-
2000 (3) TMI 1124
... ... ... ... ..... sent case. It cannot be said that the plaintiff has not suffered any prejudice or loss. It is not a case of a voluntary sale. The plaintiff had to execute the sale deed on account of an illegal and without jurisdiction order made under Section 27(1) of the Act in respect of property within the ceiling limit. If the plaintiff has retained the sum of Rs. 2,60,000/- all these years, at the same time, defendants have also retained the possession of the property. The plaintiff on his own did not want to sell the property to the....... + More
-
2000 (3) TMI 1123
... ... ... ... ..... ic instructions of the consignee and further that the loss was caused by fire which was beyond their control. It has been mentioned by them that they took due care, within their capacity and new they have lodged a claim on the owner of the adjoining godown from where the fire started. 49. The above will show that the National Commission acted upon the letter dated 14th March, 1994 of Messrs Jeena Co. without deciding the question whether it was genuine and was at all issued by Messrs Jeena Co. as the appellant had contende....... + More
-
2000 (3) TMI 1122
... ... ... ... ..... int under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act should have been given by the drawee himself and, therefore, the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is illegal and the same is liable to be quashed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not sustainable. The question whether any fact is within the special or personal knowledge of the drawee or holder in due course, as the case may be, and the power of attorney....... + More
-
2000 (3) TMI 1121
... ... ... ... ..... uired to go in appeal or revision because of an unsatisfactory order. There is another set of situations in which the accused have been convicted and awarded such light sentences which this High Court had occasion to define as flea-bite punishments which, instead of acting as a deterrent and bringing down the number of dishonoured cheques, only acts as an incentive or encouragement to the accused and send out the wrong signals by infusing a confidence that even if one is on the wrong side of the law, the Courts will let th....... + More
-
2000 (3) TMI 1120
... ... ... ... ..... ssions Judge, Nagarcoil. 3. S.C. 197/1995 - in the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam. 6. Regarding the 2nd appellant also, we adopt the same measure and order that the sentences imposed upon him by the Assist ant Sessions Judge, Pondicherry in S. C. 66 of 1991 will run unaffected by another sentence imposed upon him subsequently. Only on the termination of the aforesaid sentence the jail authorities would start reckoning the sentence imposed on him in respect of the remaining 4 cases, which are detailed be lo....... + More
-
2000 (3) TMI 1119
... ... ... ... ..... ess, we would add - after the appellant completes his evidence in accordance with the permission now granted as per the impugned orders, it is open to the appellant to convince the trial Court that some more persons need be examined in the interest of justice, if the appellant then thinks that such a course is necessary. The trial Court will then decide whether it is essential for a just decision of the case to examine more witness on the defence side. If the Court is so satisfied, the Special Judge can permit the appellan....... + More
-
2000 (3) TMI 1118
... ... ... ... ..... n from limitation even on equitable considerations or hardships. Section 5 of the Act though worded in very wide terms is not applicable to the suits, even if it is assumed that the plaintiff was really incapacitated for any reason, benefit of Section 5 of the Act cannot be availed. 23. For the foregoing reasons appeal is allowed, findings of the trial court on the preliminary issue are set aside. Consequently, the judgment and decree dated 18.1.99 passed by the trial court is also set aside. Suit is remanded back with the....... + More
-
2000 (3) TMI 1117
... ... ... ... ..... lso of no assistance. As noticed above, Clause 29 considered in Keshava Raju's case, supra, contains only sub-clauses (a) and (b) of Clause 29, and not sub-clauses (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) of Clause 29 found in this case. In the clause considered by Keshava Raju, there is no provision requiring the Contractor to approach the Civil Court for settlement of dispute if he is not satisfied with the decision of the Chief Engineer/Managing Director. In the absence of any such provision requiring the Contractor to approach t....... + More
-
2000 (3) TMI 1116
... ... ... ... ..... er subject to the applicant undertaking before the Commissioner to pay, in the event of the appeal being decided against it the duty applicable on the value of the rig that may be arrived at the redemption fine fixed and the balance of the penalty supported by a bank guarantee of ₹ 50 crores. The bond and the bank guarantee has to be furnished within a month of receipt of this order. The stay is subject to the further condition that the applicant gives notice in writing so as to reach the Commissioner of Customs, 15 ....... + More
-
2000 (3) TMI 1115
... ... ... ... ..... of the appellants in various decisions of the Tribunal as under Conveyor belts have been held to be eligible for modvat credit as capital goods in Nova Iron and Steel Ltd. v. CCE 1997 (96) ELT 165. Testing machines have been held to be eligible for modvat credit as capital goods in Geep Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. CCE Allahabad 1996 (88) ELT 753 (T) . Measure Tanks have been held to be capital goods in Metro Chem Industries v. CCE 1997 (96) ELT 114 (T) since they were necessary for measuring quantity of liquid raw materia....... + More
-
2000 (3) TMI 1114
... ... ... ... ..... earlier, the High Court did record a conclusion on examining the records of the proceedings that the witnesses are dead and, therefore, their former statements under Section 299 could be treated as evidence. We see, no infirmity with the said conclusion of the High Court and we are, therefore, not in a position to sustain the argument of Mr. Gopal Subramanium, learned senior counsel, appearing for the Appellant that pre-conditions of Section 299 Code of Criminal Procedure have not been complied with. Once the statements of....... + More
-
2000 (3) TMI 1113
... ... ... ... ..... tered by the trial Court and the Appellate Court regarding the evidence. If a revision is to be disposed of by upsetting the concurrent findings of two Courts below in the aforesaid fashion it would amount to abdication of the judicial function of the High Court. We are a little perturbed that it has happened like that in certain other cases disposed of by the learned single Judge. We make the said observation not with a pleasing mind but we hope that this observation would reach the learned Judge so as to help him to remi....... + More
-
2000 (3) TMI 1112
... ... ... ... ..... set out in the earlier part of this order that the learned single Judge on full investigation of the records found that notice to the company had not been given, which was admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant before the learned single Judge. Under the scheme of the Act it is clear that the company is also liable to make good the amounts which remain outstanding and, therefore, principles of natural justice also require that a notice should have been given to it. The view taken by the learned single Judge and a....... + More
-
2000 (3) TMI 1111
... ... ... ... ..... Respondents in respect of the property in question the High Court could not have granted relief in the manner it has been made. It is also pointed out that there are several other strong reasons for the Respondents to have acted in the manner they did. Question of examining the title of the parties does not arise at all as admittedly Respondents were in possession of the property in question and put up structures thereon. On that admitted position High Court took the view that ejectment of the Respondents forcibly without ....... + More
-
2000 (3) TMI 1110
... ...
... ... ..... wal, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2000 (3) TMI 1109
... ... ... ... ..... t; 3. He shall surrender his passport within one week to the trial court; and 4. He shall not in any manner either intimidate or influence the witnesses or tamper with evidence. 4. If he is willing to abide by the above conditions, he should file an affidavit to that effect before the trial court within two weeks from today. 5. If the Respondent-State finds for any valid reason that Appellant is missing his bail we permit the Respondent to move for cancellation of the bail as provided under Section 439(2) of the Criminal P....... + More
-
2000 (3) TMI 1108
... ...
... ... ..... J. ORDER Delay condoned. The appeals are dismissed.
-
2000 (3) TMI 1107
... ... ... ... ..... June, 2000. The recovery proceedings, therefore, against all the petitioners shall remain stayed till 29th June, 2000 to enable them to pay first instalment on or before, 29th March, 2000, second instalment on or before 29th April, 2000, third instalment on or before 29th May, 2000, and the last instalment on or before 29th June, 2000. These payments of instalments shall be over and above the regular payments demanded for current liability of cess on mineral rights. If the entire amount as indicated above is paid in four i....... + More
-
2000 (3) TMI 1106
... ... ... ... ..... t is of utmost importance, said Lord Campbell, that the maxim that no man is to be a Judge in his own cause should be held sacred. This principle was reiterated in R. v. Barnsley MBC. (1976) 3 All ER 452 and in Herring v. Templeman, (1973) 3 All ER 569. 11. In view of the abovementioned judicial pronouncements, I am of the view that even if, parties have agreed that in case of dispute, the matter shall not be referred to arbitration, that cannot confer any power on the one party to fix liability on the plea that the other ....... + More
-
2000 (3) TMI 1105
... ... ... ... ..... ed a partition suit which was pending. The requirement that the information was not disclosed by the appellants intentionally in order to make the respondent No. 2 part with property is not alleged expressly or even impliedly in the complaint. Therefore the core postulate of dishonest intention in order to deceive the complainant-respondent no.2 is not made out even accepting all the averments in the complaint on their face value. In such a situation continuing the criminal proceeding against the accused will be, in our co....... + More
