised to drive the jeep for a purpose connected with the affair of the state and the dispute is only in respect of the manner and the mode in which the said driver performed his duties by allowing another employee of the State Government, who was also going on an official duty, to drive the jeep, when the accident took place. Once it is established that negligent act of the driver and respondent was in the course of employment' the appellant State shall be liable for the same. We are of the view that the appellant Stale cannot escape its vicarious liability to pay compensation to the heirs of the victim. The appeal is accordingly dismissed there shall be no orders as to cost. Appeal dismissed.
........
|
