|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 555 Records
-
2001 (9) TMI 1167 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of a contention raised by the accused that non-questioning him on a vital circumstance by the trial court has caused prejudice to him. The explanation offered by the counsel of the accused at the appellate stage was held to be a sufficient substitute for the answers given by the accused himself. If such objection was not raised at the appellate stage the revisional court should not normally bother about it. At any rate, the omission to put the question concerning evidence which is purely of a formal nature, is too insufficient for holding that the proceedings were vitiated. The evidence sought to be advanced through the affidavits in this case is, no doubt, only of a formal nature. For aforesaid reasons we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court. We remit the revision filed by the respondent before the High Court to be disposed of afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity to both sides for hearing. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1166 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... mbatore & Ors. v. Jawahar Mills Ltd. & Ors. 2001 (132) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) 2001 (6) JT 65 , this Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1165 - COMPANY LAW BOARD PRINCIAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... of the company that a business rival should not be allowed to buy shares of a company or obtain registration. We also do not agree with the contention that the conduct of the petitioner is such so as to disentitle it to apply for registration for transfer of shares, or to entitle the respondent to refuse registration of the transfer of shares in favour of the petitioner. As to what would constitute 'sufficient reason' within the meaning of Section 111A in this day and age of free transferability of shares, we need not repeat the views expressed in a number of matters including those in the decisions cited by the petitioner. 11. In the result, we allow the company petition No. 106 (111A)/ERB/2001, and direct the respondent to register the 5,100 shares forming Annexure 'A' to the petition in favour of the petitioner within 60 (sixty) days from the date of receipt of this order. 12. The petition is disposed of accordingly. 13. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1164 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ia, , Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company v. M/s. Bharat Cooking Coal Limited, 25. As by reason of the said provision a right of cross-examination and right to make submission are denied to a friend which is a valuable right, in our opinion, such provision must be held to be unreasonable. Even if Rules 153(8) and 153(10) of the rules are read conjointly, as suggested by Mr. Murthy, still then the right of the friend cross-examining and making submissions does not exist. That part of Rule 153(8) of the rules whereby and whereunder a friend shall not be allowed to address the Inquiry Officer nor to cross-examine the witnesses is declared unconstitutional. 26. For the reasons aforementioned the writ appeal is allowed and the respondents are hereby directed to allow the friend of the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the department and make submissions on his behalf. 27. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1163 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ..in the present case there is no question of referring to the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. That provision would come into operation in the course of any inquiry into or trial of an offence. In the present case, neither the Magistrate as holding inquiry as contemplated under Section 2(g) Cr.P.C. nor the trial had started. He was exercising his jurisdiction under Section 190 of taking cognizance of an offence and issuing process. There is no bar under Section 190 Cr.P.C. that once the process is issued against some accused on the next date, the Magistrate cannot issue process to some other person against whom there is some material on record, but his name is not included as accused in the charge-sheet." The present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgments which renders the order impugned not sustainable under law. Under the circumstances, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order impugned and by upholding the order of the Additional Sessions Judge.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1162 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... are the tenants in the demised premises." 10. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Court below had totally erred in dismissing the application. The revision petitioners had denied the title in the rent control proceedings and also had questioned the validity of the sale deed in a suit and that itself will not be a ground for staying the proceedings especially in the light of the fact that a similar application was made when the original proceedings were pending. Hence the Court below had rightly rejected the application. In view of the said fact, it cannot be said that the present application filed by the petitioners under Section 10 C.P.C. is maintainable in the circumstances of the case. In view of the above circumstances, I am of the considered view that there are no merits in the revision petition. 11. Accordingly the revision petition is dismissed. In view of the relationship between the parties, each party do bear their own costs.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1161 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ghts and the earlier litigation ended by virtue of a compromise strict principles of Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code will not come into play. So far as the principle of estoppel is concerned it also will not apply in the peculiar facts of the present case. There were no rights that were admitted. It was by and large a compromise. It does not restrain or restrict the other party from agitating the facts for adjuration. Once there is no admission which could be read against the defendants to bind them and to restrict them from using this plea all over again. Consequently it must be held that the plaintiffs have no right to claim the compensation and the injunction prayed. These issues are decided against the plaintiff. 26. Issue nos. 1 and 7 In view of the findings given above, it is not necessary to go into the issues nor the same are pressed. 27. Relief For these reasons the suit being without merit must fail and is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1160 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... f the omission on the part of the creditor. 16. One of the contentions advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the executing Court cannot go beyond the decree. Therefore, the execution petition ought to have been allowed against the surety. I am unable to accept the said contention of the learned Counsel. When once the suit is abated against the principal-debtor, it is equally abated/ dismissed against the surety also. Therefore, the decree even if it is passed against the surety when the principal-debtor has been discharged as a result of the abatement of the suit, such a decree is illegal and unenforceable against the surety also. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is not entitled to proceed against the surety. Even though the trial Court has passed a decree against the surety, such a decree is not executable at all. 17. Under the above circumstances, the revision petition is without merit and the same is accordingly dismissed, but without costs.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1159 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... pplications made by the petitioners. Within a week thereafter, the company will split the same into such number of share certificates as is necessary as per the entitlement of the petitioners and deliver the same to them after entering their names in the register of members. The procedure relating to the transfer of shares is dispensed with. On entering the names of the petitioners in the register of members in respect of such shares, the company will forward the cheques given by the petitioners to the 8th respondent. The whole exercise should be completed within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Till the shares are registered in the names of the petitioners as directed above, the 8th respondent shall not exercise any voting rights on the shares impugned in the petition. We are not dealing with the entitlement of the trust for the right shares, since the trust is not a party before us. 82. The petition is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to cost.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1158 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... though mandatory, but not the later part. It is not necessary to multiply authorities on the point, but suffice it to say, that the sum of ₹ 2,000/- must be deposited while filing an Election Petition and that is undoubtedly mandatory, but through whom the amount will be deposited etc. cannot be held to be mandatory. That being the position, and in the case in hand the evidence of the Election Petitioner as well as the evidence of Respondent No. 5 unequivocally pointing out that it is the Election Petitioner who deposited the amount of ₹ 2,000/-, we see no infirmity with the conclusion of the High Court that there has been compliance of Section 117 of the Act and consequently the Election Petition has been rightly held to be maintainable and could not have been dismissed under Section 86 on the ground of non-compliance of Section 117 of the Act. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1157 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ucture of the Petitioner Transferee Company shall not undergo any change in light of Clause 5 of the Scheme that envisages that the entire share capital of the Transferor company shall stand extinguished on the scheme being effective and no new shares shall be issued by the ultimate parent Transferee Company towards the consideration for the transfer of the undertaking of the Transferor Company. Hence, the present petition is moved for obtaining the sanction of this Court. 3. Admit. 4. To be heard on Thursday, the 22nd day of September 2011. 5. To be advertised in the 'Times of India', English daily, Ahmedabad, Surat, Mumbai and Pune editions and 'Gujarat Samachar', Gujarati daily, Ahmedabad, Vadodara and Surat editions and 'Loksatta', Marathi daily, Mumbai, Pune and Nagpur editions. Publication in Government Gazette is dispensed with. 6. Notice to the Central Government through the Regional Director,NorthWestern Region, Ministry of Corporate Affairs.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1156 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in the State free from all encumbrances. Before we part with the case, we cannot overlook the interest of the plaintiff-respondents herein. It is not disputed that the land in dispute is a pasture land and is being used for grazing. Section 8 of the Act provides the purpose for which land vested in the State Government can be utilised. One of the purposes for which such land can be utilised is for grazing the cattles and the State Government is required to allot the same as pasture land. If the purpose of vesting is to provide land to village community for grazing, there is no reason why the land be not be used as a pasture land for grazing. However, we leave this question open to be decided by the State government. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the courts below fell in error in holding that the easementary right has not vested in the State. We, therefore, set aside the judgment under challenge. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1155 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cial determination of the question of acceptability or otherwise of the plea raised by the accused persons for setting aside the cognizance order and for quashing the criminal proceedings merely on the ground that on the previous occasion the single Judge had made an observation that cognizance should have been taken under Section 420 IPC, ignoring the further direction given in that order to the Magistrate to hold enquiry into the complaint. For the reasons discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, the order under challenge being unsustainable has to be set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration. Since we are remitting the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration we do not deem it proper to make any observation on the merits of the case. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order passed on 10.7.2000 in Criminal Revision No. 1230/98 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1154 - COMPANY LAW BOARD, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... tted, the respondents should purchase the shares of the petitioner and Shri Ramanlal Patel at the value so determined within a month of the submission of the report by remitting the consideration by demand draft in exchange of the share certificates with blank transfer instruments. In regard to the others in the petitioner’s group, the respondents should make an offer, in writing, to purchase their shares at the value so determined within 15 days of receipt of the valuation report, and these shareholders should react to the said offer within 15 days thereafter. The respondents should purchase the shares of those who have accepted the offer within 15 days of receipt of the reply to the offer by remitting the consideration by demand drafts in exchange of the share certificates along with blank instruments of transfer. With the above directions, this petition is disposed of without any order as to costs and with liberty to apply in case of any need to work out this order.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1153 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... er dated 16th January, 1995 and remand the matter back to the Competent Authority to determine whether the petitioner belongs to any of the categories enumerated in Section 2 and therefore a person who is liable to be evicted under the provisions of the SAFEMA. In case the Authority finds that the petitioner belongs to one of the categories enumerated in Section 2 of the Act, the Authority shall be free to take possession from the petitioner in accordance with Section 19 of the SAFEMA. If, however, the petitioner is found to be a tenant of Shri Chavan, in view of the fact that the property has been vested in the Central Government free from all encumbrances, the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed against him under the appropriate Public Premises Eviction Act. Rule made absolute in the above terms In the circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs. P. A. to give ordinary copy of this order to the parties concerned. Certified copy expedited.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1152 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ppression. At the same time the show cause notice does not take into account that the very same description was given in its RT-12 return also in the form of extract of RG-23A register. Thus at all times the data was available with the Department in another document. Since they were so recorded there is no doubt about the physical receipt of the inputs which had suffered duty and the utilisation thereof. Once in the face of a lacuna in the declaration also the Revenue does not raise any objection to complete assessment for a number of years, the Revenue cannot choose to allege suppression thereafter. As the record shows even if in the declaration insufficient details were given, every month more than sufficient details were given to the Revenue. The sole ground on which the show cause notice was issued alleging suppression therefore does not survive. The demand confirmed is hit by limitation. 4. The appeal therefore succeeds and is allowed. Consequential relief, if any.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1151 - CESTAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... nual financial account and those entered in RG-1 for each and every item. As such we hold that confirmation of demand of duty against the appellants is not justified. We also find favour with the appellants' submissions 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 any 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." 4. Inasmuch as the above Order covers the disputed issue, by following the ratio of the same, we set aside the impugned Order and allow the appeal with consequential reliefs to the appellants. Dictated in the open court.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1150 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... h Court shall stand discharged forthwith and he shall cease to function as such from the day the authorities of the NHAI directly assume supervision and control of the Highway and the collection of toll in question, under intimation to the Receiver. o p /o p 3. The authorities of the NHAI, who has jurisdiction and control over the stretch of the Highways pursuant to the notification, are hereby authorized and permitted to assume the right to collect and regulate/control the collection of toll by serving a letter to that extent on the Advocate-Receiver and on such service, the Advocate- Receiver shall stand discharged for all purposes, except for rendering accounts to the collections already made to the authorities of the NHAI. If there is any dispute in this regard, it shall be worked out by obtaining appropriate directions from the Calcutta High Court, which appointed the Receiver. o p /o p Consequently, the appeals shall stand allowed on the above terms. No costs. o p /o p
-
2001 (9) TMI 1149 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s listed at Exhibit A for a period of four months or until order is passed by the Supreme Court, whichever is earlier., was suspended by this Court on condition of the appellants paying last drawn salary to them pending further orders. In the view we have taken, we consider it just and proper to direct the appellants to continue to pay the last drawn salary to the concerned employees till the writ petition is decided by the High Court. For the aforementioned reasons, we set aside the order of the High Court, under challenge, restore Writ Petition No.2020 of 2001 to the file of the High Court to decide the same on merit as expeditiously as possible preferably within two months, in the light of the order of the High Court in Writ Petition No.2206 of 1997, judgments of this court in Indian Petrochemicals Corp. (supra) and in C.A.No.892 of 2001 Indian Petrochemicals Corp. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Shramik Sena and Anr. (2001 (2) SCC 529) The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No. costs.
-
2001 (9) TMI 1148 - SUPREME COURT
... ...
... ... ..... on or appointment to the grade concerned irrespective of the date of transfer. We also consider it to be a mere submission in vain, the one urged on the basis of alleged adverse consequences detrimental to their seniority resulting from such transfer. In the facts of the present cases, at any rate, no such result is bound to occur since the project undertaken to which the respondents have been transferred is itself a new one and, therefore, we see no rhyme or reason in the alleged grievance. Consequently, we are of the view that with the rejection of the plea of malafides by the High Court, no further interference could have been thought of by the High Court in these cases. We are also informed that the respondents have since joined at the Project site and are serving there. The appeals are allowed accordingly. The impugned judgment of the High Court is hereby set aside and the Writ Petitions filed by the respondents shall stand dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
........
|
