-
2006 (1) TMI 673
... ... ... ... ..... ntext, when a party approaches a court seeking a protective remedy such as an injunction and it fails in setting up a good case, can it then say that the other party must now institute an action in a court of law for enforcing his rights i.e., for taking back something from the first party who holds it unlawfully, and, till such time, the court hearing the injunction action must grant an injunction anyway? I would think not. In any event, the recourse to law' stipulation stands satisfied when a judicial determination i....... + More
-
2006 (1) TMI 672
... ... ... ... ..... arrears of salary for the period prior to July, 1996 as such right was clearly barred by limitation. 22. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed in part. It is observed that the employee is not entitled to any arrears of salary on the basis of pay protection. However, the employee is entitled to revised pensionary benefit with effect from 19.10.2001 by notionally giving benefit of pay protection and by fixing his initial pay at Rs. 128/- in December, 1964 and thereafter notionally calculating the pay payable to him. The a....... + More
-
2006 (1) TMI 671
... ... ... ... ..... hat Moallium-e-Urdu degree for teaching Urdu in Junior / Senior basic schools is equivalent to B.T.C.. It is settled law that the qualification should have been seen which the candidate possessed on the date of recruitment and not at a later stage unless rules to that regard permit it. The minimum qualification prescribed under Rule 8 should be fulfilled on the date of recruitment. Equivalence of degree of Moallium-e-Urdu, Jamia Urdu Aligarh with that of B.T.C. in the year 1994 would not entail the benefit to the appellant....... + More
-
2006 (1) TMI 670
... ...
... ... ..... R.V. Raveendran, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2006 (1) TMI 669
... ... ... ... ..... nal Appeal No. 759 of 2002 are not strangers to the sole appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 660 of 2002. Even if one comes to the conclusion that the conspiracy, as required by law, is not established, this Court does not find any difficulty in concluding that in any view of the matter, the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 759 of 2002 had abetted the sole appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 660 of 2002 in commission of offence punishable under the Act. Therefore, the conviction of the two appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 759 ....... + More
-
2006 (1) TMI 668
... ... ... ... ..... for the petitioner has no objection, subject to the request that in the meantime the impugned Show Cause Notice may be kept in abeyance. 2 In light of the aforesaid position the respondent authorities are directed to keep the impugned Show Cause Notice in abeyance till the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sidharth Philaments Pvt.Ltd., pending before the Tribunal. After the order of the Tribunal is available, the respondent authorities shall grant reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner upon the pending S....... + More
-
2006 (1) TMI 667
... ... ... ... ..... punishment and time limitation for disposal of the matters. In my view, in this case whatever defenses are being raised in this court should be raised before the trial court and this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot examine the documentary and oral evidence which may have to be led before the trial court and which has to be tested by cross examination. It is established law that this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can intervene only in extraordinary circumstances w....... + More
-
2006 (1) TMI 666
... ... ... ... ..... contended that certain grounds urged before Tribunal were not taken before AO/CIT(A) by Revenue and hence, a question of law is made out entitling this Court to set aside the impugned order. We do not find any merit in this submission. Firstly, no such question of law is framed so as to examine the same from that point of view. Secondly, even assuming that this Court can go into this submission by virtue of powers so conferred upon the High Court by Section 260A then also it does not have any merit. Thirdly and in any even....... + More
-
2006 (1) TMI 665
... ... ... ... ..... ion 14 of the Limitation Act. I have already observed above that the matter in issue in both the suits is the same. It is the case of the plaintiffs also that the matter in issue in both suits is the same and therefore obviously the cause of action for instituting the present suit arose in 1994 and as the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim benefits of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the suit is barred by the law of Limitation. Issue No. 1 is, therefore, answered accordingly. As I have found that the suit as framed and ....... + More
-
2006 (1) TMI 664
... ... ... ... ..... . Accordingly, the following ORDER I. Without going into the merits or demerits of the appellant company's case, the appeal is disposed off. II. The appellant company is permitted to make an appropriate application, if it so desires, before the Advance Ruling Authority, as provided under Section 4 of the Act r/w Rule 27 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules. III. Liberty is also reserved to the appellant company to produce such material, which are available with it including the material produced before this Court, before t....... + More
-
2006 (1) TMI 663
... ... ... ... ..... y fatal to the relief of partition. In my view, absolutely no question of law, nevertheless a substantial question of law, is involved in the matter and the judgment of the first Appellate Court in coming to a conclusion as if it is not proved that the plaintiff has taken a Kasu Malai from the first defendant and therefore, non-inclusion of Kasu Malai in the schedule will not affect the relief claimed in the suit is not sustainable. What is important is whether such a property should be included for partition when once it ....... + More
-
2006 (1) TMI 662
... ... ... ... ..... not a claim for specific performance of the agreements and for that view of the matter learned Single Judge was justified in coming to the conclusion that the appellant had sought for an injunction seeking to specifically enforce the agreement. Such an injunction is statutorily prohibited with respect of a contract, which is determinable in nature. The application being under the provisions of Section 9(ii)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, relief was not granted in view of Section 14(i) (c) read with Section 41 ....... + More
-
2006 (1) TMI 661
... ... ... ... ..... nce. The Full Bench held that under Section 17-A all assessments prior to 1.4.1993 and not completed as on that date shall be deemed to be pending as on 1.4.1993 and it is open to the Revenue to complete such assessments in accordance with law notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court, tribunal or other authority. 12. In view of the above mentioned circumstances, we are inclined to allow the appeal filed by the Revenue and hold that the mandate of Rule 32(21) will not enable the asses....... + More
-
2006 (1) TMI 660
Unlawful assembly - Offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 307/149, 324/149 and 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code - Power of the Appellate Court - appeal against acquittal - HELD THAT:- The trial court was of the view that absence of an independent eye-witness in the background of previous enmity, was a serious lacuna. But what the trial court failed to notice is that previous enmity was not denied and the prosecution case is that Kallu and other accused came in a group to Sadruddin's house specifically to beat him up. Therefore, the ....... + More
-
2006 (1) TMI 659
... ... ... ... ..... ot with standing anything contained therein, the liability of the petitioner, under the Bond is restricted to ₹ 20 lakhs. Contention was raised before the earned single Judge that petitioner should pay the entire Charges including pay revision etc. to the Customs staff posted on cost recovery basis at the Container Freight Station. 2. The only question to be considered is whether the petitioner is liable to pay the Amounts due to the Customs staff because of the pay revision. In the bond executed there is no clause o....... + More
-
2006 (1) TMI 658
... ... ... ... ..... the default or failure of the purchaser/bidder. Clauses 10 and 28 of the terms and conditions practically covered all situations in which the contract can fall through on account of any mistake on the part of such bidders. There is nothing to the contrary in the terms of the contract to avoid application, of forfeiture clause and hence, on default committed by the bidders, the Official Liquidator is entitled to forfeit said earnest. 20. The Official Liquidator is, therefore, entitled to forfeit and retain Earnest Money Dep....... + More
-
2006 (1) TMI 657
... ... ... ... ..... , for the reasons stated in order of even date in Tax Appeal No.1922 of 2005 in case of Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) v. Shailesh R. Patel, the appeal and civil application are rejected.
-
2006 (1) TMI 656
... ... ... ... ..... not arise at all and in the absence of specific consideration of the contention which would substantially decide the dispute of the parties it is clear that the order passed by the Additional Commissioner is perverse for non-consideration of the material question arising for determination and wherefore the order is liable to be set aside and remitted to the competent adjudicating authority with a direction to consider the contentions of the petitioner and thereafter pass orders in accordance with law as per the discussion ....... + More
-
2006 (1) TMI 655
... ... ... ... ..... f the IPC. In these circumstances, it is clear that recovery of contraband recovered in the present case is not free from doubt. I have examined the finding of the learned Trial Court in this regard. The learned Trial Court has not considered the mandatory provisions of Sub-section 5 of Section 50 of the Act and further failed to consider the provisions of Section 51 of the Act as well as Sub-section 4 and 8 of Section 100 Cr.P.C. Therefore, in these circumstances, the Judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court canno....... + More
-
2006 (1) TMI 654
... ... ... ... ..... ince the application for rectification is already pending before the Tribunal. The appeal is dismissed only on this grounds.
