|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 456 Records
-
2001 (5) TMI 966 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the instant case and in the light of the decisions in Sewakram Sobhani vs. R.K.Karanjia, Chief Editor, Weekly Blitz and others 1981CriLJ894 1981CriLJ894 and Shatrughna Prasad Sinha vs. Rajbhau Surajmal Rathi 1997CriLJ212 1997CriLJ212 , we have no hesitation in holding that the High Court committed a manifest error in quashing the criminal proceedings exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 15. Since the question of limitation was not raised before the High Court by, the respondents and further whether the offence is continuing one or not and whether the date of the commission of offence could be taken as the one mentioned in the complaint are not the matters to be examined here at this stage. In these circumstances we have to reverse the impugned order to the High Court and restore that of the Magistrate. 16. In the result for the reasons stated the impugned order of the High Court is set aside and that of Magistrate is restored. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
-
2001 (5) TMI 965 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the agreement that the contractor's right to claim arbitration comes to an end after the expiry of 90 days from the date of intimation of the final bill being ready for payment deprives the contractor of a very valuable right to claim the amount which was due to him from the respondent. 5. Since the Arbitrator did not decide the claim on merits and the clause (b) of Section 28 of the Contract Act keeps the rights of the contractor to claim the amount which was due to him alive irrespective of clause the amount which was due to him alive irrespective of clause 25 in the agreement, the application is allowed. 6. As a result, the award dated 8th June, 1994 is hereby set aside with the direction to the Arbitrator to decide the claims of the petitioner on merits. However in case of non-availability of the Arbitrator, a new Arbitrator shall be appointed by the authorities and he shall render the award within the statutory period. 7. The suit as well as IA stand disposed of.
-
2001 (5) TMI 964 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... elieved to be false and/or atleast did not believe to be true, It is not disputed that an affidavit is evidence within the meaning of Section 191 of the Indian Penal Code and a person swearing to a false affidavit is guilty of perjury punishable under Section 193 IPC. The respondent herein, being legally bound by an oath to state the truth in his affidavit accompanying the petition is prima facie held to have made a false statement which constitutes an offence of giving false evidence as defined under Section 191 IPC, punishable under Section 193 IPC. With the object of eradicating the evil of perjury, we empower the Registrar General of this Court to depute an officer of the rank of Deputy Registrar or above of the Court to file a complaint under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent herein, before a Magistrate of competent jurisdiction at Delhi. Such officer is directed to file such complaint and take all steps necessary for prosecuting the complaint.
-
2001 (5) TMI 963 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ned now through an interim order, I do not find any other imminent action emanating from the impugned order endangering the interests of the Appellants warranting emergent intervention by the Tribunal through an interim order. In my view the Appellants have not made out a prima facie case in their favour. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am also of the view that the balance of convenience is also not in their favour. I agree with Shri Dada that an order to prosecute the Appellants by itself is not a penalty. By launching prosecution the Appellants are not likely to suffer any irreparable injury. 40. For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that in the present appeals, passing an interim order as prayed for by the Appellants would not be justified. Therefore, the Appellant's request for interim order is rejected. 41. The appeals, taking into consideration the convenience of the parties, are posted for final disposal on 6-8-2001 at 11.30 AM.
-
2001 (5) TMI 962 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in a decree passed by the the Court of that country. In a Suit filed on a foreign judgment. Court is not to go into the merits of the original claim or question the correctness or propriety of the foreign judgment. ( 3. ) There are certain exceptions stipulated in Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If case is covered in any of .these exceptions decree passed by a foreign Court will not be conclusive or binding. However, it was for the defendant to bring his case under any of these exceptions, if at all. As the defendant has remained ex-parte and there is no challenge to the decree on any of the grounds mentioned in Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the present Suit has to be decreed. A decree in the sum of ₹ 7,84,000/ with interest 15 per annum on the sum of ₹ 6,40,000/- from the date of institution of the Suit till payment of the decretal amount is hereby passed. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to cost. Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.
-
2001 (5) TMI 961 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... not pressing for the stay as it is public sector undertakings. Applications for stay are dismissed as not pressed.
-
2001 (5) TMI 960 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... applies to the High Court also. The impugned order reads thus "We have heard the learned counsel on merits. We find no merit in this petition. Dismissed." 4. It is not a reasoned order. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the High Court for disposal of the writ petition afresh in accordance with law. 5. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
2001 (5) TMI 959 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... assed the order of dismissal. It is not stand of the respondent that in absence of the enquiry report he could not submit an effective show cause before the order of dismissal was passed. Neither from the order passed by the Tribunal nor the High Court it would appear that the respondent had raised this point there that he could not file an effective show cause in the absence of enquiry report nor it has been stated that in the show cause reply it was complained that the delinquent had not been served with a copy of the enquiry report. From these facts, it is not possible to hold that the respondent has been prejudiced by non-furnishing of enquiry report. o p /o p For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that the High Court was not justified in upholding order of the Tribunal whereby order of dismissal of the respondent from service was quashed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside, but there shall be no order as to costs. o p /o p
-
2001 (5) TMI 958 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s held As held earlier, the right of appeal is a creature of the statute and the statute having expressly prohibited the filing of second appeal under sub- section (2) of Section 104, the right of appeal provided under clause 10 of the Letters Patent would not be available. Therefore, reliance on the judgment of this Court in New Kenilworth Hotel (P) Ltd. case (supra) will be of no avail to the respondents. From the above discussion, it follows that the appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge in M.A.No.494 of 1996 dated April 13, 1998 would lie before the Division Bench under clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Letters Patent Appeal No.599 of 1998 is, therefore, maintainable. The order of the High Court under challenge is set aside. The Letters Patent Appeal is restored to the file of the High Court. The High Court will now decide the said letters patent appeal on merits in accordance with law. The appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2001 (5) TMI 957 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he High Court, however, having analysed the facts, came to the conclusion that the assessee was not a commission agent in the real sense of the word for the purchase and sale of the coal for it was acting on its own account. It, therefore, held that the amount of freight in question was includible in the assessee's turnover. It is not for the High Court to determine questions of fact in this kind of proceeding. At the same time, it appears that the Tribunal had not itself considered the facts but only proceeded upon the basis of the findings of the Deputy Commissioner. It is, therefore, apposite that the judgment and order under challenge and the order of the Tribunal that came up before the High Court be set aside and the matter remanded to the Tribunal for reconsideration on the question whether, for the two years in question, the assessee was or was not a commission agent. The appeal is allowed accordingly and the matter remanded to the Tribunal. No order as to costs.
-
2001 (5) TMI 956 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of Sabusing Viraji and he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years with a fine of ₹ 2,000/- in default of payment whereof he shall undergo further imprisonment for a period of six months. The amount of fine, if realised, shall be paid as compensation to the heirs of Late Sabuji. The acquittal of Gajrabai Magansing accused no.5 under Section 325 is set aside and instead her conviction along with sentence as passed by the trial court is restored. The bail bonds of Kubersing Chamansing and Magansing Dadusing are hereby cancelled. They shall surrender and be taken into custody for serving out the sentences as passed hereinabove. Gajrabai the respondent-accused no.5 shall be called upon to execute the bond and furnish one surety as ordered by the trial court. The amount of ₹ 500/- shall be recovered from her as fine and paid by way of compensation to Viraji Devaji as ordered by the trial court. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly.
-
2001 (5) TMI 955 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he possibly could do in the circumstances. He has proved by convincing evidence, that he did not visit his village or house where the defendant was allotted one room. He has further proved that the defendant also never visited him at Mandi where he had been living for more than 2 year before the child was born to Kamti Devi. In other words he has proved that he had no access or opportunity for sexual intercourse with defendant No.1 for more than 280 days before Roahan Lal (defendant No.2) was begotten by the defendant No.1 The said conclusion was reached on the strength of the evidence adduced by both sides and the first appellate court was satisfied in a full measure that the plaintiff-husband had no opportunity whatsoever to have liaison with the defendant mother. The finding thus reached by the first appellate court cannot be interfered with in a second appeal as no substantial question of law would have flowed out of such a finding. In the result we dismiss this appeal.
-
2001 (5) TMI 954 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... t, therefore, the refund under Section 19 was not available. Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the said machine had not been utilised for the purpose for which it was intended and that, therefore, there was no use within the meaning of Section 19. 4. We are unable to accept the submission on behalf of the respondents. This is not a case where a machine had only been displayed. As the affidavit on behalf of the respondents makes clear, a demonstration of the said machine was sought and it was given. In other words, the machine was started up and its working was shown. It was, therefore, used and it is of no consequence that the use was not for the purpose for which it was made. Its use being established, the provisions of Section 19 do not permit the refund. That the demonstration was free of charge does not make any difference to this position. 5. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and the judgment and order under appeal is allowed. 6. No order as to cost.
-
2001 (5) TMI 953 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ates an obligation attached to the ownership of property and since the attaching creditor is entitled to attach only the right, title and interest of the judgement debtor, the attachment cannot be free from the obligations incurred under the contract for sale. It is for the learned Single Judge to consider these aspects having regard to the nature of the agreements alleged to have been executed by the respondents on 9,2.1974 and 162.1974, As the learned Single Judge has not considered the questions raised by the respondents regarding the two agreements and their effect on the attachment, the matter has to go back to High Court to be considered afresh subject to the observation made by us above. It is ordered accordingly. As this litigation has been protracted and delayed, the learned Single Judge before whom the matter comes up for decision is requested to dispose of the same at an early date. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Parties to tear their respective costs.
-
2001 (5) TMI 952 - CESTAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... ween the figure as relected in annual financial account and those entered in RG-1 for each and every item. As such we hold that the confirmation of demand of duty against the appellants is not justified. WE also find favour with the appellants, submission that the demand is barred by limitation inasmuch as the show-cause notice was issued on 5.12.90 whereas the annual financial accounts are put to circulation within a period of two months from the close of the financial year. In these circumstances it cannot be said that there was an suppression on the part of the appellants so as to invoke the longer period of limitation. In view of the foregoing the appellant succeeds on merits as also on the point of limitation. Appeal is thus allowed with consequential relief to the appellants." 2. As the issue involved in the present appeal is an identical issue we set aside the impugned order by following the earlier order and allow the appeal. (Dictated & pronounced in Court)
-
2001 (5) TMI 951 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the CIT(A) the issue was relating to grant of depreciation. Assessee relied on a decision of the apex Court in CIT vs. Arvind Mills Ltd. (1992) 101 CTR (SC) 91 (1992) 193 ITR 255(SC) TC 29R.727. CIT(A) did not accept the plea of the assessee-petitioner on the ground that Arvind Mills Ltd.'s case (supra) related to development rebate and not to the claim of depreciation. It appears to us that CIT(A) did not take note of certain observations made by the apex Court in Arvind Mills Ltd.'s case (supra), more particularly at pp 262 to 264, where it dealt with the question of depreciation allowance. In the circumstances, we direct the CIT(A) to reconsider the matter, keeping in view the principles laid down in Arvind Mills Ltd.'s case (supra) and its applicability to the facts of the present case. It shall be open to the petitioner to bring to the notice of the CIT(A), if any, other decisions are applicable to the facts of the case. Petition is disposed of accordingly.
-
2001 (5) TMI 950 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... eclaration on the basis of the data given to him, the extended period under Sec.11A could not be invoked. We find this submission to be valid and legal. We also find that in showing that the grey fabric was undervalued, a number of assumptions have been made which may not be the basis for calculation of differential duty. 6. In view of the above analysis, we find that the grounds for confirmation of the demand do not sustain. 7. As regards the levy of penalty, citation was made of the Delhi High Court judgement in the case of Pioneer Silk Mills. In terms of this judgement, when the offence case was detected, the provisions of the Additional Duties of Excise (Goods of Special Importance) Act 1957 was not sufficient to enable penalty to be imposed. Apart from the application of this judgement, in view of the finding that the charge of deliberate suppression etc. could not be sustained against the appellants, we allow this appeal with consequential benefits. (Dictated in Court)
-
2001 (5) TMI 949 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... es of this case, that equities have to be properly worked out between parties to ensure that no one is allowed to have their pound of flesh unjustly against the other. Since this Court has chosen to take up for consideration the merits of the claims of the respective parties in these appeals filed by the appellants, in order to do substantial justice between parties in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we consider it not only appropriate but just and necessary as well, on an overall consideration of the matter, to reject the counter-claim made by the State. The challenge to the orders of the High Court dated 11.8.96 fails and shall stand rejected. Consequently, we set aside the Award of the Arbitrator, as affirmed by the learned District Judge. The judgment of the High Court rendered on 29.9.1995 shall stand modified, accordingly. The appeals shall stand finally disposed of on the above terms. The parties will bear their respective costs.
-
2001 (5) TMI 948 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... impugned into the order of the Supreme Court. In the instant case, there is no question of the application of the doctrine of merger. As the second appellant Radhulal died during the pendency of the appeal, and in the absence of his legal heirs having taken any steps to prosecute the Second Appeal, the decree passed by the First Appellate Court must be deemed to have become final. By virtue of the order passed by the First Appellate Court, the plaintiff's suit for specific performance was decreed. Failure on the part of the legal heirs of Radhulal to get themselves impleaded in the Second Appeal and pursue the matter further shall not adversely affect the plaintiff-decree holder as it would be against the mandate of Rule 9 of Order 22, Code of Civil Procedure. The impugned order is, therefore, not sustainable in law and the same is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The Executing Court may proceed with the execution proceedings. Parties to bear their respective costs.
-
2001 (5) TMI 947 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... estion was not plied on that road on the date of the accident and the said bus was not involved. Thus on a proper appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal was quite justified in recording a finding that the said bus was involved in the accident. But we find that the approach of the High Court was wrong in appreciating the evidence in as much as it was technical and thrust was on niceties. When there were both oral and documentary evidence supporting the case of the appellant, which was accepted by the Tribunal, in our view, the High Court Clearly committed an error in reversing the judgment and award of the Tribunal particularly when the respondent withheld the documentary evidence in its possession. The High court agreed with the Tribunal as far as quantum of compensation is concerned. Hence, we find it difficult to sustain the impugned judgment Consequently, we set aside the same and restore the judgment and award of the Tribunal. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.
........
|
